Search

This article discusses the importance of securing animal welfare during times of crisis and at the end of animals' lives outside of conventional slaughter. It highlights the need to prioritize the welfare of individual animals rather than focusing solely on the scale of impact. The article addresses various issues related to animal welfare, including the handling of animals before slaughter, the decision-making process for ending animals' lives, and alternative methods of killing animals. It emphasizes the need for further research and consideration of animal welfare in unconventional situations. [Extracted from the article]

Restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic may affect the lives of pet animals. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the welfare of pet cats across countries, as well as the owners' experience in relation to their cat(s). An online survey containing 21 questions was distributed internationally. Questions were related to information about the cat and its behaviour and health, changes in the household due to the pandemic, and how the owner related to the cat. The survey was completed by 324 respondents from 25 different countries. The survey showed that keeping pet cats during the COVID-19 pandemic did not create problems for the owners, except some difficulties in acquiring veterinary care. The majority (67.3%) of respondents reported no changes in their cats' behaviour. When behavioural changes were reported, they were mostly of a positive nature. Owners who took more measures in relation to the cat to prevent the spread of the virus, e.g., reduced contact, were 1.8 times more likely to report changes in the behaviour of their cats but also 3.8 times more likely to report difficulties related to the care of the cat during the pandemic. Two-third of the respondents indicated a reduction of their own psychological tensions due to having a cat during the pandemic. We concluded that the welfare of pet cats, as reported by the owners, was not adversely affected by the pandemic and the human-cat interaction had positive effects on the owners during the lockdown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Animal welfare scientists have accumulated knowledge and developed interventions to improve livestock welfare, but these are poorly adopted in commercial practice. Animal welfare interventions are rarely tested for economic viability and this limits their uptake. This study employs Stochastic Partial Budgeting (SPB) to determine the viability of animal welfare improvements. Aggression between pigs is used as an example because there is a large literature base from which to draw interventions, and the problem has persisted for decades without resolution. Costs and benefits of three interventions to control aggression (pre-weaning socialisation, synthetic maternal pheromones and large social groups) were estimated by reviewing the academic and industry literature and by conducting a survey of sixteen pig farmers. The net effects were compared to farmers' willingness to pay (WTP) for interventions to reduce aggression as identified by recent research. Results are consistent with prior research which indicates that improving animal welfare generally comes at a cost to producers. Nevertheless, pre-weaning socialisation resulted in a neutral or positive net effect 38% of the time and should be central to campaigns promoting the control of aggression in the industry. Exposing pigs to synthetic maternal pheromones did not improve profitability but the net costs were small and within the realms of WTP for a sub-group of farmers with animal welfare goals. The net costs of converting existing buildings in order to house pigs in large social groups were beyond the realms of farmers' WTP. The approach adopted in this study, of combining SPB with WTP from the sector, should be extended to other animal welfare issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intensive animal production practices lead to animal suffering worldwide. This study examined whether farmers cope with the negative impact of farming practices on their animals by ascribing them less capacity to suffer compared with other species. Most people like eating meat but find animal suffering emotionally disturbing. Human omnivores employ a variety of strategies to navigate this "meat paradox," and one of these is to reduce their perception of animals' capacity to suffer. Psychological defenses associated with meat-eating have been widely researched, but this study provides the first investigation into how these are employed amongst those involved in meat production and focusses on intensive pig producers as an example. Seventy-six pig farmers reported their belief in pigs' capacity to experience pain, hunger, fear, and boredom in a paper-based survey employing visual analogue scales. Their responses were compared with their perceptions of livestock that they did not farm (cows) and two companion animal species (dogs and cats). These results were compared with people who had similar experience of working with pigs (15 specialized pig veterinarians) and those who had no experience of pigs (23 agricultural students, 22 animal science students, and 58 citizens unrelated to agriculture). The results of the 194 responses provide evidence to suggest that the pig farmers did not ascribe their animals a diminished capacity to suffer. Rather, pig farmers expressed an enhanced belief in pigs' capacity to experience hunger. All comparison groups expressed widespread belief in each species' capacity to suffer. Nevertheless, dogs were the species judged to be most capable of suffering, and animal science students gave the highest suffering scores overall. Farmers are directly responsible for the welfare of their animals, and further investigation into the psychological and behavioral strategies of farmers may provide insight into non-financial reasons behind the generally slow progress in improving animal welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When deciding whether to invest in an improvement to animal welfare, farmers must trade-off the relative costs and benefits. Despite the existence of effective solutions to many animal welfare issues, farmers' willingness to pay for them is largely unknown. This study modelled pig farmers' decisions to improve animal welfare using a discrete choice experiment focused on alleviating aggression between growing/finishing pigs at regrouping. Eighty-two UK and Irish pig farm owners and managers were asked to choose between hypothetical aggression control strategies described in terms of four attributes; installation cost, on-going cost, impact on skin lesions from aggression and impact on growth rate. If they did not like any of the strategies they could opt to keep their current farm practice. Systematic variations in product attributes allowed farmers' preferences and willingness to pay to be estimated and latent class modelling accounted for heterogeneity in responses. The overall willingness to pay to reduce lesions was low at £0.06 per pig place (installation cost) and £0.01 per pig produced (running cost) for each 1% reduction in lesions. Results revealed three independent classes of farmers. Farmers in Class 1 were unlikely to regroup unfamiliar growing/finishing pigs, and thus were unwilling to adopt measures to reduce aggression at regrouping. Farmers in Classes 2 and 3 were willing to adopt measures providing certain pre-conditions were met. Farmers in Class 2 were motivated mainly by business goals, whilst farmers in Class 3 were motivated by both business and animal welfare goals, and were willing to pay the most to reduce aggression; £0.11 per pig place and £0.03 per pig produced for each 1% reduction in lesions. Farmers should not be considered a homogeneous group regarding the adoption of animal welfare innovations. Instead, campaigns should be targeted at subgroups according to their independent preferences and willingness to pay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dietary Yucca schidigera extract (YSE) could enhance immune function in broilers, which was attributed primarily to its saponin components. However, YSE also contains phenolic compounds which possess antioxidant ability. This study tested the effects of YSE on growth performance of broilers, its antioxidative enzyme activities and corresponding gene expressions in the small intestine. A total of 128 15‐day‐old broilers were randomly assigned to 4 treatments: corn‐soya bean meal as the basal control diet or the basal diet containing either 100, 200 or 300 mg/kg of YSE. Each treatment consisted of four replicate pens with eight broilers per pen. The experiment lasted 28 days which was divided into a grower period (day: 15–28) and a finisher period (day: 29–42). On day 28 and day 42 body weight (BW), feed intake (FI) and feed conversion rate (FCR) were recorded. Duodenum, jejunum and ileum were collected to analyse superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GPx) activities, malondialdehyde (MDA) concentrations, total antioxidant capacity (T‐AOC) and gene expressions of SOD, CAT, GPx. The results showed that during the grower period a diet including 100 mg/kg YSE improved CAT capacity in the ileum, tended to increase activities of GPx in the duodenum, and further showed enhancing tendencies in SOD and GPx abilities in ileum. Gene expressions of CAT, SOD and GPx in the ileum tended to upregulate at 100 mg/kg YSE level. In the finisher period and over the whole period, all YSE groups had a reduced FI compared to the control group without compromising BW; 100 and 200 mg/kg YSE significantly improved FCR. In conclusion, the improved growth performance of broilers during the finisher period may be due to enhanced antioxidative ability in the grower period with YSE supplementation. This study provided evidence of using YSE as an additive to enhance growth in broilers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]