Search

Civet coffee is produced with coffee beans that have passed through the digestive tract of civets which are then processed for drinking. Outlets, known as civet coffee tourism plantations are popular tourist attractions in Bali, Indonesia. These outlets keep caged civets for public viewing and sell civet coffee. We assessed civet welfare in 29 civet coffee tourism plantations to assess husbandry factors, the five freedoms and body condition scores. We also assessed civet welfare in eight wildlife markets where civets are sourced for civet coffee tourism and calculated turnover of civets. We found 99 civets in civet coffee tourism plantations and 136 in markets, where. Annually between 400 and 800 civets are sold. Welfare standards do not meet the Indonesian laws and regulations. Diet, hygiene, presence of water and mobility affected body condition scores and no civet met all of the five freedoms. Enforcement of welfare and trade laws is needed to improve civet welfare, and to curb the illegal civet trade. Tourists frequenting civet coffee tourism plantations should be made aware of the low welfare standards to inform their choice about supporting this industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Can humans engage with farm animals in a way that maintains, perhaps enhances, the welfare of farm animals? Can communities learn to engage with farm animals in a manner similar to that of companion animals? Is it even fair to ask about farm animals? We hope to offer a contribution to this discussion, using a case study from People and Animals UK CIC to explore the impact of farm animals on people and their communities, but with a focus on how farm design and session delivery might impact the animal within the dynamic.

Zookeepers working with felids were asked to complete an online survey to examine their perceptions of animal welfare. A total of 121 zookeepers in an AZA‐accredited zoo completed the survey. Results from this study suggest that institutional offerings of professional development programming in animal welfare have the greatest potential to influence zookeeper perceptions of animal welfare. Participants also identified four areas of improvement for felid welfare, including 1) larger and more dynamic spaces, 2) increased attention to behavioral husbandry, 3) more unique diet presentations, and 4) the ability for the animal to remain out of the view of the public. In addition, there appear to be differences in perception between traditionally described "small cat" and "large cat" keepers in terms of the ability to deliver the Five Freedoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Summa, Animali da Reddito is the property of Point Veterinaire Italie s.r.l. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

For businesses involved in animal production, ensuring high animal welfare standards has become the cornerstone of corporate social responsibility practices. Since animal welfare cannot be verified by consumers at the point of purchase, industry-led audits provide important assurance that animals used to produce food lived an acceptable quality of life and experienced a humane death. The Five Freedoms offer a simple tool to conceptualize the complex, multi-dimensional concept of animal welfare, and they have been widely adopted as a basic operational framework for compliance. However, the Five Freedoms are problematic in that they focus on the absence of negative welfare states, underemphasize the importance of positive experiences, are absolute, and represent a (mostly unattainable) ideal. The Five Domains model represents inter-related aspects of an animal’s welfare state, with four physical/functional domains used to infer likely mental experiences in the fifth domain. This model allows for consideration of both positive and negative affective experiences, recognizes degrees of welfare compromise, acknowledges that animals cannot be free from all negative experiences (and that indeed, some are essential for survival). Thus, the model better reflects current scientific understanding of animal welfare and – that ultimately, we are interested in how animals experience their lives. Nevertheless, caution is needed when inferring mental states, which can never be directly observed or measured, and hence the ultimate outcomes of the model’s application should be qualitative. Operationalization of the Five Domains offers several opportunities to improve the breadth and quality of welfare audits for production animals. The model can incorporate both resource/management- based and animal-based measures of welfare; the former reflect risks to animals’ welfare while the latter often provide direct information on the animal’s welfare state at the time of assessment. Existing welfare indicators may be linked to relevant mental states and evaluated accordingly, and new metrics may be scientifically identified. Importantly, the Five Domains structure demands scrutiny of the affective state consequences to animals of housing, handling, and husbandry procedures, and could improve the effectiveness of animal welfare training for auditors and stockpersons. Adoption of the Five Domains framework could facilitate improved communication about animal welfare in the food chain with customers and consumers.

Sustainability is a complex theorem driven through the optimisation of interconnected economic, social and environmental parameters. Balancing trade-offs between these three parameters is used to define a sustainable system, and while economic and, to a degree, environmental parameters can be numericised, making optimisation more defined, social parameters are often more complex. In livestock systems, animal welfare is held as a central pillar of sustainability, but due to its complex nature, indicators of welfare are in practice often restricted to negative nutritional/environmental/health domains (e.g. poor food quality, injuries/diseases) rather than the wider more complex 'behavioural' or 'mental state' domain indicators (e.g. expression of rewarding behaviours). This perspective discusses the potential synergies and trade-offs between animal welfare and economic, societal and environmental pillars of sustainability for grazing ruminant systems. Grazing is often considered more animal welfare-friendly than housed or feedlot type systems, especially in relation to the behavioural and mental state domains (BMSD) within a more 'natural' environment, as it may provide a positive experience to the animal. However, the welfare status of grazing ruminants can differ with factors such as management practices and environmental conditions greatly influencing nutritional/environmental/health domains of welfare, where a more 'controlled environment' can be efficacious. Animals that are not maintained at a good level of welfare will not express their productive potential, although improving welfare standards may lead to higher costs of production and therefore an economic break, as a critical component of sustainability, is often applied to what can be achieved on farm. Increasing animal performance is seen as an effective approach to reducing emissions intensity, which has been borne out by the lower methane intensity of high-yielding dairy housed herds, although there are important ethical concerns regarding BMSD of animal welfare and the marked restriction in environmental choices and in foraging behaviour (negative effect on behavioural interactions). However, consumers need to understand that implementing more 'natural' production systems with higher animal welfare standards can incur extra costs for producers, leading to higher output prices and also higher emissions per unit of product, which will require a reduction in consumption to reduce overall emissions. Grazing is often considered more animal welfare friendly than housed or feedlot type systems, especially in relation to the behavioural and mental state domains within a more 'natural' environment. However, the welfare status, productivity level and environmental impact of grazing ruminants can differ with factors, such as management practices and environmental conditions. Therefore, it is important to identify the potential synergies and trade-offs with other components of sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in technology have led to precision livestock management, a developing research field. Precision livestock management has potential to improve sustainable meat production through continuous, real-time tracking which can help livestock managers remotely monitor and enhance animal welfare in extensive rangeland systems. The combination of global positioning systems (GPS) and accessible data transmission gives livestock managers the ability to locate animals in arduous weather, track animal patterns throughout the grazing season, and improve handling practices. Accelerometers fitted to ear tags or collars have the potential to identify behavioral changes through variation in the intensity of movement that can occur during grazing, the onset of disease, parturition or responses to other environmental and management stressors. The ability to remotely detect disease, parturition, or effects of stress, combined with appropriate algorithms and data analysis, can be used to notify livestock managers and expedite response times to bolster animal welfare and productivity. The “Five Freedoms” were developed to help guide the evaluation and impact of management practices on animal welfare. These freedoms and welfare concerns differ between intensive (i.e., feed lot) and extensive (i.e., rangeland) systems. The provisions of the Five Freedoms can be used as a conceptual framework to demonstrate how precision livestock management can be used to improve the welfare of livestock grazing on extensive rangeland systems.

The current study set out to examine the perceptions of felid welfare in zoos and elucidate the factors that influence an individual animal care professional's acceptance and recognition of welfare. A total of 121 felid keepers employed in an Association of Zoos & Aquariums facility were included in analysis. Results demonstrate job satisfaction is directly linked to access to training on welfare topics. The relationship between job satisfaction and the fulfillment of the Five Freedoms is positively correlated. Additionally, overall job satisfaction does not appear to influence the bond with felids, but it does with other zoo animals. Those with lower reported job satisfaction demonstrate an overall lower bond with nonfelids, where this not observed in felids. Participants in this study demonstrate the direct connection between job satisfaction and perceived fulfillment of the Five Freedoms. Participants who were provided access to training and information on animal welfare often demonstrated a higher job satisfaction, more positive perception of their employer, and overall view of zoos meeting the Five Freedoms with captive felids. Research Highlights: Results demonstrate job satisfaction is directly linked to access to training on welfare topics. The relationship between job satisfaction and the fulfillment of the Five Freedoms is positively correlated, r(116) =.217, p =.001.Overall job satisfaction does not appear to influence the bond with felids, but it does with other zoo animals. Those with lower reported job satisfaction demonstrate an overall lower bond with nonfelids, where this not observed in felids.Participants in this study demonstrate the direct connection between job satisfaction and perceived fulfillment of the Five Freedoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT: Mandating free range husbandry as a requirement for organic egg designation remains a prevailing sentiment within a segment of the organic community. The proponents maintain that such management practice ensures high hen welfare and enhanced wholesomeness of the egg. However, evidence from the field, especially in the European Union (EU), contradicts these assumptions. In many cases, hens allowed outdoor access were more subject to increased injury from predators and from flock mates, disease was more prevalent and generally more severe, and, as a result, higher mortality was routinely observed in these individuals compared with those raised indoors. The safety of eggs from free range hens is also questionable. Outdoor access compromises biosecurity efforts to curtail interaction of hens with rodents and wild birds, increasing the risk of flock Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis infection and consequent production of Salmonella-contaminated eggs. Even more serious, soil contaminated with dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls, carcinogenic industrial by-products widespread in the environment, can be ingested by hens foraging outdoors. These compounds will subsequently be deposited into the egg yolks, many times at high levels, creating a serious food safety issue for the consuming public. Such findings provide evidence that hens exposed to a free-range environment may exhibit neither an enhanced welfare nor produce the safe wholesome egg that consumers expect.

Advances in animal welfare science have led to a high number of studies published for farm, laboratory and zoo animals, with a huge breadth of innovative topic areas and methodologies. This paper investigates the different approaches used to undertake welfare research in farm, laboratory and zoo animals due to the variety of constraints that each group brings. We also set recommendations to how groups can support each other in moving forwards to reduce animal suffering and promote a life worth living, a goal that all parties aim to achieve. We propose that researchers develop more collaborations across species, in particular to focus on the applied component of animal welfare and utilizing positive welfare indicators; facilitate knowledge transfer and share good practice worldwide; and accept small n based studies that can still be scientifically robust and provide individual-based steps into advances in our knowledge. Ultimately, we need to be progressing animal welfare science to a point beyond legislative needs, and ensure that "high animal welfare" becomes an additional mission statement for all animal-based industries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the attitude of stakeholders towards animals is critical for the development and improvement of animal welfare in a country. College students from veterinary, animal, and life sciences majors represent future key stakeholders that will interact with professionals from animal industries. Therefore, it is critical to understand these college students’ attitudes towards animals and their knowledge about animal welfare. The present survey aimed to investigate Chinese college students’ concerns towards different animal classes (i.e., pets, farm, laboratory, and wild animals) through the animal Sentient and Five Freedoms models. Chinese college students from different majors (i.e., related to animal sciences or not) scored very well in their attitude towards both the animal Sentient and Five Freedoms models, with differences depending on the animal class considered. Pets (dogs and cats) had better consideration for both animal Sentient and Five Freedoms models, followed by wild animals, while farm and laboratory animals were less considered. Veterinary science major students showed the strongest differences in attitudes depending on the animal classes considered compared to other majors. Furthermore, respondents showed better attitude scoring if they currently owned or had owned animals, had participated in animal welfare courses, or in laboratory work that involved animals. When compared to previous studies, our results suggest a general improvement of Chinese college students’ attitudes towards animals.

The objective of this research is to investigate how the current animal welfare regulatory approach in Australia is applied to domesticated rabbits with emphasis on rabbits used for meat. Australia’s animal welfare regime is critically examined by assessing the effectiveness of the Model Code of Practice for Animal Welfare: Intensive Husbandry of Rabbits (MCOPIHR) and the Five Freedoms in practice and what they mean to the actual wellbeing of rabbits in meat farms. Recent scientific knowledge in animal behaviour informs us that keeping any animal in extreme confinement, such as rabbits used for meat in intensive farms, has serious welfare concerns resulting in physical and psychological suffering. It is within this context that this thesis asks whether the concept of animal welfare in the caged rabbit meat industry is in effect an oxymoron. This thesis draws on work by Bekoff and Pierce’s ethological approach to support my critique of animal welfare practices in Australia’s rabbit meat industry. I also use Garner’s theory of incremental change in animal welfare reform, in which he argues for using current knowledge in animal welfare to push the boundaries of what is considered ‘unnecessary suffering’, as a social driver for a moral shift aimed at effecting law reform. To complement Garner’s political theory of incremental change I deploy Spira’s approach to advocacy, as practical tools for realising change.

The welfare of wild-caught animals in markets has generally been overlooked by both wildlife trade and welfare studies, despite the potential negative impacts on the animals. Morocco is a member of the World Organisation for Animal Health and has proposed draft legislation prohibiting mistreatment or abuse of animals in captivity. There is still, however, a bustling wild animal trade, and vendor compliance with industry-standard best practices is lacking. This study provides insight into the conditions of 2113 wild-caught animals in markets in six of the largest cities in Morocco by scoring their welfare based on four of the Farm Animal Welfare Committee Five Freedoms: freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom to express normal behavior, and freedom from distress. Over 88% of animals were housed in situations that broke all four of the freedoms measured, and only 9 animals were in situations that broke none. Access to water, sun/heat exposure, and ability to hide from stressors were particularly poor. We urge the Moroccan government to fulfill its commitment to establish welfare laws and devote resources to their application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, zookeepers’ role in monitoring and assessing zoo animal welfare is gaining importance. One hundred-sixteen zoo canid keepers responded to an online questionnaire aimed at assessing, on a 1 to 5 scoring scale, their perception of the importance and fulfilment of the Brambell’s Freedoms for zoo canids, the bond with canids under their care, and their level of job satisfaction. Results showed that zookeepers perceive the Brambell’s Freedoms as highly important (median = 5, min–max = 3–5), but not equally guaranteed (median = 3, min–max = 1–5, p < 0.01). Although there was no difference in their perception of the importance of each freedom, those related to psychological issues (median = 3, min–max = 1–5) were perceived as significantly less guaranteed than those addressing physical needs (median = 4.5, min–max = 1–5, Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.01). Female zookeepers tended to perceive all freedoms as more important (Ordinal Logistic Regression model, p = 0.009), as well as more guaranteed (Ordinal Logistic Regression model, p = 0.007), than male zookeepers. Regardless of gender, a more positive perception of the Brambell’s Freedoms for zoo canids was associated with higher job satisfaction (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.01, ρ = 0.241). The latter was also positively correlated with zookeepers’ perception of the strength of the bond with the canids under their care (Spearman Rho’s correlation, p = 0.01, ρ = 0.230). Our results highlight the need for zoos to focus on guaranteeing psychological welfare of their canids. Enhancing animal welfare may increase zookeepers’ job satisfaction.

The Council of Europe’s activities in the field of animal welfare are particularly noteworthy and comprise the elaboration of several norms for the protection of animals. Concerning the specific European Directive, Regulations or Convention for the protection of animals, the Authors underline the missing of specifics recommendations concerning the welfare of sport horses and especially of trotters. Guidelines are reported by regulation of equestrian sports. The paper’s purpose is to give practical elements to individuate the welfare state and to promote a clear regulation on welfare, care and protection of trotters.

In South Dakota, the status of equid well being is relatively unknown. This study sought to (a) gain understanding about the current perceptions of nonhuman animal well being in South Dakota, with an emphasis on horses and other equids; (b) determine the level of care equids are reportedly receiving and the perceived challenges to equine well being in South Dakota, and (c) determine if people from diverse geographical locations (east or west of the Missouri River) have similar views on the well being of equids in South Dakota. Respondents indicated the current level of equid well being in South Dakota is sufficient, but there is room for improvement. Current challenges for the equid population of South Dakota were the high annual cost of horse care, poor horsemanship, dental problems, and whether caregivers understand basic equine care. Several significant associations arose between where a respondent lives (Western or Eastern South Dakota) and their level of agreement with various statements. The results provide a benchmark to gauge well being and help give direction for future educational needs that can continue to improve equid care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethical considerations of animal protection and welfare require that the use of experimental animals is limited as much as possible. Animal experiments should only be performed when no alternative is available and when the benefit of the experiment outweighs the suffering of the animal. This review paper describes the basic principles for the ethical use of experimental animals. These are: "Three Rs rule" (replacement, reduction and refinement), "five freedoms" for animals and "Solna principles". "Replacement" means the substitution for conscious living higher animals of insentient material. "Reduction" means reduction in the numbers of animals used to obtain information of a given amount and precision. "Refinement" means any decrease in the incidence or severity of inhumane procedures applied to those animals which still have to be used. The "five freedoms" are: freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from adverse environmental impacts, freedom from disease and injury, freedom to exhibit normal behavior and freedom from adverse mental states. "Solna principles" state that tests for regulatory purposes need to reflect the following: biological Relevance (meaningfulness and usefulness of a test for a particular purpose), Reliability (reproducibility of results within and between laboratories), and Regulatory acceptability (suitability of a test for risk assessment purposes (human health /environment).

Although the Five Freedoms paradigm has been very influential in shaping animal welfare thinking for the last two decades, it has two key disadvantages. First, the focus on "freedom" from a range of negative experiences and states has been misunderstood in a number of quarters to mean that complete freedom from these experiences and states is possible, when in fact the best that can be achieved is for them to be minimised. Second, the major focus of the Freedoms on negative experiences and states is now seen to be a disadvantage in view of current understanding that animal welfare management should also include the promotion of positive experiences and states. The challenge therefore was to formulate a paradigm that overcame these two main problems and yet was straightforward enough to be accessible to non-specialists, including members of the lay public who are interested in animal welfare. This was achieved by highlighting the Five Provisions, originally aligned with the Five Freedoms, but now updated to direct welfare management towards activities that both minimise negative experiences or states and promote positive experiences or states as specified by particular Animal Welfare Aims assigned to each Provision. Aspects of the four welfare principles from the EuropeanWelfare Quality assessment system (WQ®) and elements of all domains of the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment have been incorporated into the new Five Provisions/Welfare Aims paradigm. Thus, the paradigm is easily understood and provides clear guidance on beneficial objectives for animal welfare management. It is anticipated that the paradigm will have application to many species found in a wide range of circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Five Freedoms have had major impact on animal welfare thinking internationally. However, despite clear initial statements that the words 'freedom from' should indicate 'as free as possible from', the Freedoms have come to be represented as absolute or fundamental freedoms, even rights, by some animal advocate and other groups. Moreover, a marked increase in scientific understanding over the last two decades shows that the Freedoms do not capture the more nuanced knowledge of the biological processes that is germane to understanding animal welfare and which is now available to guide its management. For example, the named negative experiences of thirst, hunger, discomfort and pain, and others identified subsequently, including breathlessness, nausea, dizziness, debility, weakness and sickness, can never be eliminated, merely temporarily neutralised. Each one is a genetically embedded element that motivates animals to behave in particular ways to obtain specific life-sustaining resources, avoid or reduce physical harm or facilitate recovery from infection or injury. Their undoubted negativity creates a necessary sense of urgency to respond, without which animals would not survive. Also, the temporary neutralisation of these survival-critical affects does not in and of itself generate positive experience. This questions the commonly held assumption that good animal welfare will result when these internally generated negative affects are minimised. Animals may also experience other negative affects that include anxiety, fear, panic, frustration, anger, helplessness, loneliness, boredom and depression. These situation-related affects reflect animals' perceptions of their external circumstances. Although they are elicited by threatening, cramped, barren and/or isolated conditions, they can often be replaced by positive affects when animals are kept with congenial others in spacious, stimulus-rich and safe environments which provide opportunities for them to engage in behaviours they find rewarding. These behaviours may include environment-focused exploration and food acquisition activities as well as animal-to-animal interactive activities, all of which can generate various forms of comfort, pleasure, interest, confidence and a sense of control. Animal welfare management should aim to reduce the intensity of survival-critical negative affects to tolerable levels that nevertheless still elicit the required behaviours, and should also provide opportunities for animals to behave in ways they find rewarding, noting that poor management of survival-critical affects reduces animals' motivation to utilize such rewarding opportunities. This biologically more accurate understanding provides support for reviewing the adequacy of provisions in current codes of welfare or practice in order to ensure that animals are given greater opportunities to experience positive welfare states. The purpose is to help animals to have lives worth living, which is not possible when the predominant focus of such codes is on survival-critical measures. Finally, an updated characterisation of animal welfare that incorporates this more accurate understanding is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Freedom from thirst is one of the most undeniable welfare requirements. Nevertheless, the welfare implication of water deprivation because of a particular situation (e.g., transport) or as an involuntary consequence (e.g., sick, injured, or subordinate animals) remains unclear. This experiment investigated the behavioral changes in laying hens following various durations of water deprivation by using a motivation test based on passing through a narrow, vertical gap to access water. Twenty laying hens were subjected to water deprivation for various durations (0, 12, 18, 24, or 32 h) and the cost of access was varied by changing the width of the vertical gap (150, 135, 120, or 100 mm) to access the water side of the testing cage. An incomplete randomized block design was used with two tests per hen per wk for 5 wk. The testing apparatus was identical to their home cage but with two cages connected through an adjustable vertical gap and a drinker on the other side. Hens spent more time in the control side rather than the water side at 100 mm compared to 120 mm (P = 0.03). The hens' willingness to pass through a narrow vertical gap in order to access water did not vary according to the duration of water deprivation. Nonetheless, water-deprivation duration had a marked effect on the hens' location and behavior. Hens spent more time in the vicinity of the drinker at 18, 24, and 32 h compared to 0 and 12 h (P < 0.05). Hens spent more time drinking at 24 h and 32 h, followed by 18, 12, and finally 0 h (P < 0.05). Drinking latency and frequency were higher for all water-deprivation durations as compared to the 0 h control (P < 0.05). Water deprivation can be characterized by behavioral changes such as drinking duration, reaching a plateau at 24 h. Complementary physiological data are warranted to fully assess the impact of water deprivation on hen welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Undercover investigations revealing abuse and headlines concerning deadly viruses are increasing awareness regarding how we treat farm animals intended for human consumption. Pictures on food products depicting hens and cows peacefully roaming in the grass outside a barn belie the current reality of factory farming and the suffering animals endure under this system. This policy analysis examines how animal welfare has been regulated in this country and exposes the multitude of exemptions that exist for farm animals. The federal Animal Welfare Act, Twenty-Eight Hour Law, Federal Meat Inspection Act, Humane Methods of Slaughtering Act, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act all fail to adequately regulate the treatment, care, and travel of agricultural animals. If states attempt to take matters into their own hands, they run into a host of preemption problems. Even for the regulations that do reach agricultural animals, not a single one embraces the Five Freedoms that are recommended according to the Farm Animal Welfare Council. These recommendations include that animals be free from hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, and distress, and that they be able to express their normal behavior. In an unprecedented move, Walmart recently announced that its suppliers will adhere to animal welfare standards embracing the Five Freedoms. However, Walmart’s policy has several shortcomings, including a voluntary compliance regime and no deadline for implementation. Nevertheless Walmart’s animal welfare policy is likely this country’s best hope for shifting current practices away from factory farming in favor of more humane and healthy handling of agricultural animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Broiler chicken welfare regulation at farm level is scarce in Brazil. This research aimed to study good agricultural practices at farm level adopted by broiler chicken companies in the state of Paraná, analyzing them in relation to the promotion of animal welfare. Twenty exporting companies were contacted, 15 answered the questionnaire. The participating companies were responsible for 76.3% of the State broiler production. Indicators related to the availability and the quality of food and water are being adapted by the companies, but still need to be improved. Regarding environmental indicators, companies had concerns about air and litter quality and about the implementation of emergency systems on totally enclosed broiler houses. Natural light has been replaced by low intensity artificial lighting. Footpad dermatitis was the most cited disease used as a sanitary indicator (93.3%), but little information was given about the maximum percentages allowed. Environmental enrichment is not used in poultry houses. This study identified agricultural programs with positive and negative impacts on animal welfare. Investments on research seem to be the only way to conduct changes on broiler chicken chain without reducing the quality of animals' life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intensification of farm animal welfare debate has led to an increasing number of certification schemes covering this issue; however, there are concerns about the contribution of these schemes in improving welfare. The aims of this study were to identify certification schemes for broiler chicken welfare at farm level in Brazil, to investigate the extent of nutritional, environmental, health and behavioral indicators within the schemes and to analyze the content of scheme and the capacity to promote continuous improvement on certified farms. GLOBALG.A.P. and Certified Humane were the only schemes observed, corresponding to 2.1 % of broiler chicken farms in Brazil. Environmental and health indicators were in greater number, and the requirements classified as behavioral indicator were commonly related to the resolution of low levels of animal welfare. Both schemes were in accordance with the European Food Safety Authority recommendations for farmer training, birds and buildings inspection, temperature control, air and litter quality, stocking density and lighting. The selection of breeds and the use of animal-based indicators needs to be improved, as well the inclusion animal welfare objectives and management review as part of continuous improvement. Welfare certification is a potential market to be developed in Brazil. Overall, assessed schemes may potentially enhance animal welfare at farm level by including new concepts and practices. It is desirable to increase the number of certified farms in Brazil and that certification schemes be critically analyzed on a regular basis regarding their content to meet new demands and to include updates from scientific research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Council of Europe's activities in the field of animal welfare are particularly noteworthy and comprise the elaboration of several norms for the protection of animals. Concerning the specific European Directive, Regulations or Convention for the protection of animals, the Authors underline the missing of specifics recommendations concerning the welfare of sport horses and especially of trotters. Guidelines are reported by regulation of equestrian sports. The paper's purpose is to give practical elements to individuate the welfare state and to promote a clear regulation on welfare, care and protection of trotters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the Five Freedoms paradigm has been very influential in shaping animal welfare thinking for the last two decades, it has two key disadvantages. First, the focus on “freedom” from a range of negative experiences and states has been misunderstood in a number of quarters to mean that complete freedom from these experiences and states is possible, when in fact the best that can be achieved is for them to be minimised. Second, the major focus of the Freedoms on negative experiences and states is now seen to be a disadvantage in view of current understanding that animal welfare management should also include the promotion of positive experiences and states. The challenge therefore was to formulate a paradigm that overcame these two main problems and yet was straightforward enough to be accessible to non-specialists, including members of the lay public who are interested in animal welfare. This was achieved by highlighting the Five Provisions, originally aligned with the Five Freedoms, but now updated to direct welfare management towards activities that both minimise negative experiences or states and promote positive experiences or states as specified by particular Animal Welfare Aims assigned to each Provision. Aspects of the four welfare principles from the European Welfare Quality assessment system (WQ ® ) and elements of all domains of the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment have been incorporated into the new Five Provisions/Welfare Aims paradigm. Thus, the paradigm is easily understood and provides clear guidance on beneficial objectives for animal welfare management. It is anticipated that the paradigm will have application to many species found in a wide range of circumstances.

The Five Freedoms have had major impact on animal welfare thinking internationally. However, despite clear initial statements that the words ‘freedom from’ should indicate ‘as free as possible from’, the Freedoms have come to be represented as absolute or fundamental freedoms, even rights, by some animal advocate and other groups. Moreover, a marked increase in scientific understanding over the last two decades shows that the Freedoms do not capture the more nuanced knowledge of the biological processes that is germane to understanding animal welfare and which is now available to guide its management. For example, the named negative experiences of thirst, hunger, discomfort and pain, and others identified subsequently, including breathlessness, nausea, dizziness, debility, weakness and sickness, can never be eliminated, merely temporarily neutralised. Each one is a genetically embedded element that motivates animals to behave in particular ways to obtain specific life-sustaining resources, avoid or reduce physical harm or facilitate recovery from infection or injury. Their undoubted negativity creates a necessary sense of urgency to respond, without which animals would not survive. Also, the temporary neutralisation of these survival-critical affects does not in and of itself generate positive experience. This questions the commonly held assumption that good animal welfare will result when these internally generated negative affects are minimised. Animals may also experience other negative affects that include anxiety, fear, panic, frustration, anger, helplessness, loneliness, boredom and depression. These situation-related affects reflect animals’ perceptions of their external circumstances. Although they are elicited by threatening, cramped, barren and/or isolated conditions, they can often be replaced by positive affects when animals are kept with congenial others in spacious, stimulus-rich and safe environments which provide opportunities for them to engage in behaviours they find rewarding. These behaviours may include environment-focused exploration and food acquisition activities as well as animal-to-animal interactive activities, all of which can generate various forms of comfort, pleasure, interest, confidence and a sense of control. Animal welfare management should aim to reduce the intensity of survival-critical negative affects to tolerable levels that nevertheless still elicit the required behaviours, and should also provide opportunities for animals to behave in ways they find rewarding, noting that poor management of survival-critical affects reduces animals’ motivation to utilize such rewarding opportunities. This biologically more accurate understanding provides support for reviewing the adequacy of provisions in current codes of welfare or practice in order to ensure that animals are given greater opportunities to experience positive welfare states. The purpose is to help animals to have lives worth living, which is not possible when the predominant focus of such codes is on survival-critical measures. Finally, an updated characterisation of animal welfare that incorporates this more accurate understanding is presented.

Fish need adequate welfare in culture even more than when they are in the wild. This is because they are held in captivity against their 'will'. The welfare of farmed fish should start from production to consumption. Several factors have been identified as compromising the rights and welfare of fish in aquaculture. These include the aquacultural holding devices, stocking density, water quality, food and feeding regimes, diseases and parasite infestation, treatment of the diseases and parasites, handling, netting and removal before and during slaughter, methods of slaughter, fasting/ food withdrawal, unnatural dark/light photoperiods, selection for fast growth, selective and induced breeding, genetic manipulations, exposure to predators, polyculture, tagging, crowding, grading, transport and harvesting, fish attractors and accidental or deliberate introduction of genetically modified farmed fish. The best way to achieve good welfare and health of fish in aquaculture is to respect, maintain and improve the rights of fish, otherwise known as the 'five freedoms.' Lack, deficiency or difficulty in having or providing any one of the five freedoms in aquaculture is an indicator of poor welfare for the fish which could be observed through physical, physiological, morphological, behavioural or environmental indicators in the fish. The best strategy for a reliable assessment of fish welfare/suffering and their impact on product quality is a multidisciplinary approach using several assessment parameters and comparing the deviations from the normal biological state with those from the wild which live in their natural, unperturbed environment. Some of the ways to achieve good welfare and safeguard the rights of the farmed fish in reducing the welfare problems were highlighted. Welfare of farmed fish should be considered in terms of ethics, productivity, economic viability and consumer's acceptability of the final product. Consumers are becoming aware of the quality of farmed fish arising from poor welfare of the fish during culture. Improvement in fish welfare will increase profits, productivity and acceptability of the farmed fish because fish that are less stressedand humanely slaugh tered are healthier, grow better and have better meat quality. There is the need to develop common standard welfare indices for fish in culture in order to detect, correct and improve any deviation from the normal state of the fish in their aquacultural holding devices (AHD). It should be known that whatever is good in terms of welfare to humans should also be good to the fish in captivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I defend a theory of welfare rights for nonhuman animals. I do this by demonstrating that a well-established framework for protecting the interests of farm animals, the 'Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare', is already functioning just as a set of rights. To support this claim I adopt a common approach to detecting evidence for deontological reasoning and look at the structural features of rights. I first consider Hohfeld's system of legal rights and consider whether the Five Freedoms may be understood as liberties or claim rights, before making a more successful comparison with side constraints and an interest theory of rights as understood by Nozick and Raz. I also respond to a likely objection that it is not possible to have some welfare rights without a right to freedom from exploitation. The argument therefore contributes to breaking down the stubborn division between 'animal welfare' and 'animal rights'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Veterinary surgeons are required to assess an animal's welfare in a range of different circumstances in the course of their daily work. These assessments may relate to the long-term welfare of an individual animal under their care, or the current welfare of a population of animals that are unfamiliar to them as individuals. The welfare assessment made may subsequently have implications for the treatment that an animal receives or for the decision of whether or not an animal should remain in its current home. Yet welfare assessment is not straightforward. Here we review the challenges that welfare assessment presents and review the tools currently available to meet them. Lastly, we look towards the future of equine welfare assessment, with examples of current research to develop tools and optimise welfare assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]