Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)最新文献

The use of animals as scientific models is argued to be crucial for producing new scientific and medical knowledge and clinical treatments. However, animal research continues to raise socio-ethical concerns. In recent years, there has been a push for openness amongst the life science community, with the aim of increasing the transparency of animal research to wider publics. Yet, how this push for openness is experienced by those responsible for the care and welfare of research animals requires further study. This paper draws upon qualitative interviews with Named Veterinary Surgeons (NVS) in the UK and explores how they practise openness, avoid openness, and, at times, challenge the way their role is represented within openness agendas. Overall, this social scientific analysis reveals that the current openness agenda has the potential to create tensions for professionals, as they seek to manage regulatory and public imaginaries of the veterinary identity alongside the animal research controversy. The paper concludes by arguing for a culture of dialogue, where openness includes allowing those with responsibilities for animal welfare to express ambivalence or concern about their own role. Finally, the paper calls for sustained academic work on relations between the veterinary profession and wider society, particularly areas that involve contested practices in which care and harm may coincide.

Russell and Burch's 1959 original definitions of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) are widely used today as standards for the ethical use of non-human animals in research, although they have a number of limitations. Authors and institutions around the world have addressed some of these, coming up in certain cases with more accurate, functional, and up-to-date definitions. However, not only do there still remain limitations needing to be addressed, but some that have been addressed resulted in discrepancies, contradictions, and general confusion as to how best apply the 3Rs in practice. In order to clarify the meaning of the 3Rs and enable more optimal implementation of these principles in animal experimentation, this article provides a theoretical discussion for revised definitions of the original 3Rs via examination of some of their main limitations and inconsistencies. First, we offer up the original definitions as presented in the context of Russell and Burch's book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Then, we examine the main limitations and present clear specifications and requirements for such revised definitions. After presenting our revised definitions, we conclude with various implications for animal welfare within the context of experimentation.

Animal welfare offences encompass a heterogeneous range of crimes, including violence and various forms of negligence toward animals' needs. However, there is limited understanding of the offenders' rationalisations concerning their criminal behaviour against animals, despite this information being essential for enhancing the prevention of these crimes. Our data comprised 1,443 judgements in animal welfare offences in Finland between January 2011 and May 2021. We categorised the rationalisations used by defendants and identified differences between offender profiles according to the offence type. Nearly all defendants responded to the charges. Overall, defendants appealed most often to their challenging circumstances, e.g. a lack of resources. Defendants charged with offences against production animals offered more explanations than the other defendants and often denied their responsibility for the animals, or having caused them any harm, and appealed to financial problems, weather conditions, and having too many animals. Moreover, they frequently challenged the norms, appealing in particular to the immorality of the authorities, who were mostly official veterinarians. Defendants charged with animal hoarding offences rationalised their actions similarly to animal farmers, whereas those charged with violent crimes against animals more often cited provocative or otherwise problematic behaviour of the animal victim. Our results support the observation that farmers may perceive official animal welfare supervision negatively. Violent animal welfare crimes and animal hoarding stand out as distinctive types of crime at the level of rationalisations. The differences between offence types and offenders' underlying motivations should be considered when developing animal welfare control, agricultural support systems, and crime prevention.

The objective of this study was to identify factors more commonly observed on farms with poor livestock welfare compared to farms with good welfare. Potentially, these factors may be used to develop an animal welfare risk assessment tool (AWRAT) that could be used to identify livestock at risk of poor welfare. Identifying livestock at risk of poor welfare would facilitate early intervention and improve strategies to promptly resolve welfare issues. This study focuses on cattle, sheep and goats in non-dairy extensive farming systems in Australia. To assist with identifying potential risk factors, a survey was developed presenting 99 factors about the farm, farmers, animals and various aspects of management. Based on their experience, key stakeholders, including veterinarians, stock agents, consultants, extension and animal welfare officers were asked to consider a farm where the welfare of the livestock was either high or low and rate the likelihood of observing these factors. Of the 141 responses, 65% were for farms with low welfare. Only 6% of factors had ratings that were not significantly different between high and low welfare surveys, and these were not considered further. Factors from poor welfare surveys with median ratings in the lowest 25% were considered potential risks (n = 49). Considering correlation, ease of verification and the different livestock farming systems in Australia, 18 risk factors relating to farm infrastructure, nutrition, treatment and husbandry were selected. The AWRAT requires validation in future studies.

If livestock at risk of poor welfare could be identified using a risk assessment tool, more targeted response strategies could be developed by enforcement agencies to facilitate early intervention, prompt welfare improvement and a decrease in reoffending. This study aimed to test the ability of an Animal Welfare Risk Assessment Tool (AWRAT) to identify livestock at risk of poor welfare in extensive farming systems in Australia. Following farm visits for welfare- and non-welfare-related reasons, participants completed a single welfare rating (WR) and an assessment using the AWRAT for the farm just visited. A novel algorithm was developed to generate an AWRAT-Risk Rating (AWRAT-RR) based on the AWRAT assessment. Using linear regression, the relationship between the AWRAT-RR and the WR was tested. The AWRAT was good at identifying farms with poor livestock welfare based on this preliminary testing. As the AWRAT relies upon observation, the intra- and inter-observer agreement were compared in an observation study. This included rating a set of photographs of farm features, on two occasions. Intra-observer reliability was good, with 83% of Intra-class Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) for observers ≥ 0.8. Inter-observer reliability was moderate with an ICC of 0.67. The AWRAT provides a structured framework to improve consistency in livestock welfare assessments. Further research is necessary to determine the AWRAT's ability to identify livestock at risk of poor welfare by studying animal welfare incidents and reoffending over time.

The capture of wild-living animals can provide valuable information that is critical in developing and implementing effective conservation actions. These capture procedures, however, often require direct handling of individuals by researchers, and conservationists should constantly seek to improve capture methods so that the impacts on animal welfare are minimised. The ngwayir (western ringtail possum; Pseudocheirus occidentalis) is a critically endangered arboreal marsupial in need of effective conservation. It is, however, not amenable to conventional trapping, leading to the use of methods such as nest robbing and tranquilisation using dart guns or pole syringes, which involve potentially serious animal welfare risks and longer exposure of animals to humans as compared to conventional trapping. In pursuit of an improved capture method, we investigated opportunistically whether placing traps above the ground would increase the capture success rate of the species, using wire cage traps baited with universal bait and fruit. Between 2010 and 2019, we deployed trapping grids in Locke Nature Reserve and adjacent campsites near Busselton, WA, Australia, with traps placed on the ground for 1,985 trap nights and traps placed on horizontal tree branches, fallen trees or fences, 1-2 m above ground for 694 trap nights. With the above ground traps we trapped 82 ngwayirs out of 694 trap nights, 27 in autumn and 55 in spring. We also captured eleven common brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula; 1.6% trap success rate), 12 King's skinks (Egernia kingii; 1.7%) and five black rats (Rattus rattus; 0.7%). Trapping success rate was higher in elevated traps (up to 18.3%) compared to traps on the ground (0.5%) and using fruit as bait increased the trap success rate. These results suggest that using elevated traps baited with fruit is a practical, effective method to capture the ngwayir.

Free-ranging native Dartmoor and Exmoor ponies have not only held strong cultural and environmental significance for thousands of years within their respective national parks, but their environmental benefits and naturally selected characteristics have also been acknowledged and harnessed for conservation grazing and rewilding programmes. Despite a wealth of literature regarding the welfare of sports, leisure and working horses, there is little information concerning the welfare of free-ranging and extensively grazing ponies. The present study compared the welfare of native Exmoor and Dartmoor ponies grazing on the moors in their respective national parks (n = 47) with those that have been translocated to other areas of the UK for use in conservation grazing and rewilding programmes (n = 29) using a specifically designed observational welfare assessment protocol for free-ranging ponies. The results showed a significant difference between common land and conservation grazing ponies in the scores for Body Condition Score, Water Quality and Availability, Environmental Hazards, Human Disturbance, Skin and Coat Condition and the Human Approach Test. Despite no evidence of significant welfare compromise being identified, this study emphasises the importance of year-round monitoring of welfare and the feasibility of the observational welfare protocol to be used by pony keepers and grazing managers in the future.