|
|
Baker, K. C., Seres, E., Aureli, F., & De Waal, F. B. (2000). Injury risks among chimpanzees in three housing conditions. Am. J. Primatol., 51(3), 161–175.
Abstract: Meeting the psychological needs of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) can be a challenge given their aggressiveness on the one hand and the complexity of their social lives on the other. It is unclear how to balance the need to provide opportunities for species-appropriate behavior against potential risks of injury chimpanzees may inflict on each other. This study evaluates the suggestion that simpler social environments protect chimpanzees from wounding. Over a two-year period all visible injuries to 46 adult males, 64 adult females, and 25 immature chimpanzees were recorded at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center. Approximately half of the subjects were mother-reared, and the rest were nursery-reared. Housing included compounds containing about 20 chimpanzees, interconnected indoor-outdoor runs for groups of up to 12 individuals, and smaller indoor-outdoor runs for pairs and trios. Annual wounding rates were calculated for serious wounds (extensive injuries and all those requiring veterinary intervention) as well as for minor wounds. Compound-housed chimpanzees incurred the highest level of minor wounding, but serious wounding levels were not affected by housing condition. Even with a period of dominance instability and elevated levels of wounding in one compound, compound chimpanzees were not injured more than those in smaller social groups over the long term. Nursery-reared females in moderate-sized groups were wounded more than mother-reared females. Also, nursery-reared males and females were wounded less often when paired with mother-reared companions. Overall, this study indicates that maintaining chimpanzees in pairs and trios would not be an effective means for reducing injuries. The management of wounding in chimpanzee colonies is influenced more by the sex and rearing composition of a colony.
|
|
|
|
Nicol, C. J., Brown, S. N., Glen, E., Pope, S. J., Short, F. J., Warriss, P. D., et al. (2006). Effects of stocking density, flock size and management on the welfare of laying hens in single-tier aviaries. Br Poult Sci, 47(2), 135–146.
Abstract: Management practices, stocking rate and flock size may affect laying hen welfare but there have been few replicated studies in commercial non-cage systems that investigate this. This study used a broad range of physical and physiological indicators to assess the welfare of hens in 36 commercial flocks. Six laying period treatments were examined with each treatment replicated 6 times. It was not possible to randomly allocate treatments to houses, so treatment and house were largely confounded. Three stocking rates were compared: 7 birds/m(2) (n = 2450), 9 birds/m(2) (n = 3150) and 12 birds/m(2) in either small (n = 2450) or large (n = 4200) flocks. In addition, at 12 birds/m(2), in both small and large flocks, birds were subjected to either standard (SM) or modified (MM) management. MM flocks had nipple drinkers and no nest-box lights. Bone strength, fracture incidence, heterophil:lymphocyte (H:L) ratio, live weight, organ weights, serum creatine, serum osmolality, muscle pH and faecal corticosterone were measured on samples of birds at the end of the rearing period and at the end of lay. During the laying period, mortality, production and integument condition were recorded at regular intervals. Birds housed at 9 birds/m(2) had higher mortality than birds housed at 12 birds/m(2) by the end of lay, but not higher than birds housed at 7 birds/m(2). Birds housed at 7 and 9 birds/m(2) had lower percent liver weight, and worse plumage condition than most of the 12 bird/m(2) treatments. Modified management tended to improve plumage condition. There were no clear effects of flock size on the welfare indicators recorded. At the end of the rearing period fracture incidence was almost negligible and H:L ratio was within a normal range. By the end of lay fracture incidence was 60% and H:L ratio was high, with no treatment effect for either measure. This, together with information on faecal corticosterone, feather loss and mortality, suggests that the welfare of birds in all treatments was relatively poor by the end of lay.
|
|
|
|
Haslam, S. M., Brown, S. N., Wilkins, L. J., Kestin, S. C., Warriss, P. D., & Nicol, C. J. (2006). Preliminary study to examine the utility of using foot burn or hock burn to assess aspects of housing conditions for broiler chicken. Br Poult Sci, 47(1), 13–18.
Abstract: 1. Eleven broiler chicken farms, representing 4 production system types, were visited during the last 5 d of the flock cycle: bird and flock details were recorded. Litter friability was assessed at 9 sites within the house, atmospheric ammonia was measured at three sites and bird cleanliness was assessed on a numerical rating scale. 2. For these flocks, hock burn, foot burn and breast burn were measured at the processing plant by standardised assessors. 3. Significant correlations were identified between the percentage of birds with foot burn and average litter score, average house ammonia concentrations and feather score. 4. No correlation was found between the percentage of birds with hock burn or breast burn and average litter scores, average ammonia concentrations or feather score. 5. No correlation was found between stocking density and foot burn, hock burn or breast burn.6. If confirmed, these findings may have implications for the draft EU Broiler Directive, for which it is proposed that permitted stocking density on farm may be determined by the incidence and severity of contact dermatitis measured on plant.
|
|
|
|
Freire, R., Wilkins, L. J., Short, F., & Nicol, C. J. (2003). Behaviour and welfare of individual laying hens in a non-cage system. Br Poult Sci, 44(1), 22–29.
Abstract: 1. A leg band containing a transponder was fitted to 80 birds in a perchery containing 1,000 birds. 2. The transponder emitted a unique identification number when a bird walked on one of 8 flat antennae on the floor. The recording apparatus was used to measure the amount of time that each of the tagged birds spent on the slatted and littered areas in a 6-week period. 3. Some birds spent long periods of time on the slats, possibly as a means of avoiding repeated attacks. Duration on the slats was greatest in birds with the worst (as opposed to better) feather scores of the head, back and tail regions. 4. Birds that spent long periods on the slats were lighter than other birds at both 39 weeks of age and 72 weeks of age and had greater back, head and tail feather damage, consistent with these birds being victims of pecking. 5. Tagged birds received a social avoidance test outside the perchery at 39 weeks of age, which suggested that birds retreated to the slats in response to pecks rather than just to close proximity to other birds. 6. The failure to find that duration on the slats was related to anatomical indicators of stress (liver, spleen and bursa of Fabricius) suggests that retreating to the slats following pecking attenuates physiological stress responses. 7. We conclude that the provision of areas where birds in a large group can avoid pecking may improve the welfare of a minority of victimised birds.
|
|
|
|
Zeitler-Feicht, M. H. (2004). [Critical consideration of the “Guideline for the Evaluation of Raising Horses” and keeping horses outside in the winter]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 111(3), 120–123.
Abstract: The guidelines of the Federal Ministry of User Protection, Nutrition and Agriculture (BMVEL) regarding “horse keeping with respect to animal welfare” are from 1995 (BMELF, 1995). Therefore, they are not suitable for modern horse keeping. The Veterinary Association for Animal Welfare (TVT) held it to be necessary to rework the guide-lines in light of 1) many subsequent investigations concerning horse keeping, and 2) the species-specific needs of horses in practice. Each chapter of the BMELF (1995) guide-lines was revised such that the literature and practical experiences were updated. Several chapters (recumbency resting behaviour, fences, underground outdoor and in stables, litter) were added in the position paper of the TVT to reflect the increasing use of boxes with paddocks, loose housing systems with open yards, pasture and winter yards as housing conditions. Keeping horses outdoors permanently during winter is possible because horses have very good thermoregulatory capabilities so that they are able to adapt themselves to cold conditions. However, in light of animal welfare, the holding system must include adequate shelter (natural or artificial). Shelters should protect against wetness, heat, cold and wind, and must be sufficiently large and high, with a dry and clean underground. In keeping horses outdoors permanently, the paths to the feeding and watering areas and to the shelter must be dry. The food must also be protected against mould and soiling. Keeping horses permanently without adequate shelter or in deep marsh without any dry places is against the Animal Protection Act.
|
|
|
|
Pollmann, U. (2002). [Keeping of horses in circus and show businesses]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 109(3), 126–129.
Abstract: The conditions under which horses are kept and the performance of acts in the circus ring may give rise to animal protection-relevant aspects for circus and show horses. A number of intolerable conditions under which horses are kept and procedures adopted for the work with circus and show horses are described. In addition, attention is drawn to monitoring methods capable of exposing the deplorable shortcomings of these businesses.
|
|
|
|
Waran, N. K. (1997). Can studies of feral horse behaviour be used for assessing domestic horse welfare? (Vol. 29).
|
|
|
|
Cooper, J. J., & Mason, G. J. (1998). The identification of abnormal behaviour and behavioural problems in stabled horses and their relationship to horse welfare: a comparative review. Equine Vet J Suppl, (27), 5–9.
Abstract: Many behaviours in domestic animals, such as the 'stable vices' of horses, are treated because they are considered undesirable for economic or cultural reasons, and not because the activity affects the horse's quality of life. The impact of a behaviour on the human reporter is not a function of its impact on the animal performer, and an understanding of the causes and effects of the particular activity is necessary to assess the costs and benefits of treatment. Where the behaviour is a sign of poor welfare, such as an inadequate environment, treatment can best be achieved by removing these underlying causal factors. Pharmacological or physical prevention of a behaviour can be justified only if the behaviour causes harm to the performer or to others. In these cases, prevention of the behaviour without addressing its causes is no cure and may result in its perseverance in a modified form or the disruption of the animal's ability to adapt to its environment. Where the behavioural 'problem' causes no harm and is not related to poor housing, then the education of the reporter, rather than treatment of the performer, may be the best solution.
|
|
|
|
Duncan, I. J., & Petherick, J. C. (1991). The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. J. Anim Sci., 69(12), 5017–5022.
Abstract: In general, codes that have been designed to safeguard the welfare of animals emphasize the importance of providing an environment that will ensure good health and a normal physiological and physical state, that is, they emphasize the animals' physical needs. If mental needs are mentioned, they are always relegated to secondary importance. The argument is put forward here that animal welfare is dependent solely on the cognitive needs of the animals concerned. In general, if these cognitive needs are met, they will protect the animals' physical needs. It is contended that in the few cases in which they do not safeguard the physical needs, it does not matter from a welfare point of view. The human example is given of being ill. It is argued that welfare is only adversely affected when a person feels ill, knows that he or she is ill, or even thinks that he or she is ill, all of which processes are cognitive ones. The implications for welfare of animals possessing certain cognitive abilities are discussed. For example, the extent to which animals are aware of their internal state while performing behavior known to be indicative of so-called states of suffering, such as fear, frustration, and pain, will determine how much they are actually suffering. With careful experimentation it may be possible to determine how negative they feel these states to be. Similarly, the extent to which animals think about items or events absent from their immediate environment will determine how frustrated they are in the absence of the real item or event but in the presence of the cognitive representation.
|
|
|
|
Curtis, S. E., & Stricklin, W. R. (1991). The importance of animal cognition in agricultural animal production systems: an overview. J. Anim Sci., 69(12), 5001–5007.
Abstract: To describe and then fulfill agricultural animals' needs, we must learn more about their fundamental psychological and behavioral processes. How does this animal feel? Is that animal suffering? Will we ever be able to know these things? Scientists specializing in animal cognition say that there are numerous problems but that they can be overcome. Recognition by scientists of the notion of animal awareness has been increasing in recent years, because of the work of Griffin and others. Feeling, thinking, remembering, and imagining are cognitive processes that are factors in the economic and humane production of agricultural animals. It has been observed that the animal welfare debate depends on two controversial questions: Do animals have subjective feelings? If they do, can we find indicators that reveal them? Here, indirect behavioral analysis approaches must be taken. Moreover, the linear additivity of several stressor effects on a variety of animal traits suggests that some single phenomenon is acting as a “clearinghouse” for many or all of the stresses acting on an animal at any given time, and this phenomenon might be psychological stress. Specific situations animals may encounter in agricultural production settings are discussed with respect to the animals' subjective feelings.
|
|
