Teresa Collins

The contribution of qualitative behavioural assessment to appraisal of livestock welfare

Animal welfare is increasingly important for the Australian livestock industries, to maintain social licence to practice as well as ensuring market share overseas. Improvement of animal welfare in the livestock industries requires several important key steps. Paramount among these, objective measures are needed for welfare assessment that will enable comparison and contrast of welfare implications of husbandry procedures or housing options. Such measures need to be versatile (can be applied under a wide range of on- and off-farm situations), relevant (reveal aspects of the animal’s affective or physiological state that is relevant to their welfare), reliable (can be repeated with confidence in the results), relatively economic to apply, and they need to have broad acceptance by all stakeholders. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) is an integrated measure that characterises behaviour as a dynamic, expressive body language. QBA is a versatile tool requiring little specialist equipment suiting application to in situ assessments that enables comparative, hypothesis-driven evaluation of various industry-relevant practices. QBA is being increasingly used as part of animal welfare assessments in Europe, and although most other welfare assessment methods record ‘problems’ (e.g. lameness, injury scores, and so on), QBA can capture positive aspects of animal welfare (e.g. positively engaged with their environment, playfulness). In this viewpoint, we review the outcomes of recent QBA studies and discuss the potential application of QBA, in combination with other methods, as a welfare assessment tool for the Australian livestock industries.

Validating the Use of Qualitative Behavioral Assessment as a Measure of the Welfare of Sheep During Transport

We tested the application of qualitative behavioral assessment (QBA) as a welfare assessment tool. Sheep were exposed to road transport treatments, and behavioral expressions were compared between experimental treatments and validated by correlation with physiological measures. We compared journeys differing in ventilation (closed vs. open-sided trailer), flooring (grip vs. nongrip flooring), and driving styles (stop–start vs. continuous driving). Blood samples were collected immediately before loading and after unloading; heart rate and core body temperatures were recorded continuously. Continuous video footage was edited to show individual sheep to observers for QBA using free-choice profiling (observers used their own descriptive terms). There was significant consensus in observers’ scores for the sheep in each experiment (p < .001). Observers distinguished between sheep exposed to flooring (p = .014) or driving-style (p = .005) treatments, but not between ventilation treatments. QBA scores were compared (p < .05) with plasma leptin, glucose, and insulin-like growth factor-1 concentrations; white blood cell profiles; red blood cell counts; hematocrit; body temperatures; and heart rate variability. Observer assessments reflected treatment differences, and correlations between behavioral expression and physiological responses were found.

Qualitative behavioural assessment of the motivation for feed in sheep in response to altered body condition score

Qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA) has been used to quantify the expressive behaviour of animals, and operant tests have been used to quantify measures of behavioural need. In this study we compared measures of behavioural expression and behaviour in operant tests. We examined the behavioural expression of pregnant ewes of body condition score (BCS) 2 and 3. The ewes were exposed to a feed motivation test in which they received a food reward. Pregnant ewes (48–70 days gestation) were assessed during a food motivation test after they had been maintained at BCS 3 (n = 7) or given a decreasing plane of nutrition that resulted in slow loss of 1 BCS unit (over 10–12 weeks; n = 7) or a fast loss of 1 BCS unit (over 4–6 weeks; n = 7). The feed motivation test involved ewes having the opportunity to approach a food reward and then being moved a given distance away from the reward by an automatic gate; they could then subsequently return to the feeder. Continuous video footage of each ewe during one cycle of the gate (approaching and returning from the food reward) was shown in random order to 11 observers who used their own descriptive terms (free-choice profiling methodology; FCP) to score the animals using QBA. Data of the assessment were analysed with generalised Procrustes analysis (GPA), a multivariate statistical technique associated with FCP. The research group also quantified the feeding behaviour of sheep in the same clips. These behaviours included how sheep approached the feeder, behaviours exhibited at the feeder, and how sheep returned from the feeder. There was consensus amongst observers in terms of their assessment of behavioural expression of the sheep (P < 0.001). The GPA found three main dimensions of assessed behavioural expression in the sheep, which together explained 44% of the variation observed. GPA dimension 1 differed between the three treatment groups (P < 0.05): ewes maintained at BCS 3 scored low on GPA dimension 1 (i.e. were described as more calm/bored/comfortable) compared with ewes that had a slow declining BCS (described as more interested/anxious/excited). GPA dimension 2 scores were not significantly different between treatment groups. However, quantitative behaviours exhibited by sheep during the clips were correlated with qualitative behavioural assessments made by the observers. Animals that spent more time ‘sniffing and looking for more feed’ were attributed lower GPA 2 scores (described as more hungry/searching/excited) (P < 0.05), and animals that ‘did not walk directly to the food reward (but stopped along the way)’ were attributed significantly higher GPA 2 scores (more curious/intimidated/uneasy) (P < 0.01). GPA dimension 3 scores also did not differ between the treatment groups; however, sheep that had a higher number of feeding events during the entire 23-h feed motivation test were attributed lower GPA dimension 3 scores (they were described as more hungry/bold/interested) (P < 0.05), and sheep that consumed a larger amount of the feed reward were attributed higher GPA dimension 3 scores (more curious/concerned/reserved) (P < 0.05). We conclude that QBA is a valuable method of assessing sheep behavioural expression under the conditions tested, in that it provided an integrative characterisation of sheep behavioural expression that was in agreement with quantitative behavioural measures of feeding.

Is Wildlife Fertility Control Always Humane

Simple Summary There are various fertility control methods (modalities) currently available that aim to reduce the abundance of problematic free-ranging mammalian wildlife. Here, we propose that dissimilarities in the mechanism of action indicate these methods produce great variation in animal welfare outcomes. We present a framework to assist managers in minimising animal welfare risks. Abstract Investigation of fertility control techniques to reduce reproductive rates in wildlife populations has been the source of much research. Techniques targeting wildlife fertility have been diverse. Most research into fertility control methods has focused upon efficacy, with few studies rigorously assessing animal welfare beyond opportunistic anecdote. However, fertility control techniques represent several very different mechanisms of action (modalities), each with their own different animal welfare risks. We provide a review of the mechanisms of action for fertility control methods, and consider the role of manipulation of reproductive hormones (“endocrine suppression”) for the long-term ability of animals to behave normally. We consider the potential welfare costs of animal manipulation techniques that are required to administer fertility treatments, including capture, restraint, surgery and drug delivery, and the requirement for repeated administration within the lifetime of an animal. We challenge the assumption that fertility control modalities generate similar and desirable animal welfare outcomes, and we argue that knowledge of reproductive physiology and behaviour should be more adeptly applied to wild animal management decisions. We encourage wildlife managers to carefully assess long-term behavioural risks, associated animal handling techniques, and the importance of positive welfare states when selecting fertility control methods as a means of population control.

Assessing and mitigating post-operative castration pain in Bos indicus cattle

Cattle on pastoral land are subject to potentially painful husbandry procedures. In northern Australia, these practices generally occur once a year after the muster and the procedures are usually performed on animals older than 6 months of age. It is seldom that any pain mitigating medications are administered at this time and there is increasing concern that this perceived impost on the animal’s welfare will become more significant at both an economic and cultural level. There is a need to investigate the possibility of using simple, cost-effective, readily available medications, administered using relatively quick and easily taught techniques to increase the chance of industry adoption. This research used castration of 6–8-month-old Bos indicus calves as the test model because it is arguably one of the most common and most painful procedures endured by the animals. Forty-eight, 6–8-month-old Brahman bulls were surgically castrated after random assignment to six different treatment groups (n = 8): no castration Control (NC); castration (C); castration with post-operative meloxicam (CMpost-op); castration with lignocaine (CL); castration with lignocaine and post-operative meloxicam (CLMpost-op); castration with pre-operative meloxicam (CMpre-op). Serial measures of weight, blood cortisol concentrations, balk score, crush score, and daily activity (steps taken, number and duration of rest bouts) were taken. Linear mixed modelling was used to compare experimental groups. Bulls that were castrated and did not receive post-operative meloxicam (C and CL) had significantly lower average weights at all time points (Days 0–13, P < 0.001) of 170.9 kg and 168.6 kg, respectively, than those that did (CMpost-op and CLMpost-op) at 174.7 kg and 173.7 kg, respectively. When lignocaine was not administered before castration, Day 1 post-operative cortisol concentrations were significantly lower when post-operative meloxicam was provided than when it was not (CMpost-op: 47.2 nmol/L vs C: 65.5 nmol/L). When post-operative meloxicam was not given, animals that were given lignocaine before castration had significantly lower cortisol concentrations than those that received no lignocaine (CL: 52.7 nmol/L vs C: 65.5 nmol/L). Animals that were given pre-operative meloxicam had, on average, significantly lower Day 1 post-operative cortisol concentrations than animals that received no lignocaine or meloxicam (CMpre-op: 44.8 nmol/L vs C: 65.5 nmol/L). Analysis of Day 1 (the day following castration) data showed that animals that were given pre-operative meloxicam (CMpre-op) were significantly more active than animals in all other treatment groups (P = 0.038). It was concluded that 6–8-month old, Bos indicus bulls benefit from the administration of both lignocaine before surgery and peri-operative meloxicam. The analgesic methods used are readily adoptable by industry with respect to cost, efficiency and degree of technical skill required.

A Prototype Tool to Enable Farmers to Measure and Improve the Welfare Performance of the Farm Animal Enterprise: The Unified Field Index

Simple Summary Benchmarking is a tool widely used in agricultural industries that harnesses the experience of farmers to generate knowledge of practices that lead to better on-farm productivity and performance. We propose, by analogy with production performance, a method for measuring the animal welfare performance of an enterprise and describe a tool for farmers to monitor and improve the animal welfare performance of their business. A general framework is outlined for assessing and monitoring risks to animal welfare based on measures of animals, the environment they are kept in and how they are managed. The tool would enable farmers to continually improve animal welfare. Abstract Schemes for the assessment of farm animal welfare and assurance of welfare standards have proliferated in recent years. An acknowledged short-coming has been the lack of impact of these schemes on the welfare standards achieved on farm due in part to sociological factors concerning their implementation. Here we propose the concept of welfare performance based on a broad set of performance attributes of an enterprise and describe a tool based on risk assessment and benchmarking methods for measuring and managing welfare performance. The tool termed the Unified Field Index is presented in a general form comprising three modules addressing animal, resource, and management factors. Domains within these modules accommodate the principle conceptual perspectives for welfare assessment: biological functioning; emotional states; and naturalness. Pan-enterprise analysis in any livestock sector could be used to benchmark welfare performance of individual enterprises and also provide statistics of welfare performance for the livestock sector. An advantage of this concept of welfare performance is its use of continuous scales of measurement rather than traditional pass/fail measures. Through the feedback provided via benchmarking, the tool should help farmers better engage in on-going improvement of farm practices that affect animal welfare.

Animal welfare and the use of procedural documents: Limitations and refinement

Abstract. Increased scrutiny of animal welfare in wildlife management has seen a recent proliferation in the use of procedural documents (standard operating procedures, codes of practice etc.). Some procedural documents are presumed to represent ‘best practice’ methods, whereby adherence to prescribed inputs is explicitly purported to generate humane outcomes. However, the relationship between what is done to animals (inputs) and what they experience (outputs), as assessed by animal-based measures, has received little attention. Procedural documents are commonly developed in the absence of empirical animal-based measures, creating uncertainty in animal welfare outcomes. Prescribed procedures are valuable as guidelines for standardising methodology, but the development of ‘welfare standards’ that focus on desired thresholds for animal-based measures offers many advantages for improving animal welfare. Refinement of the use of procedural documents in wildlife management is required to ensure they generate desirable outcomes for animals, and do not preclude the development of improved methods.

An animal welfare assessment framework for helicopter darting: a case study with a newly developed method for feral horses

Abstract Context. Helicopter darting (chemical immobilisation) is a very useful technique for large wild herbivores, such as feral horses (Equus caballus). There is currently no reliable framework to report on the animal welfare impacts of helicopter darting methods. Aim. The aim of this study was to develop an animal welfare assessment framework for helicopter darting methods, using quantifiable parameters, and to test it with a case study using a newly developed feral horse capture technique. Methods. Quantifiable animal welfare parameters were recorded for 11 feral horses captured using a traditional helicopter darting method in north-western Australia in October 2014. Welfare parameters chosen focused on quantifying the duration of procedures and the frequency of adverse events. They included chase time (CT; min) before darting, induction time (IT; min) between darting and recumbency, recumbency time (RT; min), total time (TT; CT+IT+RT; min), repeat-darting rate (animals requiring >1 dart; %), target zone accuracy rate (darts striking the intended anatomical area; %) and mortality rate (at time of capture and 14 days post-capture; %). Results. Median CT was 2 min, median IT was 19 min, median RT was 16 min and median TT was 38 min. Repeat-darting rate was 45%, target zone accuracy rate was 53% and mortality rates (time of capture and 14 days post-capture) were zero. Conclusions. Animal welfare parameters can be quantified for helicopter darting through estimation of the duration of procedures and the frequency of adverse events. Use of this framework will allow the identification of parameters requiring refinement for newly developed helicopter darting techniques. Implications. Animal welfare parameters are particularly important for helicopter-based darting methods. Pilot studies, using quantified parameters, should be performed for newly developed capture techniques before they are approved for large-scale programs.

The First Shared Online Curriculum Resources for Veterinary Undergraduate Learning and Teaching in Animal Welfare and Ethics in Australia and New Zealand

Simple Summary There is a need for teaching Animal Welfare and Ethics in veterinary schools and we are developing online resources to meet this need. In this paper we describe how we prioritized the development of these resources by polling experts in the field. Abstract The need for undergraduate teaching of Animal Welfare and Ethics (AWE) in Australian and New Zealand veterinary courses reflects increasing community concerns and expectations about AWE; global pressures regarding food security and sustainability; the demands of veterinary accreditation; and fears that, unless students encounter AWE as part of their formal education, as veterinarians they will be relatively unaware of the discipline of animal welfare science. To address this need we are developing online resources to ensure Australian and New Zealand veterinary graduates have the knowledge, and the research, communication and critical reasoning skills, to fulfill the AWE role demanded of them by contemporary society. To prioritize development of these resources we assembled leaders in the field of AWE education from the eight veterinary schools in Australia and New Zealand and used modified deliberative polling. This paper describes the role of the poll in developing the first shared online curriculum resource for veterinary undergraduate learning and teaching in AWE in Australia and New Zealand. The learning and teaching strategies that ranked highest in the exercise were: scenario-based learning; a quality of animal life assessment tool; the so-called ‘Human Continuum’ discussion platform; and a negotiated curriculum.

Students’ opinions on welfare and ethics issues for companion animals in Australian and New Zealand veterinary schools

Objective To determine what veterinary students in Australia and New Zealand consider important competences in companion animal welfare and ethics (AWE) required on their first day of practice, and to explore how their priorities relate to gender and stage of study. Methods Undergraduate students at all veterinary schools in Australia and New Zealand were sent an online survey. A subset of questions required participants to rank the importance of preselected AWE topics pertaining to companion animals. Data were analysed to determine differences in the way students of different gender or academic stage prioritised each of these AWE topics. Results Of 3220 currently enrolled students, 851 participated in the survey: 79% were female, 17% male, 4% unspecified. Ranking of the AWE topics, from highest to lowest importance, was: neutering, companion animal husbandry, euthanasia, behaviour and training, animal breeding, over‐servicing in relation to animal needs and cosmetic surgery. Female students consistently ranked competency in AWE issues surrounding neutering more highly than male students (P = 0.006). Students in senior years of study ranked the importance of competency in animal abuse/hoarding (P = 0.048), shelter medicine (P = 0.012) and animal breeding (P = 0.002) less highly than those in junior years. Conclusions Australasian veterinary students placed more importance on competency in AWE issues associated with clinical practice (such as neutering and euthanasia) than on professional behaviours (such as over‐servicing and animal breeding). However, we consider that emphasis should still be placed on developing graduate competency in the latter categories to reflect growing societal concerns about companion animal over‐supply and inappropriate professional conduct.