Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include 'quality of life' and related concepts

Ideas within the animal welfare science arena have evolved continuously throughout the last 30 years, and will continue to do so. This paper outlines some of these developments. These included reformulation of the five freedoms concept into the five domains of potential welfare compromise. This accommodated weaknesses in the former by distinguishing between the physical/functional and the mental factors that contribute to an animal's welfare state. This development reflected a rising scientific acceptance that the mental experiences of animals were legitimate foci for study and highlighted that what the animal itself experiences represents its welfare status. Initially, most concepts of animal welfare emphasised predominantly negative subjective experiences, such as thirst, hunger and pain, and negative affective states or feelings including anxiety, fear and boredom, but today positive experiences or emotions such as satiety, vitality, reward, contentment, curiosity and playfulness are also considered to be important. During the same period, the focus shifted from evaluating the impacts of individual mental subjective experiences or emotions towards seeking a more comprehensive, multifactorial understanding. The five domains concept was specifically designed to achieve this. Subsequent notions about quality of life (QoL) had the same objective, and emphasised the importance of positive experiences. However, some approaches to QoL assessment relied heavily on empathetic speculation about what animals may experience subjectively and this raised concerns about inappropriate anthropomorphic projections. Such pitfalls may be minimised when informed personnel rigorously apply objectively based methodologies to QoL assessments limited to a short time frame. It is clear that both formal and somewhat less formal QoL assessments of this type are already used to guide decision-making about the ongoing care and therapeutic management of animals on a daily basis. However, application of the recently introduced concepts of 'a life not worth living', 'a life worth avoiding', 'a life worth living' and 'a good life' is problematical, because extending the assessment time scale to the whole of life is attended by a number of as yet unresolved difficulties. Accordingly, their value in the practical management of animals is limited so that, at present, reliance on the minimum standards and recommendations for best practice outlined in codes of practice or welfare will continue to be necessary and worthwhile. Nevertheless, these concepts have value in providing a contextual theme that strongly focuses attention on the promotion of a lifelong QoL with an overall balance that is positive.     

Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include ‘quality of life’ and related concepts

Abstract

Ideas within the animal welfare science arena have evolved continuously throughout the last 30 years, and will continue to do so. This paper outlines some of these developments. These included reformulation of the five freedoms concept into the five domains of potential welfare compromise. This accommodated weaknesses in the former by distinguishing between the physical/functional and the mental factors that contribute to an animal's welfare state. This development reflected a rising scientific acceptance that the mental experiences of animals were legitimate foci for study and highlighted that what the animal itself experiences represents its welfare status. Initially, most concepts of animal welfare emphasised predominantly negative subjective experiences, such as thirst, hunger and pain, and negative affective states or feelings including anxiety, fear and boredom, but today positive experiences or emotions such as satiety, vitality, reward, contentment, curiosity and playfulness are also considered to be important. During the same period, the focus shifted from evaluating the impacts of individual mental subjective experiences or emotions towards seeking a more comprehensive, multifactorial understanding. The five domains concept was specifically designed to achieve this. Subsequent notions about quality of life (QoL) had the same objective, and emphasised the importance of positive experiences. However, some approaches to QoL assessment relied heavily on empathetic speculation about what animals may experience subjectively and this raised concerns about inappropriate anthropomorphic projections. Such pitfalls may be minimised when informed personnel rigorously apply objectively based methodologies to QoL assessments limited to a short time frame. It is clear that both formal and somewhat less formal QoL assessments of this type are already used to guide decision-making about the ongoing care and therapeutic management of animals on a daily basis. However, application of the recently introduced concepts of ‘a life not worth living’, ‘a life worth avoiding’, ‘a life worth living’ and ‘a good life’ is problematical, because extending the assessment time scale to the whole of life is attended by a number of as yet unresolved difficulties. Accordingly, their value in the practical management of animals is limited so that, at present, reliance on the minimum standards and recommendations for best practice outlined in codes of practice or welfare will continue to be necessary and worthwhile. Nevertheless, these concepts have value in providing a contextual theme that strongly focuses attention on the promotion of a lifelong QoL with an overall balance that is positive.     

Assessment of positive welfare: a review

As a complement to the concentration on negative states in welfare science, scientists are increasingly considering the desirability of measuring positive outcomes. Since evaluation of an animal's mental state is a critical goal for welfare assessment, considerations of both positive feelings (what an animal "likes") and resources that an animal is motivated to obtain (what an animal "wants") appear to be important. However, since animals may make choices that are not in their long-term interests, an assessment of positive feelings and resources should include an evaluation of any associated actual or potential harms, such as fear, distress, pain, injury and disease. A review of current evidence suggests that positive welfare can be best assessed by evaluation of resources (i.e. inputs) that are valued by an animal and by positive outcomes such as behavioural responses, influences on cognitive processes and physiological markers. Since negative welfare is often inversely correlated with positive welfare measures, current welfare policy will have been achieving some positive welfare outcomes, however the explicit inclusion of positive welfare outcomes in the framework allows for analyses that are both deeper and more in tune with commonsense, which can hopefully yield more objective policies.     

Animal welfare: at the interface between science and society

The general concept of animal welfare embraces a continuum between negative/bad welfare and positive/good welfare. Early approaches to defining animal welfare were mainly based on the exclusion of negative states, neglecting the fact that during evolution animals optimised their ability to interact with and adapt to their environment(s). An animal's welfare status might best be represented by the adaptive value of the individual's interaction with a given environmental setting but this dynamic welfare concept has significant implications for practical welfare assessments. Animal welfare issues cannot simply be addressed by means of objective biological measurements of an animal's welfare status under certain circumstances. In practice, interpretation of welfare status and its translation into the active management of perceived welfare issues are both strongly influenced by context and, especially, by cultural and societal values. In assessing whether or not a given welfare status is morally acceptable, animal welfare scientists must be aware that scientifically based, operational definitions of animal welfare will necessarily be influenced strongly by a given society's moral understanding.     

Feline fear and anxiety

Anxieties and fears play a large role in some of the more common feline behavior problems. The interaction between emotions and stress is complex but pertinent to the field of veterinary medicine, given the physical and emotional consequences of stress in animals. By thinking of behavior "problems" from the perspective of the animal's emotional state, treatment plans can be implemented to reduce the states of anxiety and fears and safeguard against the physical consequences of a prolonged stress response.     

Using the Five Domains Model to develop welfare assessment guidelines for Thoroughbred horses in New Zealand

ABSTRACT

This review outlines the processes followed by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) when developing its Thoroughbred Welfare Assessment Guidelines. It accepted that guidance on welfare management must be based on up-to-date knowledge of how animal welfare is understood scientifically. NZTR established an expert panel to facilitate this process. First, major changes in animal welfare science thinking over the last 40 years were considered. For example, the separate biological function and affective state orientations were later accepted as dynamically interacting elements within the body operating as an integrated whole entity; conceptual problems with the Five Freedoms framework led to the formulation of the Five Provisions and Welfare Aims paradigm and development of the Five Domains Model for assessing nutritional, environmental, health, behavioural and mental facets of animal welfare; and the initial major focus on negative experiences evolved to include both negative and positive experiences. The Five Domains Model was very effective for illustrating up-to-date understanding of animal welfare and its use demonstrated how comprehensive animal welfare assessments may be conducted. The NZTR panel followed a sequential approach that included an update on animal welfare thinking and the Five Provisions and Welfare Aims paradigm; the generic Five Domains Model was refocused specifically on equids; a detailed model assessment of equine welfare practices was conducted; enhanced equine welfare practices were emphasised by comparing them to inadequate welfare practices; guidelines were framed in terms which provide domain-specific advice on provisions that achieve positive welfare; other domain-specific guidelines were focused on welfare-compromising consequences of inadequate provisions; and welfare-appropriate conditions were clarified for all stages of a Thoroughbred’s life cycle (in work and rest) to facilitate exercising a life-long duty of care. Finally, the guidelines were expressed in general terms to avoid them becoming overly detailed and unwieldy. They therefore do not address specific welfare issues such as use of whips, bits, spurs and tight nosebands, however the Five Domains Model may also be used for these specific purposes. The guidelines, and the way they were formulated, provide an example of one approach which other organisations may find immediately useful, or which may stimulate them to devise their own approaches when progressing such equine welfare initiatives.     

Animal welfare: concepts and measurement.

The term "welfare" refers to the state of an individual in relation to its environment, and this can be measured. Both failure to cope with the environment and difficulty in coping are indicators of poor welfare. Suffering and poor welfare often occur together, but welfare can be poor without suffering and welfare should not be defined solely in terms of subjective experiences. The situations that result in poor welfare are reviewed in this study with special reference to those in which an individual lacks control over interactions with its environment. The indicators of poor welfare include the following: reduced life expectancy, impaired growth, impaired reproduction, body damage, disease, immunosuppression, adrenal activity, behavior anomalies, and self-narcotization. The uses of measures of responsiveness, stereotypies, and animal preferences in welfare assessment are discussed. The need to make direct measurement of poor welfare as well as to use sophisticated studies of animal preferences is emphasized.     

Natural living—a precondition for animal welfare in organic farming

This article discusses animal welfare in organic farming systems in relation to values and aims in organic farming. It sums up experiences from a 4-year interdisciplinary project. An important finding is that animal welfare is understood somewhat differently in organic farming from what is common in conventional agriculture. It is interpreted in terms of natural living, which includes the possibility to perform a natural behaviour, feed adapted to the animal's physiology and a natural environment. Some of the criticism of animal welfare in organic farming may stem from different understandings of what “welfare” actually means. However, although welfare is an important aim in organic farming, the overall concern is to develop sustainable farming systems. This causes some welfare dilemmas. For example, a healthy system does not automatically mean good welfare for the individual. Based on available literature the actual welfare situation in organic systems was scrutinized. Unfortunately little research has been done, but a careful conclusion was that animal health is as good or better than in conventional farming—with the exception of parasitic diseases. Organic farming systems have a “welfare potential”, but organic farmers must deal with the dilemmas and take animal welfare issues seriously.     

Assessing whether dairy cow welfare is “better” in pasture-based than in confinement-based management systems

ABSTRACT

Consumers perceive pasture-based systems of milk production as natural and therefore better for cow welfare than confinement systems. However both systems are heterogeneous and continually evolving, varying from total confinement to total pasture with many hybrid intermediaries. To compare the welfare of dairy cows in these various systems, we use the three spheres framework, comprising biological functioning, natural behaviour and affective states. Considering biological functioning, pasture-based cows are less at risk of subclinical and clinical mastitis, claw lesions, lameness, metritis, early embryonic mortality, culling and mortality, but at more risk of internal parasitism, malnutrition and delayed onset of oestrous activity postpartum than confined cows. Regarding natural behaviours, pasture-based cows exhibit less agonistic behaviour, better lying behaviour, more normal oestrous behaviours and better synchronicity of behaviours than confined cows. They also have the opportunity to graze, which is one of the main features of the behavioural repertoire of dairy cows, but, they may also experience long periods away from pasture in larger herds, and severe climatic stresses which will become increasingly important as the climate changes. Our current ability to assess the affective state of dairy cows is poor. For example, hunger is an important subjective state that cannot be measured directly. The growing focus on ensuring that animals have lives worth living, means that dairy cows should garner some positive emotions from their lives, and it seems clear that pasture access is essential for this. Clearly measurement of affective state is an important challenge for future dairy cow welfare research. At the extremes of management systems, there can be major differences in animal welfare but in hybrid systems, dairy cows experience elements of both confinement and pasture which may ameliorate the negative effects of each on cow welfare. Ultimately, the optimal system gives cows an element of choice between both environments. Moreover management of the system, whether it is confinement or pastured-based, may be as important as the system of management in ensuring good dairy cow welfare and addressing societal concerns.

Abbreviations: BCS: Body condition score; TMR: Total mixed ration     

农场动物福利的评估

畜牧业中的动物福利问题越来越为人们所关注,评估动物福利是提高畜禽福利的基础。行为是评价动物福利最容易理解和最通常使用的指标,特别是异常行为的出现。应激相关生理表征也说明动物处于不适环境。但福利评估是一个复杂而棘手的问题,其他很多指标也可用于福利评估,特别是情感状态。论文较为全面地介绍了动物福利常用的评估指标和新的评估手段。     

Ethological basis for the evaluation of animal welfare in housing systems for agricultural animals and laboratory animals]

The Swiss Federal Act on Animal Protection (1978) requires the sale of mass-produced housing systems for farm animals to be authorized by the Federal Veterinary Office. Authorization is only granted for housing systems that safeguard the animals' welfare. A concept for the assessment of Animal Welfare has to provide a high forensic value. The capacity of farm animals to adapt to an intensive housing system can be directly examined, whereas the existence and extent of subjective feelings can only be assumed. In our concept the examination focuses on the interaction of individuals with their artificial environment. The main question is whether or not the individuals are able to cope with given nonspecific (e.g. temperature, humidity) and specific (e.g. drinking troughs, behaviour of conspecifics) stimuli in order to reach the immediate (e.g. drinking, make way for) and ultimate (survival, reproduction success) goals. Animals of the same breed are observed in a highly diverse environment in order to determine normal behaviour. Whether behavioural expressions which differ significantly from normal behaviour are adaptive to the restrictive housing conditions is judged by the behaviours' consequences for both, the individuals and the environment. Many studies prove the concept's high forensic value and the authorities prefer conclusions based on this concept to others referring to the animals' motivational and emotional state. However more research has to be done with respect to animal welfare in farm and laboratory animal breeding as well as in the use of laboratory animals for experimental studies.     

Companion Animals Symposium: Environmental enrichment for companion, exotic, and laboratory animals

Animal scientists have an extraordinary burden to promote the health and well-being of all animals in their care. Promoting species- or breed-appropriate behaviors through proper training and enrichment, regardless of animal housing, should be a paramount concern for all animal scientists working with exotic animals, laboratory animals, shelter animals, or privately owned pet animals. Developing ideal training and enrichment programs for any species begins with understanding basic behavior patterns and emotional systems of animals. The basic emotional systems in mammals have been extensively mapped; however, most of these studies are in the neuroscience literature and seldom read by animal science professionals. The emotional circuits for fear have been well documented through studies demonstrating that lesions to the amygdala will block both conditioned and unconditioned fear behaviors. Additionally, other core emotional systems including seeking (i.e., approaching a novel stimulus), rage, panic (e.g., separation stress), play, lust (i.e., sex drive), and care (e.g., mother-young nurturing behavior) have been identified. More recent neuroscience research has discovered the subcortical brain regions that drive different types of seeking behaviors. Research to increase the understanding of the emotional systems that drive both abnormal and normal animal behaviors could greatly improve animal welfare by making it possible to provide more effective environmental enrichment programs. Enrichment devices and methods could be specifically designed to enable the expression of highly motivated behaviors that are driven by emotional circuits in the brain. The objective of this paper is to increase awareness of animal scientists to the field of neuroscience studying animal emotions and the application of that science to improve the welfare of captive exotic animals, laboratory animals, and pets with environmental enrichment.     

Poultry welfare: Science or subjectivity?

1. Most people in the developed world agree on what 'animal welfare' is, although it is impossible to give it a precise scientific definition. 2. The argument is made that animal welfare is all to do with the feelings of animals and not the primary needs that these feeling have evolved to protect. 3. Acceptance of subjective feelings as a legitimate subject for scientific investigation has a long and well-established history in science. This acceptance was interrupted by the rise of Behaviorism in the 20th century, but now seems to be re-established. 4. Subjective feelings cannot be studied directly. However, in the animal welfare debate, indirect evidence on feelings is extremely useful, and methods for obtaining this indirect evidence are described. 5. The poultry species are capable of feeling several states of suffering including fear, frustration and pain. A start has been made to elucidate these states and the conditions that cause them, but much remains to be done. Recent evidence suggests that the poultry species may also be capable of experiencing pleasure. 6. It is concluded that, although poultry welfare is all to do with the subjective feelings of the birds, it is possible to be objective and scientific about these feelings. Investigation into poultry welfare, therefore, really is science rather than subjectivity.     

Behavioral methods to answer questions about sheep.

Animal behavior has been defined as the interaction of an animal with its environment. During this interaction the animal must make decisions, based on its evaluation of the environment and its needs, of whether or not the environment is adequate or appropriate for specific behaviors. The environment includes both physical and biotic components, so sheep adjust their behavior in response to such diverse characteristics as the thermal conditions of their environment, the flora present, or the characteristics of other sheep. Although an animal's subjective experiences may not lend themselves to direct evaluation, we may be able to address these questions indirectly by using behavior as an indicator of the animal's decisions. This paper reviews research on the use of space, maternal and neonatal recognition, sexual behavior, and aversiveness. The majority of methods involve preference or acceptance tests. Assumptions, which often affect how tests are conducted and results interpreted, should be made only after the alternatives are carefully considered.     

Stress-induced and emotional eating in animals: A review of the experimental evidence and implications for companion animal obesity

Eating in response to stress or negative emotional states is well-documented in humans as well as animals in experimental settings and has been shown to work by alleviating the unpleasant emotional experience. This type of eating behavior, termed stress-induced or emotional eating, is linked to the development of obesity. Standard approaches to companion animal obesity have failed to incorporate this concept. Not every animal given more food than they need will become overweight, which raises the critical question: Why does the animal that overeats do so? If it is to help alleviate stress or negative emotional states, then the standard obesity management approach of restricting food intake without alleviating the emotional distress may actually exacerbate the distress by removing one of the animal's coping mechanisms. Moreover, because emotional eating is a coping mechanism, overeating may be a sign that an animal's psychological well-being is impaired.     

The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare.

In general, codes that have been designed to safeguard the welfare of animals emphasize the importance of providing an environment that will ensure good health and a normal physiological and physical state, that is, they emphasize the animals' physical needs. If mental needs are mentioned, they are always relegated to secondary importance. The argument is put forward here that animal welfare is dependent solely on the cognitive needs of the animals concerned. In general, if these cognitive needs are met, they will protect the animals' physical needs. It is contended that in the few cases in which they do not safeguard the physical needs, it does not matter from a welfare point of view. The human example is given of being ill. It is argued that welfare is only adversely affected when a person feels ill, knows that he or she is ill, or even thinks that he or she is ill, all of which processes are cognitive ones. The implications for welfare of animals possessing certain cognitive abilities are discussed. For example, the extent to which animals are aware of their internal state while performing behavior known to be indicative of so-called states of suffering, such as fear, frustration, and pain, will determine how much they are actually suffering. With careful experimentation it may be possible to determine how negative they feel these states to be. Similarly, the extent to which animals think about items or events absent from their immediate environment will determine how frustrated they are in the absence of the real item or event but in the presence of the cognitive representation.     

Cognitive enrichment in zoo and farm animals--implications for animal behaviour and welfare

Animals in the wild are facing a wide variety of challenges and ever-changing environmental stimuli. For successful coping, animals use both innate behavioural programs and their cognitive skills. In contrast, zoo- and farm animals have to cope with restricted husbandry conditions, which offer only few opportunities to adequately satisfy their various needs. Consequences could be sensory and cognitive underchallenge that can cause boredom and frustration as well as behavioural disturbances. Initially intended for improvement of management and husbandry, different forms of operant behavioural training have been applied firstly in zoo- and later also in farm animals. It has been suggested that successful coping with appropriate cognitive challenges is a source of positive emotions and may lead to improved welfare. Under the term cognitive enrichment, new approaches have been developed to integrate cognitive challenges into the housing of zoo- and farm animals. The present article reviews actual research in the field. Previous results indicate that, beyond improvement of management and handling routines, such approaches can positively affect animal behaviour and welfare. The combination of explorative and appetitive behaviour with successful learning improves environmental predictability and controllability for the animals, activates reward-related brain systems and can directly affect emotional processes of appraisal. For practical implementation in farm animal husbandry, it sounds promising to link individual access to e.g. automated feeders or milking systems with previously conditioned stimuli and/or discriminatory learning tasks. First experimental approaches in pigs, dwarf goats and cattle are available and will be discussed in the present article.     

Animal welfare implications of neonatal mortality and morbidity in farm animals

Much has been learnt during the last 50 years about the causes of neonatal mortality and morbidity and about practical means for minimising them in newborn lambs, kids, bovine calves, deer calves, foals and piglets. The major causes of problems in these newborns are outlined briefly and include hypothermia due to excessive heat loss or to hypoxia-induced, starvation-induced or other forms of inhibited heat production. They also include maternal undernutrition, mismothering, infection and injury. The published literature reveals that the scientific investigations which clarified these causes and led to practical means for minimising the problems, involved iterative successions of self-reinforcing laboratory and field or clinical investigations conducted over many years. These studies focused largely on solutions to the problems, not on the suffering that the newborn might experience, so that an analysis of the associated welfare insults had not apparently been conducted until now. The present assessment focuses on potentially noxious subjective experiences the newborn may have. The account of the causes of neonatal mortality and morbidity outlined early in this review indicates that the key subjective experiences which require analysis in animal welfare terms are breathlessness, hypothermia, hunger, sickness and pain. Reference to documented responses of farm animals and, where appropriate, to human experience, suggests that breathlessness and hypothermia usually represent less severe neonatal welfare insults than do hunger, sickness and pain. Major science-based improvements in the management of pregnancy and birth have markedly reduced the overall amount of welfare compromise experienced by newborn farm animals and further improvements may be expected as knowledge is refined and extended in the future.     

Ethical stockmanship

The objective of this review is to consider the ethics of stockmanship, particularly from the perspective of the nature and extent of the duties of stockpeople to their farm animals. It will consider what science tells us about the impact of stockmanship on the animal, particularly the welfare of the farm animal. The effects of human-animal interactions on the stockperson will also be considered, since these interactions affect the work performance and job satisfaction of the stockperson and thus indirectly affect animal welfare. Animal ethics is broader than animal welfare and includes economic as well as philosophical, social, cultural and religious aspects. This paper is predicated on the view that farm animals can suffer, and that animal suffering is a key consideration in our moral obligations to animals. Housing and husbandry practices affect farm animal welfare and thus farmers and stockpeople have a responsibility to provide, at minimum, community-acceptable animal housing and husbandry standards for their animals. The farmer's or stockperson's attitudes and behaviour can directly affect the animal's welfare and thus they also have a responsibility to provide specific standards of stockmanship for these animals. However, research suggests that the behaviour of some stockpeople is not as correct as it might be. Such situations exemplify the inevitably unequal human - domestic animal relationship, and this inequality should be considered in analysing the boundary between right and wrong behaviour of humans. Thus ethical discussion, using science and other considerations and involving stockpeople, livestock industries, government and the general public, should be used to establish and assure acceptable stockperson competencies across the livestock industries. Training programs targeting the key attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople presently offer the livestock industries good opportunities to improve human-animal interactions.     

Integrating practical, regulatory and ethical strategies for enhancing farm animal welfare

OBJECTIVE: To provide an integrated view of relationships between assessment of animal welfare. societal expectations regarding animal welfare standards, the need for regulation, and two ethical strategies for promoting animal welfare, emphasising farm animals. APPROACH: Ideas in relevant papers and key insights were outlined and illustrated, where appropriate, by New Zealand experience with different facets of the welfare management of farm animals. CONCLUSIONS: An animal's welfare is good when its nutritional, environmental, health, behavioural and mental needs are met. Compromise may occur in one or more of these areas and is assessed by scientifically-informed best judgement using parameters validated by directed research and objective analysis in clinical and practical settings. There is a wide range of perceptions of what constitutes good and bad welfare in society, so that animal welfare standards cannot be left to individual preferences to determine. Rather, the promotion of animal welfare is seen as requiring central regulation, but managed in a way that allows for adjustments based on new scientific knowledge of animals' needs and changing societal perceptions of what is acceptable and unacceptable treatment of animals. Concepts of 'minimal welfare', representing the threshold of cruelty, and 'acceptable welfare', representing higher, more acceptable standards than those that merely avoid cruelty, are outlined. They are relevant to economic analyses, which deal with determinants of animal welfare standards based on financial costs and the desire of the public to feel broadly comfortable about the treatment of the animals that are used to serve their needs. Ethical strategies for promoting animal welfare can be divided broadly into the 'gold standard' approach and the 'incremental improvement' approach. The first defines the ideal that is to be required in a particular situation and will accept nothing less than that ideal, whereas the second aims to improve welfare in a step-wise fashion by setting a series of achievable goals, seeing each small advance as worthwhile progress towards the same ideal. 'Incremental improvement' is preferred. This also has application in veterinary practice where the professional commitment to maintain good welfare standards may at times conflict with financial constraints experienced by clients.