The Growing Pain of Animal Welfare Weaponization: Get the Ghost Out of the Machine.

Simple SummaryThis research looked at how sheep farmers and industry actors in the UK understand, think about, and define “positive animal welfare”. It, therefore, involved interviewing farmers and industry experts, including veterinarians and advisors. The study found that how the farmers (n = 25) and industry actors (n = 11) perceived and viewed what positive animal welfare is differed from those perceptions held by scientists. Some of the study participants linked positive welfare to “positive stockmanship” and “good animal welfare” frames, while others proposed broader ideas and meanings, linked to existing scientific positive welfare definitions, including considering “high welfare” states and “happy, healthy” dimensions. Overall, the findings suggested that scientists should work closely with farmers and industry actors to bridge the gap between academic discourse and perceived meanings held by the farmers and by the industry, to develop practical and effective methods for understand how stakeholders define this concept, and the adoption of positive animal welfare approaches and practices.This research examines how sheep farmers and industry actors in the United Kingdom (UK) understand and conceptualize what animal welfare scientists term ‘positive animal welfare’. It explores their awareness of the concept, and how they interpret it using a qualitative approach. Participants were recruited using a snowballing, purposive sample approach, resulting in 25 sheep farmers and 11 industry actors (veterinarians, farming organizations, advisors, and supply chain) being interviewed. To collect data, a combined approach involving semi-structured interviews and a facilitated workshop were used between April 2021 and March 2022. Data were then thematically analyzed using a hybrid of inductive and deductive coding process. The findings suggested that the perceptions of farmers and industry actors in the study regarding positive welfare differ from contemporary academic discourses. Overall, around 7 of the farmers equated positive welfare with “positive stockmanship”, while six of them expressed “good animal welfare” definitions associated with the Five Freedoms. In contrast, most industry actors (6) expressed interpretations associated with high welfare standards (going above minimum recommended practices) and positive mental experiences (3). Emerging discourses revealed the link between self-identity, social identity and what positive welfare is, the importance of knowledge exchange, and the need for practical indicators through language rephrasing. There is a clear need to enhance and improve knowledge dissemination strategies, particularly in the UK, where much research is being conducted on positive animal welfare.

Simple SummaryThe words used to communicate farm animal welfare to non-specialists may be more important than knowledge of welfare itself. Framing research finds that human perception is influenced, not by what is said, but by how something is said. By increasing the emphasis placed on animals having positive experiences, positive animal welfare changes the framing of farm animal welfare. Yet, we do not know how such framing of animal welfare may influence the perceptions of key animal welfare stakeholders. In response, this study uses qualitative interviews to explore how citizens and farmers frame positive animal welfare and what this means for the effective communication of this concept. This study finds that ‘positive’ evokes associations with ‘negatives’ amongst citizens. This leads them to frame positive animal welfare as animals having ‘positive experiences’ or being ‘free from negative experiences’. Farmers rely more on their existing frames of animal welfare and integrate positive welfare into this. As such, most farmers frame positive welfare as ‘good husbandry’, a smaller number frame it as ‘proactive welfare improvement’, and a small number frame it as an ‘animal’s point of view’. The implications of such internal frames for effectively transferring positive welfare from science to society are further discussed.Human perception can depend on how an individual frames information in thought and how information is framed in communication. For example, framing something positively, instead of negatively, can change an individual’s response. This is of relevance to ‘positive animal welfare’, which places greater emphasis on farm animals being provided with opportunities for positive experiences. However, little is known about how this framing of animal welfare may influence the perception of key animal welfare stakeholders. Through a qualitative interview study with farmers and citizens, undertaken in Scotland, UK, this paper explores what positive animal welfare evokes to these key welfare stakeholders and highlights the implications of such internal frames for effectively communicating positive welfare in society. Results indicate that citizens make sense of positive welfare by contrasting positive and negative aspects of welfare, and thus frame it as animals having ‘positive experiences’ or being ‘free from negative experiences’. Farmers draw from their existing frames of animal welfare to frame positive welfare as ‘good husbandry’, ‘proactive welfare improvement’ or the ‘animal’s point of view’. Implications of such internal frames (e.g., the triggering of ‘negative welfare’ associations by the word ‘positive’) for the effective communication of positive welfare are also presented.

Simple SummaryIn the past, there was a strong focus on avoiding or reducing negative animal welfare in animal experimentation. Recently, the importance of promoting positive animal welfare in laboratory animals has been highlighted. To ensure and promote positive animal welfare, reliable methods to evaluate the animal’s emotional state are important. Important achievements have been made to assess pain and other negative states in animals in the last decades, and only recently have positive emotions been gaining more interest. Therefore, more methods allowing the assessment of emotional states in animals have been introduced. In this overview article, we present common and emerging methods to assess emotions in laboratory rodents. We focus on the use of these methods in applied refinement research to identify achieved progress as well as the potential of these tools to improve animal welfare in animal-based research and animal experimentation.An animal’s capacity to suffer is a prerequisite for any animal welfare concern, and the minimization of suffering is a key aim of refinement research. In contrast to the traditional focus on avoiding or reducing negative welfare states, modern animal welfare concepts highlight the importance of promoting positive welfare states in laboratory animals. Reliable assessments of affective states, as well as the knowledge of how to elicit positive affective states, are central to this concept. Important achievements have been made to assess pain and other negative affective states in animals in the last decades, but it is only recently that the neurobiology of positive emotions in humans and animals has been gaining more interest. Thereby, the need for promotion of positive affective states for laboratory animals is gaining more acceptance, and methods allowing the assessment of affective states in animals have been increasingly introduced. In this overview article, we present common and emerging methods to assess affective states in laboratory rodents. We focus on the implementation of these methods into applied refinement research to identify achieved progress as well as the future potential of these tools to improve animal welfare in animal-based research.

Positive animal welfare (PAW) is a rising topic in animal welfare science, although its construct, definition, and operational approach remain debated. Despite this scientific uncertainty, there is societal interest to include more indicators of positive welfare in legislation, animal welfare assessment and accreditation schemes. Changes in some farming practices seem to be in line with promoting PAW (e.g., free-range housing), providing animals more opportunities for positive experiences such as rewarding natural behaviour, greater autonomy, or choice. Interestingly, some of the ideas underlying PAW are present in extensive production systems or low-input animal management practices that are common in low-income countries, for example free-roaming livestock or village dogs. Nevertheless, welfare challenges such as neglect, diseases, poor nutrition, animal abuse and other forms of suffering remain ubiquitous, especially where resources like veterinary support are limited. Living conditions for animals in low-income countries provide examples of the delicate balance between positive welfare and welfare risks relating to health and survival, with inextricable ethical dilemmas. In our view, the growing focus on PAW could stimulate a more balanced approach to animal welfare worldwide, promoting PAW while simultaneously limiting various forms of welfare challenges. However, this requires accounting for human factors such as societal and cultural location-specific aspects to find flexible solutions that also benefit and respect people whose livelihood may be at stake. Those human factors also modulate the consideration and importance of providing animals with positive welfare states and the role of underlying ethical concepts like happiness and “a good life.”

Social dimension of emotions and its implication for animal welfare

In answer to the question ‘who writes the rules?’ relative to animal welfare the only accurate answer there can be is that the animal writes the rules. However in deciding the current animal welfare standards adopted by society the consumer plays a key rôle as the retail market is constantly working to meet the consumer's concerns. The consumer has a real, if often uninformed, concern regarding animal welfare. Animal welfare science clearly demonstrates that current systems are often at odds with the needs of animals. Ethical sectors of the food chain will put in place systems which reflect knowledge of animal welfare science as far as is currently possible and not merely the consumer perception in this area. The ability to deliver good animal welfare depends upon the willingness of the food chain to provide and the consumer to pay. The development of assurance schemes which truly address animal welfare science, translated into accurate labelling and backed by an awareness programme will make it easy for consumers to take the responsibility which, as citizens, they wish to do. We will then have an accurate picture of society's concerns to which the food chain can respond.

The study of animal welfare is essential for undergraduates seeking to pursue careers with animals, yet pedagogical research on this topic is limited. While animal welfare is an accepted (albeit relatively new) scientific discipline, student views on animal welfare as a science require further exploration. This article reports the findings from a mixed-methods action research project undertaken at Harper Adams University (HAU) in the UK. Undergraduate student questionnaire responses (n = 123) revealed key attitudinal constructs related to animal welfare, and relationships to demographic factors. Students overwhelmingly defined animal welfare in terms of health; however, rural (compared to urban) students more often perceived ‘naturalness’ as important in the maintenance of good welfare. Notions of what constitutes good animal welfare appeared to be mediated by prospective career paths. For instance, veterinary nursing students were more likely to define animal welfare based upon resource-based measures and appropriate treatment of animals, which may link to their future role in educating clients on these topics. Finally, student attitudes toward animal welfare science revealed deeper epistemological views on the meaning of ‘science’. That is, natural sciences were seen as trustworthy; students invoked the Scientific Method and disciplines such as neurobiology to bring credence to animal welfare science. Conversely, aspects of animal welfare addressed by the social sciences were dismissed as unscientific. Based on these results, recommendations for action are proposed, which include further research into the attitudes of educators, strategies for engaging with dissatisfied student groups, and elevating the social sciences within animal welfare curricula.

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.

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.

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.

Whether and to what extent animals experience emotions is crucial for understanding their decisions and behaviour, and underpins a range of scientific fields, including animal behaviour, neuroscience, evolutionary biology and animal welfare science. However, research has predominantly focused on alleviating negative emotions in animals, with the expression of positive emotions left largely unexplored. Therefore, little is known about positive emotions in animals and how their expression is mediated. We used tail handling to induce a negative mood in laboratory mice and found that while being more anxious and depressed increased their expression of a discrete negative emotion (disappointment), meaning that they were less resilient to negative events, their capacity to express a discrete positive emotion (elation) was unaffected relative to control mice. Therefore, we show not only that mice have discrete positive emotions, but that they do so regardless of their current mood state. Our findings are the first to suggest that the expression of discrete positive and negative emotions in animals is not equally affected by long-term mood state. Our results also demonstrate that repeated negative events can have a cumulative effect to reduce resilience in laboratory animals, which has significant implications for animal welfare.

Whether and to what extent animals experience emotions is crucial for understanding their decisions and behaviour, and underpins a range of scientific fields, including animal behaviour, neuroscience, evolutionary biology and animal welfare science. However, research has predominantly focused on alleviating negative emotions in animals, with the expression of positive emotions left largely unexplored. Therefore, little is known about positive emotions in animals and how their expression is mediated. We used tail handling to induce a negative mood in laboratory mice and found that while being more anxious and depressed increased their expression of a discrete negative emotion (disappointment), meaning that they were less resilient to negative events, their capacity to express a discrete positive emotion (elation) was unaffected relative to control mice. Therefore, we show not only that mice have discrete positive emotions, but that they do so regardless of their current mood state. Our findings are the first to suggest that the expression of discrete positive and negative emotions in animals is not equally affected by long-term mood state. Our results also demonstrate that repeated negative events can have a cumulative effect to reduce resilience in laboratory animals, which has significant implications for animal welfare.

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.

Friends with benefits: Social support and its relevance for farm animal welfare

Simple SummaryConsidering that there are many ways to approach animal welfare, we aimed to study the value attributed to the animals themselves in scientific papers about farm animals published in animal welfare (AW) and animal production (AP) journals over time. All the papers were analyzed by five assessors, resulting in moderate agreement because the language used in the animal welfare scientific literature is ambiguous in relation to why and for whom it is performed. The overall mean score was 5.60, showing a low consideration of the interest of animals, close to neutrality. While AW journal scored higher and improved over the decades, the AP average score was below 5.0 and did not improve with time. The statement of the main justification for animal welfare papers, with an explicit declaration of their motivational priorities is important for the improvement of animal welfare science.There are, in the literature, distinct ways to approach animal welfare. The objective of this work was to study the value attributed to farm animals in the scientific papers published in animal welfare and animal production journals at three different points in time, separated by a decade each. The first ten papers mentioning “animal welfare” or “animal well-being” in their objectives or hypotheses from each journal and each focus year were selected. The 180 papers were blindly scored by five assessors between 1 and 10, according to the degree of intrinsic value attributed to animals. The overall mean score and standard deviation were 5.60 ± 2.49, with 6.46 ± 2.29 and 4.74 ± 2.40 for AW and AP journals, respectively, and 5.37 ± 2.44, 5.68 ± 2.52 and 5.75 ± 2.41 for the focus years of 2000, 2010 and 2020, respectively. There was an interaction between focus year and publication area: papers from AW journals scored better over time, in contrast with papers from AP journals, for which scores remained similar over decades. The inter-assessor agreement is moderate, which may reflect the subject complexity, as the language used in the papers studied was ambiguous in relation to why and for whom it is performed. The low overall mean score evidenced that the animal welfare scientific publications are, on average, not prioritizing the interests of the animals. Thus, our results evidenced the presence of animal welfarism in animal welfare science, a problem that seems not to be intrinsic to animal welfare science itself, but rather to the way research is frequently conceived, conducted, interpreted, summarized and applied. Therefore, it seems urgent to further study the motivation for animal welfare research. The statement of the main justification for animal welfare papers, with an explicit declaration of the motivational priorities that constitute each scientific animal welfare study, may be an interesting recommendation for the improvement of animal welfare science.