Pub Date : 2023-02-23eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/awf.2023.20
Sofie M Viksten, Elke Hartmann, Karin Schneller, Margareta Steen
It has been suggested that grazing horses could be used as a credible tool for landscape conservation which would, at the same time, improve horse welfare as opposed to conventional housing. A study was conducted between May 2014 and April 2015 on 12 one year old Gotland ponies managed extensively without supplementary feed. Monthly animal welfare assessments (n = 13) revealed welfare issues in most of the horses, i.e. low body condition score (BCS < 3/5), recurring poor skin condition in 11/12 horses and ocular discharge in 7/12 horses. At the end of the study, compared to the beginning, chafing and poor skin condition increased while coat condition improved. A correlation was found between a negative reaction (score > 0) in the human approach test and BCS < 3 and ocular discharge. Avoidance Distance test values were correlated with faecal parasite counts (> 350 eggs per gram [EPG]). These results indicate that the horses had acceptable welfare during late spring/summer (May-September) and that some horses required additional feed during winter. The animal welfare protocol proved to be an efficient tool for monitoring welfare. The results showed that factors important for extensive management are: daily monitoring; enclosures that provide sufficient feed; access to recovery enclosure; and habituation of horses to human approach.
{"title":"Welfare of extensively managed Swedish Gotland ponies.","authors":"Sofie M Viksten, Elke Hartmann, Karin Schneller, Margareta Steen","doi":"10.1017/awf.2023.20","DOIUrl":"10.1017/awf.2023.20","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It has been suggested that grazing horses could be used as a credible tool for landscape conservation which would, at the same time, improve horse welfare as opposed to conventional housing. A study was conducted between May 2014 and April 2015 on 12 one year old Gotland ponies managed extensively without supplementary feed. Monthly animal welfare assessments (n = 13) revealed welfare issues in most of the horses, i.e. low body condition score (BCS < 3/5), recurring poor skin condition in 11/12 horses and ocular discharge in 7/12 horses. At the end of the study, compared to the beginning, chafing and poor skin condition increased while coat condition improved. A correlation was found between a negative reaction (score > 0) in the human approach test and BCS < 3 and ocular discharge. Avoidance Distance test values were correlated with faecal parasite counts (> 350 eggs per gram [EPG]). These results indicate that the horses had acceptable welfare during late spring/summer (May-September) and that some horses required additional feed during winter. The animal welfare protocol proved to be an efficient tool for monitoring welfare. The results showed that factors important for extensive management are: daily monitoring; enclosures that provide sufficient feed; access to recovery enclosure; and habituation of horses to human approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936338/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90475536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-17eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/awf.2023.16
Juliette Schillings, Richard Bennett, Françoise Wemelsfelder, David C Rose
Digital Livestock Technologies (DLTs) can assist farmer decision-making and promise benefits to animal health and welfare. However, the extent to which they can help improve animal welfare is unclear. This study explores how DLTs may impact farm management and animal welfare by promoting learning, using the concept of boundary objects. Boundary objects may be interpreted differently by different social worlds but are robust enough to share a common identity across them. They facilitate communication around a common issue, allowing stakeholders to collaborate and co-learn. The type of learning generated may impact management and welfare differently. For example, it may help improve existing strategies (single-loop learning), or initiate reflection on how these strategies were framed initially (double-loop learning). This study focuses on two case studies, during which two DLTs were developed and tested on farms. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders involved in the case studies (n = 31), and the results of a separate survey were used to complement our findings. Findings support the important potential of DLTs to help enhance animal welfare, although the impacts vary between technologies. In both case studies, DLTs facilitated discussions between stakeholders, and whilst both promoted improved management strategies, one also promoted deeper reflection on the importance of animal emotional well-being and on providing opportunities for positive animal welfare. If DLTs are to make significant improvements to animal welfare, greater priority should be given to DLTs that promote a greater understanding of the dimensions of animal welfare and a reframing of values and beliefs with respect to the importance of animals' well-being.
{"title":"Digital Livestock Technologies as boundary objects: Investigating impacts on farm management and animal welfare.","authors":"Juliette Schillings, Richard Bennett, Françoise Wemelsfelder, David C Rose","doi":"10.1017/awf.2023.16","DOIUrl":"10.1017/awf.2023.16","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Digital Livestock Technologies (DLTs) can assist farmer decision-making and promise benefits to animal health and welfare. However, the extent to which they can help improve animal welfare is unclear. This study explores how DLTs may impact farm management and animal welfare by promoting learning, using the concept of boundary objects. Boundary objects may be interpreted differently by different social worlds but are robust enough to share a common identity across them. They facilitate communication around a common issue, allowing stakeholders to collaborate and co-learn. The type of learning generated may impact management and welfare differently. For example, it may help improve existing strategies (single-loop learning), or initiate reflection on how these strategies were framed initially (double-loop learning). This study focuses on two case studies, during which two DLTs were developed and tested on farms. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders involved in the case studies (n = 31), and the results of a separate survey were used to complement our findings. Findings support the important potential of DLTs to help enhance animal welfare, although the impacts vary between technologies. In both case studies, DLTs facilitated discussions between stakeholders, and whilst both promoted improved management strategies, one also promoted deeper reflection on the importance of animal emotional well-being and on providing opportunities for positive animal welfare. If DLTs are to make significant improvements to animal welfare, greater priority should be given to DLTs that promote a greater understanding of the dimensions of animal welfare and a reframing of values and beliefs with respect to the importance of animals' well-being.</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936290/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90148675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-16eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/awf.2023.8
Lexis H Ly, Alexandra Protopopova
As animals experience distress in animal shelters, leaders call for increased efforts to divert intake of companion animals away from shelters. One novel intake diversion strategy is supported self-rehoming, where owners find new homes for their animals without surrendering to a physical shelter. This study aimed to identify predictors of successful diversion of animals through the AdoptaPet.com 'Rehome' online platform. Data for dogs (n = 100,342) and cats (n = 48,484) were analysed through logistic regression to assess the association of animal- and owner-related factors and outcome. Overall, 87.1% of dogs and 85.7% of cats were successfully diverted from animal shelters, out of which, 37.8% of dogs and 35.3% of cats were kept by their original owner. Multiple animal-related factors predicted increased odds of diversion (e.g. younger, smaller). Dog and cat owners who set a longer rehoming deadline (i.e. > 8 weeks) were over twice as likely to keep or adopt out their animal. Dog owners who surrendered for owner-related reasons had increased odds of diversion in comparison to animal behaviour issues. We conclude that online-supported, self-rehoming platforms provide pet owners with an alternative to relinquishment that may reduce the intake of animals to shelters; however, owners with animals that are not preferred by adopters may have to decide whether to keep their animal or relinquish their animal to a shelter or rescue. These results provide guidance for animal shelter professionals on the likelihood of successful diversion programmes given certain animal and owner characteristics.
{"title":"Predictors of successful diversion of cats and dogs away from animal shelter intake: Analysis of data from a self-rehoming website.","authors":"Lexis H Ly, Alexandra Protopopova","doi":"10.1017/awf.2023.8","DOIUrl":"10.1017/awf.2023.8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As animals experience distress in animal shelters, leaders call for increased efforts to divert intake of companion animals away from shelters. One novel intake diversion strategy is supported self-rehoming, where owners find new homes for their animals without surrendering to a physical shelter. This study aimed to identify predictors of successful diversion of animals through the AdoptaPet.com 'Rehome' online platform. Data for dogs (n = 100,342) and cats (n = 48,484) were analysed through logistic regression to assess the association of animal- and owner-related factors and outcome. Overall, 87.1% of dogs and 85.7% of cats were successfully diverted from animal shelters, out of which, 37.8% of dogs and 35.3% of cats were kept by their original owner. Multiple animal-related factors predicted increased odds of diversion (e.g. younger, smaller). Dog and cat owners who set a longer rehoming deadline (i.e. > 8 weeks) were over twice as likely to keep or adopt out their animal. Dog owners who surrendered for owner-related reasons had increased odds of diversion in comparison to animal behaviour issues. We conclude that online-supported, self-rehoming platforms provide pet owners with an alternative to relinquishment that may reduce the intake of animals to shelters; however, owners with animals that are not preferred by adopters may have to decide whether to keep their animal or relinquish their animal to a shelter or rescue. These results provide guidance for animal shelter professionals on the likelihood of successful diversion programmes given certain animal and owner characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936303/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73832602","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-15eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/awf.2023.15
E Zhitia, C Leeb, S Muji, C Winckler
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/S0962728600032474.].
[此处更正了文章 DOI:10.1017/S0962728600032474]。
{"title":"Erratum: Welfare of dairy cows in Kosovo and intervention thresholds for selected welfare indicators as suggested by farmers and veterinarians - ERRATUM.","authors":"E Zhitia, C Leeb, S Muji, C Winckler","doi":"10.1017/awf.2023.15","DOIUrl":"10.1017/awf.2023.15","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/S0962728600032474.].</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936266/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140130562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-15eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/awf.2023.14
L M Kubasiewicz, T Watson, S L Norris, N Chamberlain, C Nye, R K Perumal, R Saroja, Z Raw, F A Burden
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/S0962728600032504.].
[此处更正了文章 DOI:10.1017/S0962728600032504]。
{"title":"Erratum: One welfare: Linking poverty, equid ownership and equid welfare in the brick kilns of India - ERRATUM.","authors":"L M Kubasiewicz, T Watson, S L Norris, N Chamberlain, C Nye, R K Perumal, R Saroja, Z Raw, F A Burden","doi":"10.1017/awf.2023.14","DOIUrl":"10.1017/awf.2023.14","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/S0962728600032504.].</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936267/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90254167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-14eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/awf.2023.5
Peta S Taylor, Peggy Schrobback, Megan Verdon, Caroline Lee
Substrates and objects are provided to farm animals on the assumption that they improve animal welfare by enriching the environment, but these often fail to consider the extent to which an environmental enrichment (EE) improves animal welfare, if at all. Furthermore, there are numerous definitions of EE, each with a unique expectation. If expectations of animal welfare improvement are set too high, industry uptake may be thwarted, but if thresholds are set too low it will not result in meaningful improvements to animal welfare. We propose an EE framework based on revised definitions of EE that reflect improvements to various components of animal welfare: (i) pseudo-enrichment; (ii) EE for meeting basic needs; (iii) EE for pleasure; and (iv) EE for positive welfare balance. This framework requires short- and long-term assessments to determine the impact of the EE, although many are lacking in the production animal literature. Redefining EE with a focus on specific animal welfare outcomes will assist producers in identifying the optimal EE for their enterprise. Subsequently, we encourage dialogue between farmers, researchers and industry stakeholders when designing environmental enrichment programmes. This framework is a science-based tool that can be used to inform the development of clear EE assessment protocols and requirements for animal welfare legislation, assurance programmes and industry. This evidence-based framework ensures that the focus is on the outcome of EE programmes rather than the intent. Importantly, this framework has the flexibility to adapt even as baseline environments evolve, ensuring the continual improvement to production animal welfare.
为农场动物提供底物和物品的假设是,它们能通过丰富环境来改善动物福利,但这些假设往往没有考虑到丰富环境(EE)能在多大程度上改善动物福利(如果有的话)。此外,EE 有许多定义,每种定义都有独特的期望值。如果对动物福利改善的期望值定得过高,可能会阻碍行业的采用,但如果阈值定得过低,则不会对动物福利产生有意义的改善。我们提出了一个 EE 框架,该框架基于经修订的 EE 定义,反映了动物福利各组成部分的改善情况:(i) 假性充实;(ii) 满足基本需求的 EE;(iii) 愉悦的 EE;(iv) 积极福利平衡的 EE。这一框架要求进行短期和长期评估,以确定 EE 的影响,但生产动物文献中缺乏此类评估。以特定的动物福利结果为重点重新定义 EE,将有助于生产者确定其企业的最佳 EE。因此,我们鼓励养殖户、研究人员和行业利益相关者在设计环境强化计划时开展对话。该框架是一个以科学为基础的工具,可用于为动物福利立法、保障计划和行业制定明确的环境优化评估协议和要求提供信息。这个以证据为基础的框架确保将重点放在环境优化计划的结果上,而不是意图上。重要的是,即使基线环境不断变化,该框架也能灵活适应,确保生产动物福利得到持续改善。
{"title":"An effective environmental enrichment framework for the continual improvement of production animal welfare.","authors":"Peta S Taylor, Peggy Schrobback, Megan Verdon, Caroline Lee","doi":"10.1017/awf.2023.5","DOIUrl":"10.1017/awf.2023.5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Substrates and objects are provided to farm animals on the assumption that they improve animal welfare by enriching the environment, but these often fail to consider the extent to which an environmental enrichment (EE) improves animal welfare, if at all. Furthermore, there are numerous definitions of EE, each with a unique expectation. If expectations of animal welfare improvement are set too high, industry uptake may be thwarted, but if thresholds are set too low it will not result in meaningful improvements to animal welfare. We propose an EE framework based on revised definitions of EE that reflect improvements to various components of animal welfare: (i) pseudo-enrichment; (ii) EE for meeting basic needs; (iii) EE for pleasure; and (iv) EE for positive welfare balance. This framework requires short- and long-term assessments to determine the impact of the EE, although many are lacking in the production animal literature. Redefining EE with a focus on specific animal welfare outcomes will assist producers in identifying the optimal EE for their enterprise. Subsequently, we encourage dialogue between farmers, researchers and industry stakeholders when designing environmental enrichment programmes. This framework is a science-based tool that can be used to inform the development of clear EE assessment protocols and requirements for animal welfare legislation, assurance programmes and industry. This evidence-based framework ensures that the focus is on the <i>outcome</i> of EE programmes rather than the <i>intent.</i> Importantly, this framework has the flexibility to adapt even as baseline environments evolve, ensuring the continual improvement to production animal welfare.</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936304/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76460696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-06eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/awf.2023.4
Alison Mood, Elena Lara, Natasha K Boyland, Phil Brooke
Global farmed finfish production increased from 9 to 56 million tonnes between 1990 and 2019. Although finfishes are now widely recognised as sentient beings, production is still being quantified as biomass rather than number of individuals (in contrast to farmed mammals and birds). Here, we estimate the global number of farmed finfishes slaughtered using FAO aquaculture production tonnages (1990-2019 data) and estimates of individual weight at killing (determined from internet searches at species and country level where possible). We relate these numbers to knowledge on humane slaughter, animal welfare law, and certification schemes. Since 1990, farmed finfish numbers killed annually for food have increased nine-fold, to 124 billion (1.24 × 1011, range 78-171 billion) in 2019. This figure does not represent the total number farmed (due to mortalities during rearing and non-food production) and is expected to increase as aquaculture expands. Our estimates indicate that farmed finfishes now outnumber the 80 billion farmed birds and mammals killed globally each year for food. The majority are produced in Asia. Inhumane slaughter practices cause suffering for most farmed finfishes. Most, 70-72%, have no legal welfare protection, and less than 1% have any fish-specific legal protection, at slaughter. The main global certification schemes in 2013-2015 accounted for 2% of slaughtered farmed finfishes. Fishes for which species-specific parameters for automated humane stunning are published comprise 20-24%. As the dominant taxa of farmed vertebrates, finfishes would benefit from better welfare if species-specific humane slaughter was defined and incorporated into laws and certification schemes.
{"title":"Estimating global numbers of farmed fishes killed for food annually from 1990 to 2019.","authors":"Alison Mood, Elena Lara, Natasha K Boyland, Phil Brooke","doi":"10.1017/awf.2023.4","DOIUrl":"10.1017/awf.2023.4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Global farmed finfish production increased from 9 to 56 million tonnes between 1990 and 2019. Although finfishes are now widely recognised as sentient beings, production is still being quantified as biomass rather than number of individuals (in contrast to farmed mammals and birds). Here, we estimate the global number of farmed finfishes slaughtered using FAO aquaculture production tonnages (1990-2019 data) and estimates of individual weight at killing (determined from internet searches at species and country level where possible). We relate these numbers to knowledge on humane slaughter, animal welfare law, and certification schemes. Since 1990, farmed finfish numbers killed annually for food have increased nine-fold, to 124 billion (1.24 × 10<sup>11</sup>, range 78-171 billion) in 2019. This figure does not represent the total number farmed (due to mortalities during rearing and non-food production) and is expected to increase as aquaculture expands. Our estimates indicate that farmed finfishes now outnumber the 80 billion farmed birds and mammals killed globally each year for food. The majority are produced in Asia. Inhumane slaughter practices cause suffering for most farmed finfishes. Most, 70-72%, have no legal welfare protection, and less than 1% have any fish-specific legal protection, at slaughter. The main global certification schemes in 2013-2015 accounted for 2% of slaughtered farmed finfishes. Fishes for which species-specific parameters for automated humane stunning are published comprise 20-24%. As the dominant taxa of farmed vertebrates, finfishes would benefit from better welfare if species-specific humane slaughter was defined and incorporated into laws and certification schemes.</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936281/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90249252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-30eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/awf.2022.3
Hillary Pearce, Clinton L Neill, Kenneth Royal, Monique Pairis-Garcia
Consumer concern about farmed animal welfare is growing but does not always translate into real-world purchasing behaviour of welfare-friendly animal products for human consumption. Possible reasons for this include unfamiliarity with farming practices and economic sensitivity. In contrast, the number and role of pets in the United States have grown measurably, and spending on pets is strong. The pet food market has many opportunity niches as pet owners navigate strong marketing trends and nutrition philosophies. We hypothesised that pet owners in the US would be willing to pay a premium for pet food containing welfare-friendly animal ingredients. Eight hundred and thirty-eight pet owners completed an online survey asking questions that measured their knowledge of and interest in farm animal welfare, and their willingness-to-pay for pet food labelled as farm animal welfare-friendly. Respondents overall displayed relatively low knowledge about farm animal welfare, but poor self-assessment of their own knowledge. They displayed interest in farm animal welfare and an overall positive mean willingness-to-pay (WTP) for welfare-friendly pet food. Younger respondents, women and cat owners displayed a higher WTP than older respondents, men and dog owners. Income level was not correlated to WTP. Creating pet food products that contain animal ingredients produced using welfare-friendly practices may enhance farm animal welfare via two primary avenues: by providing a sustainable and value-added outlet for the by-products of welfare-friendly human food products, and by providing an educational opportunity about farm animal production via pet food packaging and other advertising.
{"title":"Can dogs help chickens? Pet owners' willingness to pay for animal welfare-friendly pet food in the United States.","authors":"Hillary Pearce, Clinton L Neill, Kenneth Royal, Monique Pairis-Garcia","doi":"10.1017/awf.2022.3","DOIUrl":"10.1017/awf.2022.3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Consumer concern about farmed animal welfare is growing but does not always translate into real-world purchasing behaviour of welfare-friendly animal products for human consumption. Possible reasons for this include unfamiliarity with farming practices and economic sensitivity. In contrast, the number and role of pets in the United States have grown measurably, and spending on pets is strong. The pet food market has many opportunity niches as pet owners navigate strong marketing trends and nutrition philosophies. We hypothesised that pet owners in the US would be willing to pay a premium for pet food containing welfare-friendly animal ingredients. Eight hundred and thirty-eight pet owners completed an online survey asking questions that measured their knowledge of and interest in farm animal welfare, and their willingness-to-pay for pet food labelled as farm animal welfare-friendly. Respondents overall displayed relatively low knowledge about farm animal welfare, but poor self-assessment of their own knowledge. They displayed interest in farm animal welfare and an overall positive mean willingness-to-pay (WTP) for welfare-friendly pet food. Younger respondents, women and cat owners displayed a higher WTP than older respondents, men and dog owners. Income level was not correlated to WTP. Creating pet food products that contain animal ingredients produced using welfare-friendly practices may enhance farm animal welfare via two primary avenues: by providing a sustainable and value-added outlet for the by-products of welfare-friendly human food products, and by providing an educational opportunity about farm animal production via pet food packaging and other advertising.</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936380/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87428566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-30eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/awf.2023.6
Julie Fn Potier, Vanessa Louzier
Hippotherapy has been used for decades and its benefits to human patients have largely been proven, whether being applied to those with physical or mental disabilities. There have been a plethora of animal welfare studies recently, pertaining especially to ridden horses. This study aimed to investigate stress markers in horses during hippotherapy sessions to address the ethical considerations raised by using horses for therapy. A ridden stress ethogram was established and validated specifically for this study via subjective observation and video recording of a ridden session involving intermediate-level riders. The experiment entailed eight healthy horses undergoing two ridden sessions on separate days, one with disabled riders and one with beginners. Several parameters associated with physiological responses to stress were evaluated at rest, such as heart rate, plasma adrenocorticotropic hormone [ACTH], serum and salivary cortisol. These parameters as well as the behavioural stress score from the ethogram scale were measured during both sessions. No significant differences were found between heart rate, plasma ACTH, and stress scores. Serum and salivary cortisol were significantly lower during the hippotherapy session than during the session with beginners. The current study found no evidence of compromised welfare when horses were used as a therapeutic aid during hippotherapy sessions compared to their usual ridden activity. Although these results indicate that hippotherapy may be ethically justified as it benefits humans without causing harm to the horses, the present study was small, and the results should be interpreted with caution.
{"title":"Evaluation of stress markers in horses during hippotherapy sessions in comparison to being ridden by beginners.","authors":"Julie Fn Potier, Vanessa Louzier","doi":"10.1017/awf.2023.6","DOIUrl":"10.1017/awf.2023.6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hippotherapy has been used for decades and its benefits to human patients have largely been proven, whether being applied to those with physical or mental disabilities. There have been a plethora of animal welfare studies recently, pertaining especially to ridden horses. This study aimed to investigate stress markers in horses during hippotherapy sessions to address the ethical considerations raised by using horses for therapy. A ridden stress ethogram was established and validated specifically for this study via subjective observation and video recording of a ridden session involving intermediate-level riders. The experiment entailed eight healthy horses undergoing two ridden sessions on separate days, one with disabled riders and one with beginners. Several parameters associated with physiological responses to stress were evaluated at rest, such as heart rate, plasma adrenocorticotropic hormone [ACTH], serum and salivary cortisol. These parameters as well as the behavioural stress score from the ethogram scale were measured during both sessions. No significant differences were found between heart rate, plasma ACTH, and stress scores. Serum and salivary cortisol were significantly lower during the hippotherapy session than during the session with beginners. The current study found no evidence of compromised welfare when horses were used as a therapeutic aid during hippotherapy sessions compared to their usual ridden activity. Although these results indicate that hippotherapy may be ethically justified as it benefits humans without causing harm to the horses, the present study was small, and the results should be interpreted with caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936384/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78866824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-27eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/awf.2022.8
Zachary A England, Hannah L Maggard, Andrew D Fisher, Natalie W Roadknight, Jessica A Pempek
Previous research has shown surplus dairy calves arrive at 'formula-fed' veal operations in North America in sub-optimal condition; however, little is known about the condition of 'bob' veal calves on arrival at abattoirs. The objectives of this study were to assess the condition of bob veal calves on arrival at an abattoir in Ohio and determine risk factors for poor health outcomes. On arrival, 35 calves in each of 12 cohorts (n = 420 calves) were assessed using a standardised health examination. A blood sample was also collected to assess failed transfer of passive immunity (FTPI) and hypoglycaemia. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the prevalence of poor health outcomes. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to identify if calf breed, sex, or source were risk factors for poor health outcomes. The most common physical health concern observed on arrival at the abattoir was dehydration (mean: 68.6%), followed by thin body condition (39.8%), and navel inflammation (25.7%). Approximately one-quarter (23.4%) of calves had FTPI and 73.4% were hypoglycaemic. Male calves were more likely than females to arrive hypoglycaemic. Hydration status was associated with breed; Jersey and crossbreed calves were less likely to be dehydrated than Holstein-Friesian calves. Buying station tended to be associated with FTPI. These results underline the need for more studies investigating morbidity, mortality, and their underlying risk factors to promote calf welfare prior to slaughter in each stage of the production chain: on the dairy farm of birth, during marketing, and in transit.
{"title":"Condition of bob veal calves on arrival at an abattoir in Ohio.","authors":"Zachary A England, Hannah L Maggard, Andrew D Fisher, Natalie W Roadknight, Jessica A Pempek","doi":"10.1017/awf.2022.8","DOIUrl":"10.1017/awf.2022.8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous research has shown surplus dairy calves arrive at 'formula-fed' veal operations in North America in sub-optimal condition; however, little is known about the condition of 'bob' veal calves on arrival at abattoirs. The objectives of this study were to assess the condition of bob veal calves on arrival at an abattoir in Ohio and determine risk factors for poor health outcomes. On arrival, 35 calves in each of 12 cohorts (n = 420 calves) were assessed using a standardised health examination. A blood sample was also collected to assess failed transfer of passive immunity (FTPI) and hypoglycaemia. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the prevalence of poor health outcomes. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to identify if calf breed, sex, or source were risk factors for poor health outcomes. The most common physical health concern observed on arrival at the abattoir was dehydration (mean: 68.6%), followed by thin body condition (39.8%), and navel inflammation (25.7%). Approximately one-quarter (23.4%) of calves had FTPI and 73.4% were hypoglycaemic. Male calves were more likely than females to arrive hypoglycaemic. Hydration status was associated with breed; Jersey and crossbreed calves were less likely to be dehydrated than Holstein-Friesian calves. Buying station tended to be associated with FTPI. These results underline the need for more studies investigating morbidity, mortality, and their underlying risk factors to promote calf welfare prior to slaughter in each stage of the production chain: on the dairy farm of birth, during marketing, and in transit.</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936319/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85261415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}