LIBRARY - Animal Welfare

---

Potential application of thermography (IRT) in animal production and for animal welfare. A case report of working dogs The authors describe the thermography technique in animal production and in veterinary medicine applications. The thermographic technique lends itself to countless applications in biology, thanks to its characteristics of versatility, lack of inva­siveness and high sensitivity. Probably the major limitation to most important aspects for its application in the animal lies in the ease of use and in its extreme sensitivity. This review provides an overview of the possible applications of the technique of thermo visual inspection, but it is clear that every phenomenon con­nected to temperature variations can be identified with this technique. Then the operator has to identify the best experimental context to obtain as much information as possible, concerning the physiopathological problems considered. Furthermore, we reported an experimental study about the thermography (IRT) as a noninvasive technique to assess the state of wellbeing in working dogs. The first results showed the relationship between superficial temperatures and scores obtained by the animal during the behavioral test. This result suggests an inter­esting application of infrared thermography (IRT) to measure the state of wellbeing of animals in a noninvasive way.

1. We argue that: • in their application to non-human animals, 'welfare' and 'well-being' are  interchangeable words; and that: • good welfare/well-being is the state of being manifest in an animal when its nutritional, environmental, health, behavioural and mental needs are met. 2. These latter are essentially the 'five freedoms' formulated by the Farm Animal Welfare Council of the United Kingdom. 3. Using the five freedoms as a basis, we have developed a system for assessing the impact of a proposed animal experiment or usage. The freedoms are now transformed into 'domains of potential compromise' and are redefined better to emphasise the extent of welfare compromise rather than the ideal of absence of compromise. Domain 1 is Thirst/hunger/malnutrition, 2 is Environmental challenge, 3 is Disease/injury/functional impairment, 4 is Behavioural/interactive restriction, and domain 5 is Anxiety/fear/pain/distress. A proposal would be examined systematically in all domains, and the degree of compromise in each rated on a 5-step non-numerical scale - O, A, B, C, X. Anxiety/fear/pain/distress arising from compromise in domains 1-4 would be cumulated into domain 5. The overall rating would commonly be that given to domain 5, but if this were low or unknown, it would be given to the highest rating in the other domains. 4. The proposer would be required to present to the institutional Animal Ethics Committee his/her assessment of the impact of a proposed experiment on the animals involved, together with an appropriate justification for the work and a cost-benefit analysis. 5. The extent of the justification required for a proposal would be directly related to the severity of compromise expected, being low for grade O and very high for grade X. 6. The cost-benefit decision would be based on the balance between the expected severity of welfare compromise and the expected benefits set out in the justification. 7. The major advantage of this system for assessing the impact on welfare is that it encourages systematic consideration of all sources of possible compromise. Such wider consideration would allow more accurate assessment of the severity of impact and thereby would improve the validity and efficiency of cost-benefit analyses. 8. The philosophical background to our approach is outlined, graded examples of welfare compromise are given and ethical and practical implications of using the system are discussed. 9. We also set out what we consider to be the ethical and practical responsibilities of the researcher to the animals, and to his/her assistants. The conscientiousness and comprehensiveness of the assessments of welfare compromise and the actions taken to minimise it are measures of the researcher's acceptance of ethical responsibility for all features of each experiment which affect the animals adversely.

Animal welfare is multidimensional; its assessment relies on complementary measures covering all dimensions. Welfare Quality® constructed a multicriteria evaluation model for its assessment at unit level (farms, slaughterhouses). Four welfare principles are distinguished (‘Good feeding’, ‘Good housing’, ‘Good health’, and ‘Appropriate behaviour’). An animal unit receives four principle scores (expressed on a 0–100 value scale). These scores are aggregated together to form the overall assessment by sorting animal units into predefined welfare categories boundaried by reference profiles. A unit is assigned to the welfare category above the profile it is considered at least as good as. Several assignment procedures were tested on a set of 69 dairy farms and compared with observers’ general impressions. The welfare categories, reference profiles and assignment procedure were defined in consultation with social scientists, animal scientists and stakeholders. Four welfare categories were defined: ‘Excellent’, ‘Enhanced’, ‘Acceptable’, and ‘Not classified’. The reference profiles were set at 80, 55 and 20, corresponding to aspiration values for Excellent, Enhanced and Acceptable. The assignment procedure resulted from a compromise between theoretical opinion on what should be considered excellent, enhanced or acceptable, and what can realistically be achieved in practice: to be assigned to a given category, a unit must reach its aspiration value on 2 or 3 of the 4 principles, and not score below the aspiration value for the next lowest category on the other principle(s). The model can be used for several purposes, including identifying welfare problems on a farm to advise farmers, or checking compliance with certification schemes.

The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training

This study investigated the welfare consequences of training dogs in the field with manually operated electronic devices (ecollars). Following a preliminary study on 9 dogs, 63 pet dogs referred for recall related problems were assigned to one of three Groups: Treatment Group A were trained by industry approved trainers using e-collars; Control Group B trained by the same trainers but without use of e-collars; and Group C trained by members of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, UK again without e-collar stimulation (n = 21 for each Group). Dogs received two 15 minute training sessions per day for 4–5 days. Training sessions were recorded on video for behavioural analysis. Saliva and urine were collected to assay for cortisol over the training period. During preliminary studies there were negative changes in dogs’ behaviour on application of electric stimuli, and elevated cortisol post-stimulation. These dogs had generally experienced high intensity stimuli without prewarning cues during training. In contrast, in the subsequent larger, controlled study, trainers used lower settings with a prewarning function and behavioural responses were less marked. Nevertheless, Group A dogs spent significantly more time tense, yawned more often and engaged in less environmental interaction than Group C dogs. There was no difference in urinary corticosteroids between Groups. Salivary cortisol in Group A dogs was not significantly different from that in Group B or Group C, though Group C dogs showed higher measures than Group B throughout sampling. Following training 92% of owners reported improvements in their dog’s referred behaviour, and there was no significant difference in reported efficacy across Groups. Owners of dogs trained using e-collars were less confident of applying the training approach demonstrated. These findings suggest that there is no consistent benefit to be gained from e-collar training but greater welfare concerns compared with positive reward based training.

Working and sporting dogs provide an essential contribution to many industries worldwide. The common development, maintenance and disposal of working and sporting dogs can be considered in the same way as other animal production systems. The process of ‘production’ involves genetic selection, puppy rearing, recruitment and assessment, training, housing and handling, handler education, health and working life end-point management. At present, inefficiencies throughout the production process result in a high failure rate of dogs attaining operational status. This level of wastage would be condemned in other animal production industries for economic reasons and has significant implications for dog welfare, as well as public perceptions of dog-based industries. Standards of acceptable animal use are changing and some historically common uses of animals are no longer publicly acceptable, especially where harm is caused for purposes deemed trivial, or where alternatives exist. Public scrutiny of animal use appears likely to increase and extend to all roles of animals, including working and sporting dogs. Production system processes therefore need to be transparent, traceable and ethically acceptable for animal use to be sustainable into the future. Evidence-based approaches already inform best practice in fields as diverse as agriculture and human athletic performance. This article introduces the nascent discipline of canine performance science, which aims to facilitate optimal product quality and production efficiency, while also assuring evidence-based increments in dog welfare through a process of research and development. Our thesis is that the model of canine performance science offers an objective, transparent and traceable opportunity for industry development in line with community expectations and underpins a sustainable future for working dogs.