Do we care about welfare at slaughter?

In his viewpoint article for Veterinary Record 'Slaughter without stunning' (VR, May 5, 2012, vol 170, pp 468-469), BVA past-president Bill Reilly posed the question, 'Do we care about welfare at slaughter?' And he asked it again as part of his webinar 'Out of sight out of mind', which can be heard on www.vets.tv.     

Can owners assess outcome following treatment of canine cruciate ligament deficiency?

Forty-seven owners of 48 dogs surgically treated for cranial cruciate ligament deficiency were asked to assess the outcome of treatment at one year postsurgery. A standard visual analogue scale assessment tool was used in all cases and owners were asked to score a variety of generic and disease-specific features. The reliability and responsiveness of the assessment tool were estimated and found to be acceptable; generic features, such as 'level of disability', showed the greatest reliability and responsiveness. The results of assessments by owners were compared to assessments by a veterinary surgeon but few significant correlations were found. Assessments by owners appear to be a useful outcome measure in this disease but are unlikely to be directly comparable to assessments by a veterinary surgeon.     

Can teaching veterinary and animal-science students about animal welfare affect their attitude toward animals and human-related empathy?

Attitudes toward animals are important in influencing how animals are treated. Few studies have investigated attitudes toward animals in veterinary or animal-science students, and no studies have compared attitudes to animals before and after a course teaching animal welfare and ethics. In this study, students enrolled in veterinary (first-year) or animal-science (first- and third-year) programs completed a questionnaire on attitudes toward different categories of animals before and after the course. Higher attitude scores suggest a person more concerned about how an animal is treated. Normally distributed data were compared using parametric statistics, and non-normally distributed data were compared using non-parametric tests, with significance p < .05. Attitudes toward pets (45.5-47.6) were higher than those toward pests (34.2-38.4) or profit animals (30.3-32.1). Attitude scores increased from before to after the course in the veterinary cohort on the Pest (36.9 vs. 38.4, respectively, n = 27, p < .05) and Profit (30.3 vs. 32.1, respectively, n = 28, p < .05) subscales, but not in the animal-science cohorts. Attitude scores in all categories were higher for women than for men. Currently having an animal was associated with higher pet scores (46.8 vs. 43.8, ns = 120 and 13, respectively, p < .05), and having an animal as a child was associated with higher profit scores (31.0 vs. 26.6, ns = 129 and 8, respectively, p < .05). Students electing to work with livestock had lower scores on the Pest and Profit subscales, and students wanting to work with wildlife had significantly higher scores on the Pest and Profit subscales. This study demonstrates attitudinal changes after an animal-welfare course, with significant increases in veterinary but not animal-science students.     

Is dietary choice important to animal welfare?

Scientific interest in farm animal welfare has grown rapidly in recent years because consumers increasingly demand that farm animals are reared, transported, and slaughtered in a humane way. Additionally, nutrition emerges as an important aspect of welfare since in most codes of recommendations for the welfare of animals, adequate nutrition is one of the primary requirements to be satisfied. We submit that in many cases domestic animals are provided with diets that, even when abundant and nutritious, are not necessarily adequate to foster the welfare of animals. The monotonous diets fed in confinement (total mixed rations) and on pasture (monocultures) often contain excesses of nutrients, nutrient imbalances, and toxins that adversely influence animal welfare. How much of any food an animal can eat will depend on the other foods it consumes, because at the biochemical level, nutrients and toxins interact one with another—nutrients with nutrients, nutrients with toxins, and toxins with toxins. Food intake and preference also depend on differences in how individual animals are built morphologically and how they function physiologically, and marked variation is common even among closely related animals relative to the needs for nutrients and tolerance to toxins. An integral part of an animal's ability to meet its particular nutritional requirements and consume substances that improve health depends on having a variety of foods available so each animal can select a diet that best meets its homeostatic needs. Food choice may also offer animals a means to cope with toxins, as certain food combinations have the potential to ameliorate the negative effects of toxins. We suggest that the availability of alternatives may not only contribute to maintain homeostasis but also reduce levels of stress. Thus, food choice is necessary for individual animals to have freedom to express their normal behaviors. We contend this freedom enables the uniqueness of individuals to be manifest, thereby promoting animal welfare and performance and increasing profitability of the people who manage animals.     

Veterinary authorities and animal welfare organizations--is cooperation possible?

Veterinarians and private animal welfare workers both work for the importance of animal welfare in our society. Although both work for a common cause, co-operation and communication between the veterinary administration and animal welfare members is often difficult. This paper will demonstrate the cause of problems between the two bodies and the benefits of co-operation will be assessed. Strategies to optimise the co-operation between the veterinary administration and animal rights organisations will be described using the local district Kleve as an example. Experiences with the animal welfare societies in this region will be illustrated with the aim to show the important supporting possibilities of the animal rights organisations to back the official authorities activities. Also the need to encourage the partly disappointing co-operation between these two bodies with the exchange of information would be beneficial for both bodies.