The agency domain and behavioral interactions: assessing positive animal welfare using the Five Domains Model

Animal welfare denotes how an animal experiences their life. It represents the overall mental experiences of an animal and is a subjective concept that cannot be directly measured. Instead, welfare indicators are used to cautiously infer mental experiences from resource provisions, management factors, and animal-based measures. The Five Domains Model is a holistic and structured framework for collating these indicators and assessing animal welfare. Contemporary approaches to animal welfare management consider how animals can be given opportunities to have positive experiences. However, the uncertainty surrounding positive mental experiences that can be inferred has resulted in risk-averse animal welfare scientists returning to the relative safety of positivism. This has meant that aspects of positive welfare are often referred to as animal 'wants'. Agency is a concept that straddles the positivist-affective divide and represents a way forward for discussions about positive welfare. Agency is the capacity of individual animals to engage in voluntary, self-generated, and goal-directed behavior that they are motivated to perform. Discrete positive emotions are cautiously inferred from these agentic experiences based on available knowledge about the animal's motivation for engaging in the behavior. Competence-building agency can be used to evaluate the potential for positive welfare and is represented by the Behavioral Interactions domain of the Five Domains Model. In 2020, The Model was updated to, amongst other things, include consideration of human-animal interactions. The most important aspect of this update was the renaming of Domain 4 from "Behavior" to "Behavioral Interactions" and the additional detail added to allow this domain's purpose to be clearly understood to represent an animal's opportunities to exercise agency. We illustrate how the Behavioral Interactions domain of The Model can be used to assess animals' competence-building agency and positive welfare. In this article, we use the examples of sugar gliders housed in captivity and greyhounds that race to illustrate how the agentic qualities of choice, control, and challenge can be used to assess opportunities for animals to exercise agency and experience positive affective engagement.

Digital Livestock Technologies as boundary objects: Investigating impacts on farm management and animal welfare

Digital Livestock Technologies (DLTs) can assist farmer decision-making and promise benefits to animal health and welfare. However, the extent to which they can help improve animal welfare is unclear. This study explores how DLTs may impact farm management and animal welfare by promoting learning, using the concept of boundary objects. Boundary objects may be interpreted differently by different social worlds but are robust enough to share a common identity across them. They facilitate communication around a common issue, allowing stakeholders to collaborate and co-learn. The type of learning generated may impact management and welfare differently. For example, it may help improve existing strategies (single-loop learning), or initiate reflection on how these strategies were framed initially (double-loop learning). This study focuses on two case studies, during which two DLTs were developed and tested on farms. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders involved in the case studies (n = 31), and the results of a separate survey were used to complement our findings. Findings support the important potential of DLTs to help enhance animal welfare, although the impacts vary between technologies. In both case studies, DLTs facilitated discussions between stakeholders, and whilst both promoted improved management strategies, one also promoted deeper reflection on the importance of animal emotional well-being and on providing opportunities for positive animal welfare. If DLTs are to make significant improvements to animal welfare, greater priority should be given to DLTs that promote a greater understanding of the dimensions of animal welfare and a reframing of values and beliefs with respect to the importance of animals' well-being.

Stage 1 Registered Report: Refinement of tickling protocols to improve positive animal welfare in laboratory rats

Rat tickling is a heterospecific interaction for experimenters to mimic the interactions of rat play, where they produce 50 kHz ultrasonic vocalisations (USV), symptoms of positive affect; tickling can improve laboratory rat welfare. The standard rat tickling protocol involves gently pinning the rat in a supine position. However, individual response to this protocol varies. This suggests there is a risk that some rats may perceive tickling as only a neutral experience, while others as a positive one, depending on how tickling is performed. Based on our research experiences of the standard tickling protocol we have developed a playful handling (PH) protocol, with reduced emphasis on pinning, intended to mimic more closely the dynamic nature of play. We will test whether our PH protocol gives rise to more uniform increases in positive affect across individuals relative to protocols involving pinning. We will compare the response of juvenile male and female Wistar rats as: Control (hand remains still against the side of the test arena), P0 (PH with no pinning), P1 (PH with one pin), P4 (PH with four pins). P1 and P4 consist of a background of PH, with treatments involving administration of an increasing dosage of pinning per PH session. We hypothesise that rats exposed to handling protocols that maximise playful interactions (where pinning number per session decreases) will show an overall increase in total 50 kHz USV as an indicator of positive affect, with less variability. We will explore whether behavioural and physiological changes associated with alterations in PH experience are less variable. We propose that maximising the numbers of rats experiencing tickling as a positive experience will reduce the variation in response variables affected by tickling and increase the repeatability of research where tickling is applied either as a social enrichment or as a treatment.

Best Farming Practices for the Welfare of Dairy Cows, Heifers and Calves

Simple Summary

The evolving change in societal attitudes regarding animal care and use has led to two main streams of thought. On one hand, there is the concept of “animal rights”, emphasizing that animals should have the same rights as humans, and as such should never be used to benefit humans (e.g., for food, clothing, entertainment, education, research, and even pet ownership). Animals should be able to live a life free of human interference and exploitation. On the other hand, many people agree that humans are responsible for animals and for their care; animals can be used to benefit humans if properly cared for, and their needs are met; abuse and neglect are banned. This is the “animal welfare” (AW) point of view, based on humane treatment, ensuring the physical and mental fitness of animals, as required by current EU legislation. Now, the point is that to fulfill the basic requirements of animal welfare animals are ensured a life worth living, especially given that they can feel emotions. In view of ensuring not only compliance with minimum legislative requirements, but also optimal farming conditions (above minimum legislative requirements), growing attention is attributed to best farming practices. In this work, a list of best practices proposed by the Italian National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CReNBA) has been collected to ensure a good quality of life for dairy cows, heifers and calves kept in intensive rearing systems.

Abstract

The concept of animal welfare (AW) has many meanings. Traditionally, AW has been considered as freedom from disease and suffering. Nowadays, growing attention goes to the concept of “positive animal welfare” (PAW), which can be interpreted within the concept of quality of life (QoL), thinking about a “balance of positives over negatives” and a “life worth living”. In this vision, where the QoL represents a continuum between positives and negatives, the Italian National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CReNBA), within the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna (IZSLER), has developed a welfare assessment protocol for dairy cows, heifers, and calves in loose housing systems, including both animal-based and non-animal-based indicators, in which not only hazards but also benefits are identified. This protocol is part of an integrated monitoring system called “ClassyFarm”, belonging to the Italian Ministry of Health and developed by IZSLER. The aim of this paper is to extrapolate from the mentioned protocol, a list of 38 best farming practices (on managerial and equipment factors) for ensuring a high level of welfare in dairy cattle. All stakeholders (veterinarians, farmers, competent authorities, consumers, etc.) can benefit of these best practices as a guide or toolbox to ensure a life worth living for these animals.

What Is so Positive about Positive Animal Welfare?-A Critical Review of the Literature

Simple Summary

Positive animal welfare (PAW) is thought to have come about as a response to there being too much of a focus on avoiding negatives in animal welfare science. However, despite its development over the last 10 years, it is not clear what it adds to the study of animal welfare. To clarify this, we conduct a review of the literature on PAW. We aim to identify the characteristic features of PAW and to show how PAW connects to the wider literature on animal welfare. We find that the PAW literature is characterised by four features: (1) positive emotions which highlights the capacity of animals to experience positive emotions; (2) positive affective engagement which seeks to create a link between positive emotions and behaviours animals are motivated to engage in; (3) quality of life which acts to give PAW a role in defining an appropriate balance of positives over negatives and; (4) happiness which brings a full life perspective to PAW. While the first two are already well situated in animal welfare studies the two last points open research agendas about aggregation of different aspects of PAW and how earlier experiences affect animals’ ability to have well-rounded lives.

Abstract

It is claimed that positive animal welfare (PAW) developed over the last decade in reaction to animal welfare focusing too much on avoiding negatives. However, it remains unclear what PAW adds to the animal welfare literature and to what extent its ideas are new. Through a critical review of the PAW literature, we aim to separate different aspects of PAW and situate it in relation to the traditional animal welfare literature. We find that the core PAW literature is small (n = 10 papers) but links to wider areas of current research interest. The PAW literature is defined by four features: (1) positive emotions which is arguably the most widely acknowledged; (2) positive affective engagement which serves to functionally link positive emotions to goal-directed behavior; (3) quality of life which serves to situate PAW within the context of finding the right balance of positives over negatives; (4) happiness which brings a full life perspective to PAW. While the two first points are already part of welfare research going back decades, the two latter points could be linked to more recent research agendas concerning aggregation and how specific events may affect the ability of animals to make the best of their lives.

What Are the Positives? Exploring Positive Welfare Indicators in a Qualitative Interview Study with Livestock Farmers

To support the furtherance of positive animal welfare, there is a need to develop meaningful and practical positive welfare indicators for on-farm welfare assessment. Considering the perspectives of farmers is arguably critical in this regard. Doing so helps ensure positive welfare indicators reflect farmers' existing welfare norms and attitudes and, are thus, of practical relevance to them. However, a key issue for such development is the dearth of knowledge on farmers' perspectives of positive welfare. To address this, this study uses qualitative interviews to directly examine livestock farmers' perspectives of positive welfare. Findings reveal that farmers describe elements of positive welfare which are broadly in line with indicators suggested in the positive welfare literature. These elements include animal autonomy, play, positive affect, positive human-animal relationships, social interaction, and appropriate genetic selection. Additionally, this study finds that farmers construct the reduction of negative aspects of welfare as their primary management concern and mostly construct positive welfare as arising indirectly from this. Insights into the importance that farmers of different sectors and systems give to different aspects of positive welfare indicators are also explored. The implications of these findings and the similitudes between farmers' perspectives and the positive welfare literature are discussed.