Application of legal veterinary medicine: Main toxic agents versus real cases of intentional intoxication in domestic animals analyzed in criminal expertize in central Brazil

Animal welfare science is a relatively new scientific discipline, evolving mostly from within veterinary medicine over the latter half of the twentieth century into an independent specialty in its own right. Originally, the field of study was heavily focused on animal behavior (ethology), but it has emerged into a truly multi- and inter-disciplinary science, encompassing such sciences as behavior, physiology, pathology, health, immunology, endocrinology, and neuroscience, and influenced by personal and societal ethics. The first academic organization devoted to the scientific study of animal welfare was established in 1966 as the society for veterinary ethology (SVE), demonstrating its veterinary roots by being then affiliated with the British Veterinary Association. The world’s first Professor of Animal Welfare was appointed 20 years later at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, and in 1991, the SVE became the International Society for Applied Ethology, in recognition of its geographical spread and its evolution from veterinary medicine. Over the last quarter of a century, there has been further expansion of the field and now animal welfare science is represented in many universities’ veterinary medicine and animal science departments across the world. Animal welfare science has become part of the core curriculum for many veterinary degrees, is a recognized specialty qualification within the veterinary professions of Europe, USA, and Australia and courses in animal welfare science as a stand-alone discipline are offered worldwide at Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degree levels. Within research, there have been similar patterns of expansion and a spread from a heavy focus on farm animal welfare to the welfare of zoo, laboratory, and companion animals and the impacts of humans on wildlife. There continue to be studies that compare the welfare of populations within systems, but there is also more attention given to gaining in-depth knowledge of the welfare of individual animals, knowing that populations are not homogenous and that individuals within the same system may be experiencing quite different welfare states. We not only continue to use “traditional” welfare indicators but also work to develop novel indicators for use in experimental settings or in the field. As our fundamental knowledge base increases, we look for increasing application and we respond to challenges that arise from our own research questions and findings and from societal needs. In this paper, I will focus on a number of the areas that I see represent Grand Challenges within our discipline.

A bibliometric analysis was undertaken to chart the development of animal welfare (AW) science as a whole, and of the individuals, organisations and countries that have had most academic impact to date. Publication data were collected from the Web of Science for the year range 1968-2017 and by-hand pre-processing of the data was undertaken to identify reviews and original research articles on AW. VOSviewer was used to create bibliometric networks. There has been a 13.3% annual growth in AW publications in the last 50 years with Animal Welfare and Applied Animal Behaviour Science the most frequent publishers of AW publications. Farm animals continue to dominate the subject of AW research and comparison of network visualisations for five key species suggested possible gaps in the research, such as relatively little emphasis on emotion research for some farm animals and little research on inherited disorders in dogs. However, keyword analysis indicated a recent broadening of AW findings to include other international contexts, such as conservation and sustainability. Highly cited review articles were grouped into five clusters with affective state (ie emotions, moods) and fish welfare the most recent topics. Almost all core authors of original research articles study farm animals, though in the last ten years other topics, such as consumer attitudes and wildlife, have emerged as highly cited areas of original research articles. Network analysis of organisations revealed the University of Bristol, UK as the main publisher of original research articles. Citation analysis indicated that many low-cited articles were originating from Germany and were published in German journals, suggesting that many worthwhile results and opinions on AW may be being missed by other researchers due to a language barrier. Several limitations of bibliometric analysis to generate an overview of AW science were identified, including the challenge of how to search and extract all the relevant publications in this discipline. In conclusion, animal welfare science is still in an exponential phase of growth which will bring opportunities, such as for the publication of new journals, but also challenges. The insights generated by this study suggest bibliometric analysis to be a useful addition to other approaches investigating the trends and concepts of animal welfare.

Political attention to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has never been greater. Governments worldwide are concerned that AMR threatens to undo modern medical achievements with the spectre of a post antibiotic era in which commonplace infections, once eminently treatable, become nontreatable causes of serious morbidity and mortality 1. With suggestions that AMR and multi-drug resistant organisms are as important as climate change and could cast the world back into the dark ages of medicine, ranking alongside terrorism as matters of national risk 2, 3, the political landscape on this subject has been clearly set. Concerns about AMR and its health impact are, of course, not new and began at almost the same time as the introduction of antimicrobials. In 1945, just after the introduction of penicillin as a therapeutic agent in humans and animals, Fleming warned in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech that misuse of antimicrobials could result in bacterial resistance. This prediction rapidly became true with the discovery of each new class of antimicrobial quickly followed by the appearance of resistance to it. By the 1960s there was widespread realisation, and acceptance in the scientific community and lay press, that antimicrobial use (and misuse) resulted in rapid selection for resistance against all classes of antimicrobials. What is new, and has changed the political and regulatory landscape for AMR completely, is the realisation that science is not able to out-pace the microbes. There have been no completely new classes of antimicrobials discovered and brought to market since the 1980s, perhaps not surprising given the relatively small range of bacterial targets and the rapid rate of antimicrobial discovery during the ‘golden age’ from the mid 1940s onwards 4. Although there are some rays of hope, for example the recently reported new compound ‘teixobactin’ 5, the pipeline for new antimicrobials is practically dry. In other words, the solutions to AMR must come from within the medical, veterinary and animal industry sectors by addressing the underlying causes of, and changing the therapeutic approaches to, infectious disease. The political and scientific view that antimicrobials can no longer be regarded as the panacea or ‘magic bullet’ capable of eradicating infectious disease is widely accepted, and it is now clear that the human and animal health care sectors need to respond accordingly. A major challenge for the politicians is that there are still significant gaps in the surveillance data required to fully understand the drivers of AMR in both humans and animals 6, 7 and, critically, to measure the effects of interventional measures to reduce AMR. It is therefore not surprising that scientific opinion continues to be divided on practically every key question about AMR except that it is now a serious global problem causing significant economic loss with welfare, morbidity and mortality impacts in humans and animals. Antimicrobial resistance is a natural phenomenon: bacteria produce antimicrobial substances as part of their repertoire to compete in the struggle for colonisation, space and nutrients. Resistance therefore existed long before the introduction of antimicrobial drugs: the effect of using antimicrobials has been to accelerate AMR through classical selective pressure. That this has happened in both veterinary and human populations of bacteria is not disputed; the evidence for interconnection of AMR in these two populations is, however, inconclusive and is the subject of continuing political and scientific debate with contradictory evidence produced by both sides 8-10. It does appear that antimicrobial use in animals increases AMR in animal bacteria and that treating people with antimicrobials increases AMR in human bacteria. However, current scientific evidence does not allow definitive assessment of whether reducing antimicrobial use in animals has reduced AMR in medical pathogens. The extent to which AMR in populations of animal bacteria threatens public health therefore remains uncertain. The evidence for resistance in animal bacteria acting as genetic reservoirs of resistance for transfer to bacteria of public health importance is also inconclusive. Even for zoonotic bacteria such as Salmonella typhimurium DT104, the links between animal and human bacterial populations have become less clear with the application of sophisticated molecular typing bacterial methods and population genetics adding new complexity to the AMR debate 11. However, the lack of conclusive evidence notwithstanding, the prevailing political and regulatory opinion continues to be that antimicrobial use, and associated AMR, in animals is a driver of AMR in medical pathogens and that controlling veterinary prescription of antimicrobials will help safeguard public health. The ongoing political and public health scrutiny of veterinary use of antimicrobials is not surprising and the assumption that veterinary antimicrobial use contributes to, or is perhaps even directly the cause of, AMR in human medicine is understandable. The fact that the classes of antimicrobials used in veterinary and human medicine are the same 12; that food-borne and other zoonotic infections provide an opportunity for transfer of resistant bacteria from animals to humans; that populations of pathogenic and nonpathogenic animal bacteria may act as genetic reservoirs of resistance for important medical pathogens, with close contact between people and companion animals, in addition to food products, providing opportunity for genetic exchange; and, perhaps most importantly from a political perspective, that in many countries around the world the total quantity (gross weight) of antimicrobials used in veterinary medicine is greater than in human medicine 13, 14, has put antimicrobial use in animals at the centre of the public health AMR debate. When combined with the use of antimicrobials for disease prevention at herd or flock level and, in around half of the world's countries, for growth promotion, it is little wonder that antimicrobial use in animals has resulted in sustained political concern over the contribution that veterinarians and the animal sector in general may be making to the growing crisis of antimicrobial resistance in humans, with frequent calls for restriction or even banning of veterinary use of antimicrobials. Despite numerous political recommendations that coordinated, overarching surveillance of AMR is implemented at national and international level 15, 16 there are still relatively few examples of harmonised and integrated surveillance in humans and animals that allow comparison of data. Examples include The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) in the USA, Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) in Canada, Japanese Veterinary Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (JVARM) in Japan and several European schemes including Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Programme (DANMAP) (Denmark), NORM-VET (Norway), Swedish Veterinary Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring (SVARM) (Sweden) and NethMap/Monitoring of Antimicrobial Resistance and Antibiotic usage in Animals in the Netherlands (MARAN) (the Netherlands). At EU level, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) monitor AMR in the food chain and food-borne zoonotic pathogens, but not in companion animals. In the absence of sufficient scientific evidence about AMR, in particular the key question of the impact of veterinary antimicrobial use on public health, politicians around the world have faced difficult decisions. In the absence of scientific certainty politicians have adopted the ‘precautionary principle’, allowing preventive action to be taken when there is a possibility of harm but where the scientific evidence is not sufficiently complete to allow full assessment. The result in Europe is a continuing European political focus on banning or restricting veterinary antimicrobial use, especially in the agricultural sector, and reducing the total quantities of antimicrobials used in animals. In the political and regulatory environment in the USA, the precautionary principle has been applied somewhat differently with less political appetite for banning or restricting antimicrobials 9. The first active political engagement with antimicrobial resistance occurred in 1968 in response to growing concerns over multidrug resistant Salmonella in humans and animals, with the establishment of an independent advisory committee by the UK Government chaired by Professor Michael Swann. The Swann Report 17, published in 1969, recommended restriction of the use of antimicrobials as growth promoters, which took 45 years to fully implement in Europe, and establishment of overarching monitoring of AMR in humans and animals, which has still not been implemented globally. Almost 50 years on, this report continues to set the political stage in relation to veterinary antimicrobial use and possible impacts on human health. We would do well not to lose sight of the lessons learned in the decades following its publication, specifically that sensible recommendations based on competent assessment of the available, even if incomplete, scientific evidence should not be sidelined pending collection of conclusive evidence; instead the two should progress in parallel with continuous monitoring and refinement as evidence is gathered. The global political thrust in relation to AMR in the human and animal health sectors continues to be that overuse of antimicrobials is the cause of the problem and that reducing their use is the solution. In Europe, most political effort since 1969 has been directed at the food animal sector through reducing the use of antimicrobials as growth promoters and, more recently, reducing total antimicrobial use. It was not until 2006 that a EU-wide ban on antimicrobial growth promoters was eventually implemented, completing a political process that had started four decades previously with the banning of tetracycline, penicillin and streptomycin for growth promotion in 1974, followed by complete bans of antimicrobial growth promoters in Sweden and Denmark in 1988 and 1994. Denmark also implemented restrictions on veterinary dispensing of antimicrobials; decoupling veterinary prescription of antimicrobials from supply remains on the European political agenda and, if implemented, would have significant impact on veterinary practice business models in many countries. Monitoring, and reducing, antimicrobial use has become a key global political driver. The European Medicines Agency monitors the sales of antimicrobial agents for food producing animals and horses across Europe 18 providing benchmarks against which political targets for reduction are set. In some countries governmental targets for reduction in the sales of veterinary antimicrobials have been agreed with stakeholders. For example, the Netherlands decreased sales of antimicrobials by 49% between 2010 and 2012 with further reduction targets agreed; antimicrobial sales in Scandinavia have been progressively reduced through a series of government–stakeholder agreed targets 18. Nevertheless, the estimated consumption of antimicrobials (corrected for estimated biomass) in animals continues to be greater than in humans across Europe as a whole 6. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the concept of overuse as the key driver of AMR may be overly simplistic 19. Antimicrobial resistance is a complex public and animal health issue and there is recognition that integrated strategies across all sectors, backed by political will, stakeholder buy-in and sufficient economic support, are required to control it 1. Although overprescribing of antimicrobials is undoubtedly an important factor, reducing their use in human medicine has not consistently resulted in reduction of resistance for key pathogen–antimicrobial combinations with examples of resistance remaining apparently stable or even increasing despite reduced antimicrobial use. The question of whether phasing out antimicrobials as growth promoters across Europe and the restrictions placed on therapeutic use of antimicrobials in Scandinavia, with associated reductions in quantities used, has resulted in a positive impact on human health continues to be the subject of scientific and political disagreement. Responsible, or ‘prudent’, use of antimicrobials has emerged as a parallel precautionary approach to the control of AMR. Initially, the political focus was on restricting veterinary use of antimicrobials used to treat multidrug resistant human pathogens presenting significant risk to public health. Since 2005 the World Health Organization has published lists of ‘critically important antimicrobials for human medicine’, ranked according their importance with the goal that their use should be restricted in all sectors to preserve their effectiveness 20. This approach has been extended by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) with the publication of a list of antimicrobials of veterinary importance which contains recommendations for restricting the use in food animals of antimicrobials that are critically important for both human and animal health 21. This list includes fluoroquinolones and third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins and forms a rational basis for responsible guidelines worldwide. There are several examples of stakeholder groups at national and international level that have responded to the AMR challenge and shown leadership in producing responsible use guidelines. In the late 1990s the UK veterinary and farming sectors established the RUMA (responsible use of medicines in agriculture) alliance and in 2005 EPRUMA (European platform for responsible use of medicines in animals) was established. Stakeholder groups have now produced a variety of responsible use guidelines for antimicrobials in veterinary practice. Examples include general guidance to veterinary practitioners from the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe (FVE), guidelines on antimicrobial use in companion animal practice from the Federation of European Companion Animal Veterinary Associations (FECAVA), the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and in equine practice from the British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA). Widespread adoption of responsible use guidelines in equine practice is an important goal, coupled with accurate recording of use (as, for example, already happens in Scandinavia), that will go some way to addressing political concerns about the prescription of critically important antimicrobials and cascade prescribing by veterinarians, including equine practitioners 22, 23. It is understandable, given the importance of food-borne zoonotic bacteria, that the political lens has thus far been focused mainly on the food animal sector. It is only recently that antimicrobial use in companion animals and horses has received political attention 7, 24 probably because comparatively small quantities (<10% of total quantities sold each year) of antimicrobials are used in these species 18 and because of a public health focus on food-borne pathogens. There are now recommendations that systematic international surveillance of AMR is established for companion animals and horses and a recognition that the close relationship between people and companion animals may provide new opportunities for transfer of resistance to human pathogens 7, 24. Antimicrobial resistance is now a highly important One Health issue with political impact squarely on companion animal and equine veterinary medicine; it is no longer a subject confined to the food animal sector. Antimicrobial resistance is, of course, also important for companion animal and equine health with multidrug resistant pathogens such as meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) causing clinical disease in horses and with evidence of transfer of MRSA between humans and horses 25 and of carriage in horses 26. As would be expected, therapeutic treatment of horses with antimicrobials temporarily increases the prevalence of resistant sentinel Escherichia coli, including multidrug resistance and production of extended spectrum β-lactamases 27, acting as a reminder of the impact of ‘routine’ veterinary therapy on microbial populations. The message is clear that it is time to apply common sense and sound scientific principles to address AMR in equine practice. As a minimum, further surveillance in horses is required, along with universal adoption of responsible use guidelines 28. Irrespective of the scientific uncertainties, AMR is a true One Health issue that is relevant to the equine industry. Whatever the political dimensions of this debate it is essential that the equine veterinary profession and equine industry continue to engage actively with the AMR agenda, promote public and political confidence by demonstrating leadership through responsible use of antimicrobials and monitoring of AMR, and participate in evidence-based practice.

Simple SummaryThis article emphasizes the importance of educating veterinarians and veterinary students in animal welfare science and veterinary ethics, so that they can ably advance pertinent scientific knowledge and promote ethical thinking as trusted animal advocates in the 2020s. In light of this public expectation, a number of challenges are raised for veterinarians and the veterinary profession. These challenges involve: (1) re-envisioning the nature of disease treatment that goes beyond traditional conceptions of health or clinical matters, and which include animal welfare; (2) re-imagining disease prevention at the intersection of animal-human-ecosystem health; (3) developing core competencies in animal welfare science and ethics in order to provide professional leadership in animal welfare; and (4) taking a more active role in the development of novel networked devices, monitoring technologies and automated animal welfare solutions, and understanding their effects on the welfare of animals, human-animal relationships, and the veterinary profession in general.What should leading discourses and innovation regarding animal welfare look like for the veterinary profession in the 2020s? This essay considers four main challenges into which veterinarians are increasingly being drawn, as they respond to increasing public expectation for them to be scientific and moral authorities in animal welfare in addition to their traditional role as trusted health experts. They include: (1) to go beyond traditional conceptions of health by adopting a holistic view that also considers animal welfare, not only disease treatment; (2) to reimagine their professional duties when it comes to disease prevention at the intersection of animal-human-ecosystem health; (3) to develop core competencies/proficiency in animal welfare science and ethics in order to navigate discourses concerning competing priorities and socio-political ideologies and to provide professional leadership in animal welfare; (4) to provide feedback on novel networked devices, monitoring technologies and automated animal welfare solutions and their impact on animals’ welfare. To competently navigate the intricacies of the socio-political and connected world as trusted authorities and conduits for innovation in and through animal welfare, veterinarians and veterinary students are encouraged to: (a) develop core competencies in veterinary ethics, animal welfare science and deliberative capacities that are well-informed by current multidisciplinary frameworks, such as One Health; (b) engage interested parties in more effective collaboration and ethical decision-making in order to address animal welfare related concerns within their immediate sphere of influence (e.g., in a given community); and (c) participate in the process of engineering and technological design that incorporates animals’ welfare data (such as their preferences) for real-time animal monitoring through adding animal scientific and values-aware evidence in information technology systems. In order to tackle these challenges, four pillars are suggested to help guide veterinarians and the veterinary profession. They are: Collaboration, Critical Engagement, Centeredness on Research, and Continuous Self-Critique.

For a long time,veterinarians used to do their work rather inconspicuously.The inner circle of the veterinary world was virtually unknown to the public. However, due to the recent outbreaks of BSE and swine fever and the changing human-animal relationships, public attention is increasingly being focused on veterinary medicine.The public interest in the profession has also grown due to the increasingly important role that animals play in present-day western society (Fogle,1999).Along with this growing public interest in veterinary medicine, the concern for the societal responsibilities, position and image of veterinarians has also increased. Throughout the past two decades, the veterinary profession has become the subject of study for several other disciplines (Lawrence,1991; Swabe,1999).Inevitably,these studies also focus on the long-term development of veterinary sciences, the veterinary profession and policy, veterinary traditions, and thus also the history of veterinary medicine. As an integral part of the history of sciences, veterinary medicine has thus far only received limited attention.Veterinary history studies have predominantly focused on institutional history and biographies (Brumme, 1997; Brumme and Schaffer, 1993), while these were often written to provide a functionalist account of veterinary professionalisation. Recently, more attention has been paid to the social and political history of veterinary medicine (Brumme and von Mickwitz, 1997; Fisher, 1998; Schaffer, 1998). In this paper, the development of Dutch veterinary medicine in the second half of the twentieth century will be explored. During this period, the Netherlands developed to a modern welfare state.The history of veterinary medicine will be examined within that societal context.The issues of post-war reconstruction, restoration and growth of livestock production, veterinary public health, differentiation and specialisation, faculty and education, and feminisation of the profession will be dealt with respectively. Post-war reconstruction

Consideration of the human-animal bond typically focuses on the benefits of companion animals to human health and well-being, but it is essential that in realizing these benefits the welfare needs of the animals, both physical and mental, are also met. Positive emotional relationships with animals are likely to increase recognition of animal sentience and so help create positive attitudes toward animals at the societal level, but, at the individual level, the animals to which humans are bonded should also benefit from the human-animal relationship. A strong human-animal bond may benefit animal welfare (e.g., by motivating an owner to commit time and funds to necessary veterinary medical treatment), but may also be the source of compromised welfare. Highly bonded owners may, for example, be reluctant to permit euthanasia on humane grounds, and the anthropomorphic nature of many human-companion animal bonds can contribute to the development of problem behaviors and obesity. The challenge for the veterinary profession is to ensure that widespread positive sentiment toward animals, which the human-animal bond generates, is translated in to human behavior and actions that are conducive to good animal welfare. This, it is suggested, can be achieved through adequate veterinary education in veterinary and animal welfare science, ethics, and communication.

The history of earliest recognition, decline and renaissance of Veterinary Medicine in the world with the brief history of Veterinary Medicine in Indian sub-continent including Bangladesh have been described. It appears from the different reports that with the recommendation of the Joint Indo-American and Pak-American teams on agricultural research and education recommended to establish Agricultural Universities in India and Pakistan where veterinary and agriculture education brought under one umbrella with bifurcation of the complete degree, B.Sc. (Vet. Sci. &amp; AH) into two, DVM (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine) and B.Sc. (AH) as an American education pattern of Land Grant colleges. Out of 22 Veterinary colleges of India, only three Agricultural Universities ( Pantnagar, Haryana and Punjab ) and two in Pakistan (EPAU and WPAU) were implemented the American recommendations. The Indian National Commission on Agriculture has recognized these two separate degrees offered in a profession as detrimental towards livestock development and the Review Committee on Agricultural Universities who recommended an integration of the two degrees to avoid duplication. Accordingly, these two degrees in all the three Indian universities have been combined as BVSc &amp; AH in 1982, and as DVM in 2002 in Pakistan, whereas the Veterinary education has made more complex in Bangladesh through establishment of four Government Veterinary Colleges where offering five years DVM degree including one year internship with combined curricula on animal health and production against four years separate two degrees offering from BAU without internship. Veterinary education should include animal health, animal production and animal product technology for effective teaching, research and extension programme and accordingly, the curricula and syllabi of all the Veterinary degrees offering all over the world have been adjusted except BAU which is urgently required to adjust and reformulate the uniform curricula and syllabi in all the degree offering educational institutes in Bangladesh. Moreover, the history of modern veterinary education in India showed great achievement through establishment of Veterinary University, ‘Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University' on September 1989. Therefore, there is a strong urge to establish Veterinary University in Bangladesh following the pattern of India. DOI:10.3329/bjvm.v1i1.1909 Bangl. J. Vet. Med. (2008). 1(1): 01-08Â

Intentional poisoning by exogenous agents occurs with certain frequency and represents a high percentage of the causes of death in small animals in Veterinary Medicine. The carbamate popularly known in Brazil as “chumbinho”, is often linked to cases of criminal poisoning of domestic animals in the country, being sold illegally and widely used as a domestic rodenticide. The objective of this work was to discuss some types of pesticides and their toxicities, having inorganic and organic substances in their composition. A systematic review of national and international literature was carried out using the following key words: anticholinesterases, carbamates, pesticides, poisoning; using the following scientific databases for academic research: Virtual Health Library (VHL), SciELO, Scopus, CAPES Journal Portal, Google Scholar, PubMed and Biomed Central. Pesticides, with their inorganic chemical nature, appear in everyday life and are classified as organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates and others, having an immediate effect in the organism. Cases of poisoning involving toxic agents illegally sold as rodenticides are very frequent and it is noted that, in most cases, the lack of knowledge and/or lack of information on the part of owners regarding the subject are significant factors in cases of sudden death of poisoned animals treated in veterinary clinics. The best way to reduce the incidence of poisoning in companion animals can be through training veterinarians working in the area of first aid, as well as their involvement in prevention through raising awareness among the population regarding the use of these toxic agents. There is also a need for greater supervision of the illegal marketing of these chemicals by public bodies.

The conclusion reflects on Harrison’s achievements as a campaigner and analyses the wider changes of animal welfare politics, science, and activism that occurred during her life. Between 1920 and 2000, synthesist Edwardian campaigning gave rise to professionalised activism and new concepts of animal cognition, affective states, and welfare. The “backstage” of British corporatist welfare politics was similarly transformed by polarising “frontstage” public protest and animal rights thinking. Aided by the rise of a new “mandated” animal welfare science and European integration, the turbulent 1970s eventually resulted in a new world of British welfare politics characterised by transnational decision-making and market-driven assurance schemes, which relied on consumer citizens rather than citizen campaigners to drive change. Determined to bear witness to animal welfare, Harrison shaped and witnessed most of these changes even though the economic drivers of welfare were becoming divorced from the universalist moral framework she believed in.

The data on the development of domestic military veterinary medicine are summarized. The analysis of historical documents gives an idea of the main stages of the formation and development of the military veterinary service. During the data analysis, the article examines the stages of improving veterinary medicine and the formation of its scientific base and research methods, the contribution of outstanding researchers and the creation of veterinary scientific and educational schools. The development of military veterinary medicine has played a key role in combating epizootics and ensuring the veterinary well-being of the Armed Forces. The problems and tasks being solved to ensure the veterinary well-being of the country and its armed forces, as well as issues of epizootics and the organization of veterinary business and the specifics of their solution in various economic and political conditions are considered. Special attention is paid to the formation and development of veterinary education in Russia. Teaching the "History of Veterinary Medicine" is currently acquiring a new ideological significance and is an impetus to popularize the glorious path of development and formation of domestic veterinary education.

Broom's (2014) book is a well-researched and thoroughly written exploration and evaluation of the journey from the origins of animal welfare science to what we can say we now know and need to consider in relation to animal sentience and welfare. This book will help to counter any skepticism among academics and policy makers.

Grayanotoxin poisoning in animals following the ingestion of Ericaceae plants.

Simple SummaryVeterinarians are animal health experts. More recently, explicit references to veterinarians as animal welfare experts have proliferated. Veterinarians are ideally situated to act as animal welfare experts by virtue of their core work with animals, influence over owners, their roles in policy development, compliance, and monitoring, and as educators of future veterinary professionals. However, the discipline of animal welfare science has moved beyond a focus on nutrition and health towards an acceptance that the mental experiences of animals are the focus of welfare consideration. The Five Domains Model is a framework for assessing animal welfare and focuses on mental experiences arising from a broad range of impacts or opportunities. The Model can be used as a framework to integrate contemporary understanding of animal welfare science in veterinary curricula and improve welfare literacy within the veterinary profession.Veterinarians are animal health experts. More recently, they have been conferred a leading role as experts in animal welfare. This expectation of veterinarians as welfare experts appears to stem from their training in veterinary medicine as well as professional contributions to welfare-relevant policy and law. Veterinarians are ideally situated to act as animal welfare experts by virtue of their core work with animals and potential influence over owners, their roles in policy development, compliance, and monitoring, and as educators of future veterinarians. However, since its inception as a discipline over 70 years ago, animal welfare science has moved beyond a two-dimensional focus on nutrition and health (biological functioning) towards an understanding that the mental experiences of animals are the focus of welfare consideration. The Five Domains Model is a structured and systematic framework for more holistically considering conditions that contribute to the animal’s internal state and its perception of its external situation, and the resultant mental experiences. The Model can be used to better align veterinary animal welfare expertise with contemporary understanding of animal welfare science and improve welfare literacy within the veterinary profession. Improved understanding of animal welfare science is likely to lead to increased confidence, competence, and empowerment to act as experts in their daily lives.

To the Editor: During the last decade, use of antimicrobial drugs for growth promotion and therapeutic treatment in food animals has received much attention. The reservoir of resistant bacteria in food animals implies a potential risk for transfer of resistant bacteria, or resistance genes, from food animals to humans. Subsequent emergence of infections in humans, caused by resistant bacteria originating from the animal reservoir, is of great concern. These unintended consequences of antimicrobial drug use in animals led to termination of antimicrobial growth promoters in food animals in countries in the European Union, including Denmark, where the consumption of antimicrobial drugs by production animals was reduced by 50% from 1994 to 2003 (1). In Denmark, the VetStat program monitors all veterinary use of medicines for animals. VetStat is based on reporting from the pharmacies and from veterinary practitioners and contains detailed information, such as animal species, reason for prescription, and dosage on each prescription. In Denmark, antimicrobial drugs can be obtained only by prescription and only at pharmacies. So far, use of antimicrobial drugs in companion animals has received little attention; monitoring programs have focused on antimicrobial drug consumption in food animals. According to data generated by the VetStat program in 2003, consumption of fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins in companion animals was substantial when compared to consumption in food animals (1). Fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins are antimicrobial drugs ranked by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as critically important in human medicine, and for which emergence of resistant bacteria is especially undesirable (2). Considering the shared environment of humans and companion animals, transfer of resistant bacteria or mobile resistance determinants from companion animals to humans would be possible, and emergence of resistance to fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins in companion animals should be a matter of concern. Several scientific publications have reported the occurrence of the same resistance genes in companion animals and in humans (3–6) and the possible transfer of bacteria between companion animals and humans (3–9). Companion animal owners and their families are likely in close contact with their animals daily, which provides the opportunity for transfer of bacteria between companion animals and humans. A large proportion of the human population presumably has daily contact with companion animals, not only in Denmark but also in other countries. In Denmark, 20% of families own dogs and 16% own cats (10). In 2002, legal restrictions aimed to reduce the usage of fluoroquinolones in food animals were imposed in Denmark. The total annual consumption of fluoroquinolones in animals (companion and food animals) in Denmark was reduced from 183 kg in 2001 to 53 kg in 2003 (1). Of these 53 kg of fluoroquinolones, almost half (24 kg) was used in companion animals (data based on reporting on use in veterinary practice and sales from pharmacies on prescription). These data document that fluoroquinolones remain widely used for infections in companion animals, even though the emergence of fluoroquinolone resistance in bacteria is especially undesirable and regarded as a human health hazard. A similar situation exists with cephalosporins. The total consumption of cephalosporins in animals (companion and food animals) in Denmark in 2003 was 461 kg, of which more than half (254 kg) was consumed by companion animals (1). Thus, a comparatively small number of companion animals (550,000 dogs and 650,000 cats) (10) consume approximately the same amount of fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins as consumed annually in the much larger population of food animals in Denmark (23 million slaughter pigs, 130 million broiler chickens, and 1.2 million cattle and dairy cows) (10). We do not believe that antimicrobial drugs are more generously prescribed for companion animals in Denmark than in other industrialized countries. Rather, the data presented here reflect the apparent contrast between policies of antimicrobial drug use for food animals and policies for companion animals. The use of these antimicrobial drugs is avoided or restricted in food animals to minimize spread of resistance, while in companion animals prescription continues unimpeded. This situation may create undesirable antimicrobial drug resistance in bacteria, which may subsequently spread to humans from the previously neglected reservoir in companion animals.

This open access book is the biography of one of Britain’s foremost animal welfare campaigners and of the world of activism, science, and politics she inhabited. In 1964, Ruth Harrison’s bestseller Animal Machines triggered a gear change in modern animal protection by popularising the term ‘factory farming’ alongside a new way of thinking about animal welfare. Here, historian Claas Kirchhelle explores Harrison’s avant-garde upbringing, Quakerism, and how animal welfare debates were linked to concerns about the wider ethical and environmental trajectories of post-war Britain. Breaking the myth of Harrison as a one-hit wonder, Kirchhelle reconstructs Harrison’s 46 years of campaigning and the rapid transformation of welfare politics and science during this time. Exacerbated by Harrison’s own actions, the decades after 1964 saw a polarisation of animal politics, a professionalisation of British activism, and the rise of a new animal welfare science. Harrison’s belief in incremental reform allowed her to form ties to leading scientists but alienated her from more radical campaigners. Many of her 1964 demands gradually became part of mainstream politics. However, farm animal welfare’s increasing marketisation has also led to a relative divorce from the wider agenda of social improvement that Harrison once bore witness to. this is the first book to cast light on the interlinked and frequently uneasy histories of post-war British animal welfare activism, science, and legislation. Its unique scope allows it to go beyond limited existing accounts of modern British animal welfare and will be of interest to those interested in animal welfare, environmentalism, and the behavioural sciences.