Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) is part of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle, although its inter- and intra-observer reliability have not been reported. This study evaluated inter- and intra-observer reliability of the QBA for dairy cattle in experienced and inexperienced observers using videos. Eight experienced observers performed the QBA (20 descriptors) twice for 16 video clips (60 s per clip; series 1) showing 4-17 animals. They assessed another 11 video clips showing herds (4 shots of 30 s per clip; series 2). Ten inexperienced observers performed the QBA on both video series one time. Inter-observer reliability of experienced observers ranged from slight to moderate (both assessments of series 1), and from low to high (series 2) for descriptors, and from slight to moderate for the QBA score. Inter-observer reliability of inexperienced observers ranged from low to moderate (series 1), and from low to high (series 2) for descriptors, and was moderate (both series) for the QBA score. Intra-observer correlations varied largely per descriptor and observer. They were both negative and positive, and ranged from low to very high. High correlations, however, were not necessarily associated with low paired differences. Values of half of the descriptors and the QBA score differed amongst experienced and inexperienced observers. The QBA appears insufficiently reliable as a tool for welfare assessment in dairy cattle.

Equipping birds with tags (defined as any item externally attached to birds, including transmitters, loggers and flipper bands, or implanted devices, such as transponders) gives particular insights into animal biology, although researchers may not give systematic consideration of tag impact. We examined 357 papers published between 1986 and 2009 where tags (excluding rings attached to birds’ legs) were used on seabirds, to examine the extent to which researchers considered deleterious effects. Fifty-one (14.3%) papers considered instrumentation effects in their abstract, 31 (60.8%) of which showed statistically significant effects on seabird biology. Of the total data set, 302 (84.6%) articles were classified as ‘indirect’ (with no stated aim to assess the influence of the equipment used) and although most of these (237; 76.5%) did discuss instrumentation effects, this accounted for less than a mean of 2% of the total length of the text. Despite a clear increase in the number of papers based on tagging technology for seabird study over the previous 24 years, there has been no corresponding increase in documentation of the effects of devices on their bearers. We suggest mechanisms by which this issue might be addressed.

People affect animals through four broad types of activity: (1) people keep companion, farm, laboratory and captive wild animals, often while using them for some purpose; (2) people cause deliberate harm to animals through activities such as slaughter, pest control, hunting, and toxicology testing; (3) people cause direct but unintended harm to animals through crop production, transportation, night-time lighting, and many other human activities; and (4) people harm animals indirectly by disturbing ecological systems and the processes of nature, for example by destroying habitat, introducing foreign species, and causing pollution and climate change. Each type of activity affects vast numbers of animals and raises different scientific and ethical challenges. In Type 1 activities (keeping animals), the challenge is to improve care, sometimes by finding options that benefit both people and animals. In Type 2 activities (deliberate harm), the challenge is to avoid compounding intentional harms with additional, unintended harms, such as animal suffering. For Type 3 and 4 activities, the challenges are to understand the unintended and indirect harms that people cause, to motivate people to recognise and avoid such harms, and to find less harmful ways of achieving human goals. With Type 4 activities, this may involve recognising commonalities between animal welfare, conservation and human well-being. Animal welfare science and animal ethics philosophy have traditionally focused on Type 1 and 2 activities. These fields need to include Type 3 and 4 activities, especially as they increase with human population growth.

Conservation biology and animal welfare science are multidisciplinary fields of research that address social concerns about animals. Conservation biology focuses on wild animals, works at the level of populations, ecological systems and genetic types, and deals with threats to biodiversity and ecological integrity. Animal welfare science typically focuses on captive (often domestic) animals, works at the level of individuals and groups, and deals with threats to the animals’ health and quality of life. However, there are many areas of existing or potential overlap: (i) many real-life problems, such as environmental contamination, urban development and transportation, create problems for animals that involve both welfare and conservation; (ii) research methods from each field are needed to address some of the scientific problems of the other; and (iii) policies and practices targeting either conservation or animal welfare may prove unproductive if they do not take account of both areas of concern. Moreover, scientists in both fields face the common challenge of applying science to guide policy and practice, often to issues that are both empirical and ethical, and often under conditions of uncertainty. There are many cases where communication and co-operation between the fields should lead to better science and better practical outcomes.

Aversion to the dip-lift stunning system and to the inhalation of 70 and 90% carbon dioxide was assessed in 18 halothane-free (NN) and 14 heterozygous halothane (Nn) slaughter weight pigs using aversion learning techniques and behavioural studies in an experimental slaughterhouse. Pigs were subjected to the treatments individually. When the dip lift system contained atmospheric air, the proportion of pigs that entered the crate voluntarily increased on subsequent days, indicating that pigs habituate to the stunning system. Based on the number of attempted retreats, for the first descent into the well with atmospheric air, Nn pigs were more reactive than NN pigs. On repeating the descent, Nn pigs showed greater habituation to the procedure. When the pit contained (either 70 or 90%) carbon dioxide, the time taken to enter the crate and the incidence of pigs that attempted to retreat increased on subsequent days, indicating aversion to the carbon dioxide concentrations. The aversion was higher when the stunning system contained 90 as opposed to 70% carbon dioxide due possibly to increased irritation of the nasal mucosal membranes and more severe hyperventilation. Conversely, a decrease in the concentration of carbon dioxide increased the time to loss of posture and, therefore, lengthened the perception of the aversive stimulus till the animal lost consciousness. These results suggest that stunning with carbon dioxide is not free from pain or distress. The degree of aversion depends on the carbon dioxide concentration. Therefore, if higher concentrations of carbon dioxide are recommended for rapid induction of anaesthesia, it needs to be assumed that this may be more aversive to pigs.

Behavioural management in zoos is often practiced within the confines of environmental enrichment, a well-known method which attempts to increase the welfare of captive animals. For the successful conservation and reintroduction of threatened or endangered species, however, it is also important to manage behaviour in such a way as to maintain behavioural diversity. The development of natural behaviour management (NBM) programs is advocated in this paper. These programs will act to maintain behavioural diversity in captivity and will encourage behaviour to be displayed in appropriate contexts through exposure of captive animals to naturalistic stimuli. The importance of developing appropriate antipredator and predation behaviours will be discussed in order to demonstrate how NBM strategies differ from, and can even conflict with, environmental enrichment strategies undertaken for welfare reasons.

Maternal behaviour in free-ranging sows is normally performed in an isolated nest that the sow has built during the pre-parturient period. Consequently there is much concern over the use of restrictive farrowing crates, in which manipulable substrates are often not provided, for parturient sows under commercial conditions. This study examined the impact of the provision of space and substrate on the performance of maternal behaviour by gilts (primiparous sows) on physiological indicators of stress and on the progress of parturition. Gilts had an indwelling jugular catheter implanted 12 days before their expected farrowing date. At 5 days before expected farrowing, 34 gilts were placed in one of four farrowing treatments: crate without straw (C, n = 8), crate with straw (CS, n = 9), pen without straw (P, n = 9) or pen with straw (PS, n = 8). Behavioural observations of gilts and piglets were made during an 8 h period after the expulsion of the first piglet. Blood samples were taken via a catheter extension to minimise disturbance throughout the parturition period. Gilts in all treatments were most active in the first 2 h: performing more standing/walking, substrate-directed and piglet-directed behaviour. This active phase was followed by inactivity and passivity, as has been seen in free-ranging sows. However, this temporal profile of behaviour was more pronounced in the penned gilts (P and PS), which were more active during the first 2 h than the crated gilts (C and CS). Gilts in crates spent longer sitting throughout the 8 h period and tended to show more savaging of their piglets. Savaging gilts were found to be more active and responsive to piglets. The provision of straw did not alter gilt behaviour but did alter piglet behaviour, with piglets that were born into environments with no straw (C and P) spending more time next to the gilt's udder. The provision of straw increased the length of parturition (CS and PS), but this did not have detrimental effects on piglet survival. Plasma cortisol was unaffected by space or substrate, however, plasma ACTH was found to be highest in C gilts during the second hour of parturition. Plasma oxytocin was unaffected by space or substrate, however, there was a positive relationship between plasma oxytocin and unresponsiveness to piglets. In conclusion, it appears that farrowing crates thwart interactions between the gilt and her piglets, and that the provision of space during parturition, irrespective of straw availability, facilitates the performance of maternal behaviour that more closely resembles that performed by free-ranging sows.

Since animal minds are private, so their perception of their own quality of life (QoL) must be also. Anthropocentrism, the interpretation of reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience, has to be guarded against in any assessment of animal welfare; for domestic pets, misapprehensions about their olfactory and cognitive abilities appear to present the greatest challenge to their welfare. Anthropomorphism, the attribution of human qualities to animals, presents a particular problem when considering companion animals, since most bonds between owners and their pets appear to be based upon a perception of the pet as almost human. Many owners report that their dogs, cats and horses are capable of feeling complex emotions, such as pride and guilt, that require a level of self-awareness that has been difficult to demonstrate even in chimpanzees. Such beliefs appear to contribute to the development of behavioural disorders in pets; for example, clinical experience suggests that the application of punishment by owners who attribute ‘guilt’ to their animals may unwittingly lead to compromised welfare. Anthropomorphic owners are also likely to be poor proxies for reporting their pets' QoL.

All systems of scoring animal units (groups, farms, slaughter plants, etc) according to the level of the animals’ welfare are based inevitably on normative decisions. Similarly, all methods of labelling, in terms of acceptability, are based on choices reflecting ethical values. The evaluative dimension of scoring and labelling does not mean that we should reject them, but it does mean that we need to make the normative and ethical background explicit. The Welfare Quality® scoring system is used as a case study in order to highlight the role of underlying value-based decisions. In this scoring system, which was designed in accordance with assessments and judgments from experts in animal and social sciences and stakeholders, we identify value-based decisions at the following five levels. First, there are several definitions of animal welfare (eg hedonist, perfectionist, and preferentialist), and any welfare scoring system will reflect a focus upon one or other definition. In Welfare Quality®, 12 welfare criteria were defined, and the entire list of criteria was intended to cover relevant definitions of animal welfare. Second, two dimensions can structure an overall evaluation of animal welfare: the individual animals and the welfare criteria (here 12). Hence, a choice needs to be made between the aggregation of information at the individual level (which results in a proportion of animals from the unit in a good vs bad state) and the aggregation at criterion level (which results in a proportion of criteria to which the unit complies vs does not comply). Welfare Quality® opted for the second alternative to facilitate the provision of advice to farmers on solving the welfare problems associated with their farms. Third, one has to decide whether the overall welfare assessment should reflect the average state of the animals or give priority to worse-off animals. In the Welfare Quality® scoring system the worse-off animals are treated as much more important than the others, but all welfare problems, major or minor, count. Fourth, one has to decide whether good scores on certain criteria can compensate for bad scores on others. In the opinion of most people, welfare scores do not compensate each other. This was taken into account in the Welfare Quality® scoring system by using a specific operator instead of mere weighted sums. Finally, a scoring system may either reflect societal demands for high levels of welfare or be based on what can be achieved in practice — in other words, an absolute assessment or a relative one may be proposed. Welfare Quality® adopted an intermediate strategy: absolute limits between welfare categories (Not classified, Acceptable, Enhanced, or Excellent level of welfare) were set, but the rules governing the assignment of an animal unit to a category take into account what had been observed on European farms. The scientists behind Welfare Quality® are keen to make the value-based choices underlying assessments of animal welfare transparent. This is essential to allow stakeholder groups to understand the extent to which their views are acknowledged and acted upon.

The inflammatory response evokes changes in behaviour including increased thermoregulatory activities and sleep, reduced social exploration and appetite, and altered food preferences. This sickness response also includes feelings of lethargy, depression, and pain, collectively referred to as ‘malaise’. Recent experiments involving laboratory rodents reveal information about proximate mechanisms of sickness behaviour, but scant information exists about how sickness behaviour is expressed by farmed species or within social environments. The behavioural needs of ill individuals differ from those of conspecifics, and failure to accommodate the needs of ill individuals may exacerbate suffering. Policy makers, industry and animal welfare certification programs recommend hospital pens to address the housing and handling needs of ill livestock and to reduce risks of disease transmission. However, a survey of swine farms in Ontario, Canada revealed deficiencies in the use of hospital pens and gaps in knowledge about best management practices for this vulnerable population. There is considerable scope to improve the welfare and husbandry of ill and at risk animals through effective use of hospital pens and supportive therapies.

Controlled atmosphere (gas) stunning (CAS) has the potential to improve the welfare of poultry at slaughter but there is a lack of consensus about which gas mixtures are most humane. The aim of this study was to evaluate the welfare consequences of different gas stunning approaches. Individual broilers were exposed to gas mixtures capable of inducing unconsciousness and euthanasia while their behavioural, cardiac, respiratory and neurophysiological responses were measured simultaneously. The approaches investigated included anoxia (N2 or Ar with < 2% residual O2), hypercapnic anoxia (30% CO2 in Ar, 40% CO2 in N2) and a biphasic method (40% CO2, 30% O2, 30% N2 for 60 s followed by 80% CO2 in air). Evaluation of the welfare implications of each approach centred on the likelihood of them inducing negative states or experiences during the conscious phase. Hypercapnic mixtures were associated with strong respiratory responses, while anoxic mixtures induced vigorous wing flapping. Electroencephalogram analysis using the correlation dimension (a non-linear measure of complexity) suggested that anoxic wing flapping occurred during periods in which a form of consciousness could not be excluded. Hypercapnic hyperoxygenation (biphasic approach) exacerbated respiratory responses but eliminated the possibility of vigorous behavioural responses occurring during a conscious phase. The relative importance of respiratory discomfort versus the potential to induce significant distress due to convulsive wing flapping and associated trauma is a matter for debate. We argue that respiratory discomfort is unpleasant but may be preferable to the risk of vigorous wing flapping and associated injury while conscious in poultry during CAS.

Appropriate space allowances for animals are yet to be specifically determined for lairage. Space allowances that may be suitable for animals in lairage are suggested, based on reviewed studies of animals in transport, lairage and on farm. The longer animals are in lairage the more space they require, in order to be able to get up and lie down and lie undisturbed by congeners. Little work has been done on air quality and air flow characteristics in lairages. The range of ventilation must be sufficient to control levels of toxic or irritant gases such as carbon dioxide and ammonia and to remove excess heat and humidity; the latter being particularly relevant for pig lairages in hot weather. Intensities of sound measured in lairages often exceed 85 dB and there is evidence to suggest that such levels can be stressful especially for pigs; and human shouting appears particularly aversive to animals. Cattle vocalise in response to painful stimuli and to convey information to conspecifics that may be related to fear and distress. There is limited evidence that sheep adapt to continuous sound, provided it is not too loud, but respond to intermittent sounds such as gates banging and human shouting. Vocal communication between sheep may be less important than that between cattle and pigs. Levels of vocalisation are potential indices of animal welfare. Animals' prior experiences and factors such as sex, group size and constitution, pen design, and climatic or environmental conditions affect their welfare and responses to conditions in lairage.

Academics working on animal welfare typically consider the animal's affective state (eg the experience of pain), biological functioning (eg the presence of injuries), and sometimes naturalness (eg access to pasture), but it is unclear how these different factors are weighed in different cases. We argue that progress can be informed by systematically observing how ordinary people respond to scenarios designed to elicit varying, and potentially conflicting, types of concern. The evidence we review illustrates that people vary in how much weight they place on each of these three factors in their assessments of welfare in different cases; in some cases, concerns about the animal's affective state are predominant, and in other cases other concerns are more important. This evidence also suggests that people's assessments can also include factors (like the animal's relationship with its caregiver) that do not fit neatly within the dominant three-circles framework of affect, functioning and naturalness. We conclude that a more complete understanding of the multiple conceptions of animal welfare can be advanced by systematically exploring the views of non-specialists, including their responses to scenarios designed to elicit conflicting concerns.

The effect of individual differences on the behaviour and reproduction of zoo animals has long been recognised by zoo biologists, yet only recently has the quantitative assessment of personality been used to investigate some of the challenges faced in zoo animal management. We review the findings of animal personality studies carried out in zoos since 1995. Our results reveal that zoo animal personality is most commonly assessed using observer ratings, where people who are familiar with the animals are asked to rate them on various personality traits. The reviewed studies indicate that zoo keepers are able to reliably rate animal personality traits, and these ratings are valid and related to behaviour. We identify promising areas of development in zoo animal personality research and suggest applications of personality profiling to zoo animal welfare and management. We argue that a validated personality questionnaire is a valuable tool for zoo professionals and advocate the implementation of personality assessment into existing zoo management practices to inform decisions on welfare and captive breeding.

One million pet rabbits are kept in The Netherlands, but there are no data available on their behaviour and welfare. This study seeks to assess the welfare of pet rabbits in Dutch households and is a first step in the development of a welfare assessment system. In an internet survey, housing systems, general up-keep and behaviour of pet rabbits were reported by their owners. The answers of 912 respondents were analysed with behavioural observations carried out on 66 rabbits in as many households. The rabbits were observed in their home cage and during three fear-related tests: a contact test, a handling test and an open-field test. The survey revealed that the average lifespan of the rabbits is approximately 4.2 years (the maximum potential lifespan is 13 years) and solitary housing appears to reduce lifespan. Close to half of respondents subjected their rabbit(s) to solitary housing and the majority housed them in relatively small cages (< 5,000 cm2). Health risks may arise from a failure to inoculate rabbits and via inappropriate diet. During the contact test, solitary-housed rabbits made more contacts with a human than group-housed rabbits and rabbits in a small housing system made more contacts than those in a large system. Observations in the home cage differed greatly compared with the natural time budget of rabbits, ie displaying increased stereotypic behaviour and decreased foraging and, in solitary-housed rabbits, a complete lack of social behaviour. Nearly 25% of rabbits displayed strong resistance to being picked up, indicating socialisation problems. During the open-field test, solitary-housed rabbits sat up more than social-housed rabbits suggesting increased fearfulness. These findings indicate that the conditions in which pet rabbits are kept often have a negative impact on their welfare, further underlining the need to study this in greater detail.

Our objective was to examine how short-term exposure to wind or rain, or the combination of wind and rain, influences behavioural and physiological responses and the motivation for shelter. Twenty-four, non-lactating, pregnant Holstein-Friesian cows were individually housed and allocated one of four treatments (control, wind, rain, wind and rain) created with fans and sprinklers. Feed intake and behavioural and physiological variables were recorded for 22 h. Motivation to use the shelter was assessed by creating a tradeoff between time spent feeding while exposed to the weather treatments and time spent in the shelter. Feeding times were manipulated by placing frames with three different mesh sizes over the feed; the purpose of the smaller mesh was to increase the time spent feeding. However, shelter use was unchanged by these costs. Cows reduced their feed intake by 62% when exposed to rain and the combination of rain and wind. Cows spent approximately 50% of their time in the shelters in all weather treatments and spent little time lying, especially under wet conditions (5.9, 4.4, 2.8, and 1.1 [± 1.4 h] per 22 h for control, wind, rain, and wind/rain treatments, respectively; mean [± SED]). Rain alone, and in combination with wind, decreased skin temperature by 26%, on average. The short-term response to wet conditions was characterised by a marked decline in lying time, feed intake and skin temperature. Wind alone had little effect on these responses, but magnified the effect of simulated rain on feeding behaviour. These results indicate that protection from both rain and the combination of rain and wind is likely to be important for animal welfare, but future work is needed to understand when and how to provide protection to pastured dairy cattle.

Previous research has shown that pre-parturient primiparous pigs (gilts) housed in behaviourally restrictive farrowing crates without straw redirect their nest-building behaviour to non-manipulable substrates such as the bars of the crate. These gilts also show elevated plasma adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and Cortisol levels, particularly around the peak of nest-building activity, when compared to gilts in larger pens that have been provided with a manipulable substrate (straw). It remains unclear whether these behavioural and physiological responses to crating result from the lack of a suitable nesting substrate or from the restricted space. This study investigated the effects of space (crate [C] versus pen [P] and straw (straw [S] versus no straw [NS]) using a 2 × 2 factorial design. Thirty-four gilts were implanted with an indwelling jugular catheter at around 12 days before parturition. They were moved to one of the four environments five days before parturition, and blood sampling and recording of behaviour were carried out during the pre-parturient period. Penned gilts (P), irrespective of straw availability, spent more time standing and walking and performed more total substrate-directed behaviour than crated (C) gilts. When straw was not available to penned gilts, a large proportion of their substrate-directed behaviour was redirected to the floor. Space also had an effect on ACTH and Cortisol levels across the entire pre-parturient phase, with C gilts having higher levels than P gilts irrespective of straw availability, but particularly so at the peak of nest-building activity. There was no effect of straw on ACTH or Cortisol levels. Overall, it appears that increased space, perhaps through allowing locomotion, increases substrate-directed behaviour of pre-parturient gilts. When space is available but straw is absent, pre-parturient gilts redirect their nest-building behaviour to the floor. The ability to express substrate-directed behaviour as a result of increased space is reflected in lower levels of indicators of physiological stress.

Animal rescue shelters provide temporary housing for thousands of stray and abandoned dogs every year. Many of these animals fail to find new homes and are forced to spend long periods of time in kennels. This study examined the influence of the length of time spent in a rescue shelter (<1 month, 2-12 months, 1-5 years, >5 years) on the behaviour of 97 dogs. The dogs ‘ position in their kennels (front, back), their activity (moving, standing, sitting, resting, sleeping), and their vocalisation (barking, quiet, other) were recorded over a 4 h period at 10 min intervals. The dogs’ behaviour was significantly related to the length of time the animals had spent in the rescue shelter. Dogs housed in the shelter for over five years spent more of their time at the back of their kennels, more time resting, and less time barking than dogs housed in the shelter for shorter periods of time. The age of the dog could not account for the significant results found, suggesting that environmental factors were responsible for the change in the dogs’ behaviour. The findings suggest that lengthy periods of time spent in a captive environment may encourage dogs to behave in a manner that is generally considered unattractive by potential buyers. This may decrease the chances of such dogs being adopted, resulting in longer periods of time spent in the kennel environment and the possible development of further undesirable behaviours.

Tail and ear biting lesions have a negative effect both on the animal welfare status of pigs (Sus scrofus) and the economical revenue of the pig farm. Tail biting behaviour is an unpredictable, abnormal behaviour that is thought to have a multifactorial origin. On-farm factors influencing tail biting have been described, but the real triggers are poorly understood. Much of the research into tail biting has been done on a small scale within a well-controlled environment and small sample sizes. This well-controlled environment is not always representative of the contemporary commercial conditions. Therefore, an observational epidemiological approach at farm level was adopted to gain a better insight into the factors influencing the occurrence of tail and ear biting lesions. Tail and ear biting lesions were observed at pen level three times a year on sixty farms across Belgium. A questionnaire was conducted to build a multifactorial model indicating different risk factors concerning the lesions scored. The temperature and the number of feeding places per animal in the nursery, the percentage of floor space covered with slats in the farrowing unit, the feed type in the growing unit and the overall hygiene policy were the most important indicators for the appearance of tail and ear biting lesions during fattening. The leave-one-out cross validation of the model demonstrated an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.55 between the predicted model outcomes and the observed data. This epidemiological study provides important potential risk factors in relation to the incidence of tail and ear biting lesions. However, experimental and/or longitudinal studies have to confirm that the correlations found in this work are causal factors.

This study examined the effects of environmental enrichment on aggressive behaviour and dominance relationships in growing pigs. Three hundred and twenty pigs were reared from birth to 15 weeks of age in either barren or enriched environments. The barren environments were defined by common intensive housing conditions (ie with slatted floors and in terms of recommended space allowances), while the enriched environments incorporated extra space and substrates for manipulation. Aggressive behaviour was observed in a social confrontation test during the suckling period and dominance relationships were assessed from a food competition test at 12 weeks of age. Animals were weighed at regular intervals throughout the experiment. Environmental enrichment reduced the expression of aggressive behaviour. Pigs from enriched rearing environments fought significantly less with unfamiliar animals than those from barren environments when tested under standard conditions (mean of 1.46 vs 2.75 fights per 30min test for enriched vs barren environments; SEM 0.20, P < 0.001). The nature of dominance relationships also appeared to differ between barren and enriched environments. In barren environments, dominance among pen mates was correlated with aggression (r = 0.33, P < 0.01), whereas in enriched environments it was correlated with body weight (r = 0.24, P < 0.01). Correlations between behaviour in the social confrontation and food competition tests suggested that dominance characteristics were established early in life and remained stable through the growing period.