Search

Fish resilience can be understood as the capacity of fish to successfully respond to a challenge so that they are able to function and flourish in much the same way as they did prior to the occurrence of the challenge. Resilience is a function not only of individual fish, but also of a whole fish population. Enhancing the resilience of fish requires both adapting the robustness of the animals and adapting the (production) environment to the specific needs of the fish. Rather than a mere biological capacity of fish, resilience also comes with ethical questions. These questions occur at four levels. First, in practice resilience often comes with a “rhetoric” of optimalization. The view that aquaculture that strives for resilient fish is good for both fish welfare and production is inherently normative. It assumes a ‘win–win situation’, but thereby makes certain normative assumptions. Second, especially when the win–win situation is not achievable, resilience means making trade‐offs between preferred responses to challenges from the perspective of individual animals and groups or between individual housing and larger aquaculture systems. Third, the discussions on resilience and fish demonstrate the need to move beyond an animal welfare framework when discussing the treatment of fish in aquaculture. Recently, animal ethics has seen a turn towards centering animals' own agency. This means that we should not only focus on improving animal welfare, but also on asking what the animals themselves want and how they can be given more control over their situation. This may also impact the definition of resilience and how it is made operational. Finally, the use of the concept of resilience may reveal a certain moral outlook with regard to fish. On the one hand, resilience is portrayed as a positive characteristic of animals that enables improvement of the quality of life of fish. At the same time, it raises the question of how far we should stretch the “manufacturability” of fish. When we physically adapt animals so that they can cope with difficult circumstances we may be stretching moral boundaries. For example, this raises the objection that we are instrumentalizing animals. In this article, we reflect on these types of ethical issues and aim to show that the ethical dimensions of resilience need to be taken into account by professionals in aquaculture in order to make resilience operational and to contribute to a responsible interaction with fish in aquaculture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Animals, including humans, frequently make decisions involving risk or uncertainty. Different strategies in these decisions can be advantageous depending the circumstances. Short sleep duration seems to be associated with more risky decisions in humans. Animal models for risk-based decision making can increase mechanistic understanding, but very little data is available concerning the effects of sleep. We combined primary- and meta-research to explore the relationship between sleep and risk-based decision making in animals. Our first objective was to create an overview of the available animal models for risky decision making. We performed a systematic scoping review. Our searches in Pubmed and Psychinfo retrieved 712 references, of which 235 were included. Animal models for risk-based decision making have been described for rodents, non-human primates, birds, pigs and honey-bees. We discuss task designs and model validity. Our second objective was to apply this knowledge and perform a pilot study on the effect of sleep deprivation. We trained and tested male Wistar rats on a probability discounting task; a "safe" lever always resulted in 1 reward, a "risky" lever resulted in 4 or no rewards. Rats adapted their preferences to variations in reward probabilities (p < 0.001), but 12 h of sleep deprivation during the light phase did not clearly alter risk preference (p = 0.21). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The idea of One Health acknowledges the interdependence of human and non-human animal health against the backdrop of a shared environment. This requires collaboration across disciplines to tackle complex health problems. How does One Health affect the education of veterinary ethics, traditionally restricted to both animal and professional ethics? First, veterinary ethics education provides an opportunity within the curriculum for students to engage with the meaning and implication of One Health, so as to develop their own viewpoint. Similarly, One Health can enrich veterinary ethics. It does so by introducing relevant ethical fields and other cultural perspectives, as well as promoting ways of teaching that motivate and sensitize students to become aware of the underlying interdependency and complexity of health issues while at the same time fostering their capacity for ethical problem solving. What does One Health imply for veterinary ethics education? In order to answer this question, we will first have to establish what One Health itself involves. The meaning and scope of One Health, however, cannot be established without reference to its values—whose health matters? Veterinary ethics education is well equipped to facilitate such an open-ended inquiry into multispecies health. One Health also widens the scope of veterinary ethics by making salient, among other fields, environmental ethics, global health justice, and non-Western approaches to ethics. Finally, One Health requires students to engage with interdependence. Discussing three levels of interdependence, we argue that veterinary ethics stands to benefit from a more contemplative pedagogy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While the term reproducibility crisis mainly reflects reproducibility of experiments between laboratories, reproducibility between species also remains problematic. We previously summarised the published reproducibility between animal and human studies; i.e. the translational success rates, which varied from 0% to 100%. Based on analyses of individual factors, we could not predict reproducibility. Several potential analyses can assess effect of combinations of predictors on an outcome. Regression analysis (RGA) is common, but not ideal to analyse multiple interactions and specific configurations (≈ combinations) of variables, which could be highly relevant to reproducibility. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is based on set theory and Boolean algebra, and was successfully used in other fields. We reanalysed the data from our preceding review with QCA., Results: This QCA resulted in the following preliminary formula for successful translation: ∼Old*∼Intervention*∼Large*MultSpec*Quantitative Which means that within the analysed dataset, the combination of relative recency (∼ means not; >1999), analyses at event or study level (not at intervention level), n < 75, inclusion of more than one species and quantitative (instead of binary) analyses always resulted in successful translation (>85%). Other combinations of factors showed less consistent or negative results. An RGA on the same data did not identify any of the included variables as significant contributors., Conclusions: While these data were not collected with the QCA in mind, they illustrate that the approach is viable and relevant for this research field. The QCA seems a highly promising approach to furthering our knowledge on between-species reproducibility., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

When non-human animals are labeled as 'pests', their moral status and welfare seem relatively unimportant. In a multi-stakeholder project, we develop an assessment frame for a more responsible rodent management that includes animal welfare. An online survey among 129 Dutch pest controllers was carried out in order to find out more about pest controllers' attitudes about animal welfare. Respondents indicate to consider animal welfare in their job. They see differences in the welfare impact of different rodent control methods. A dilemma may occur when methods with a high impact, such as rodenticides, are ofttimes used in practice. Respondents also indicate that in different real-life scenarios (the hospital kitchen vs. the private backyard), a different weight may be attributed to the importance of animal welfare. Almost half of the respondents encounter difficulties when weighing animals against human interests. The problems are mainly related to clients who are not willing to invest sufficient money in preventive methods, where respondents do believe in. Some differences were found between respondents depending on membership of a professional association for pest controllers. The results of this study are relevant input for focus groups with pest controllers and their clients and for the development of the aforementioned assessment frame.