Recent reports and comments
All Reports and Comments are available to view on Ingenta Connect at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw.
Volume 19 Issue 3 - August 2010
Volume 19 Issue 1 - February 2010
Teaching guide promotes co-existence of humans and elephants in Indonesia
The Zoo Outreach Organisation (ZOO) is a conservation, research, education and welfare non-governmental organisation based in India. Founded in 1985, ZOO originally began working with zoos when the Indian Government issued a mandate to provide technical and educational support for Indian zoos, enhance their public image, and to liaise between local, national and international interests for the benefit of Indian zoos. ZOO has since grown far beyond its small beginnings and now has many active in situ and ex situ conservation programmes across south Asia.
One of ZOO’s latest educational initiatives is a series of workshops that promote the co-existence of humans and elephants in regions of human-elephant conflict. The latest workshop targeted regions within Indonesia and a Teaching Guide was published, in both Indonesian and English, to aid in teaching local communities. It is hoped that through teaching people about elephant behaviour and biology and how humans can change their own behaviour to avoid confrontation, that there will be less injury and death in both humans and elephants.
The Guide has been designed so that it may be used to educate both literate and illiterate individuals of all ages and the majority of teaching methods used are interactive and involve role-play, games, quizzes and active debate. The emphasis of teaching is on acknowledging how local communities themselves are affected by human-elephant conflict and understanding their current attitudes. The Guide then aims to help teachers describe a more positive and practical way that people may deal with conflict. Divided into five parts, teachers using the Guide are given advice on how to assess the audience to be taught; provides information related specifically to elephants in Indonesia; gives suggestions on how to ‘live with giants’; presents general elephant biology and history in ‘know your elephant’; and culminates in a chapter on understanding the species problem and possible routes towards resolution.
Teaching Guide Indonesia: HECx Getting Along with Elephants: Human Elephant Co-existence (November 2009). 142 pages. ISBN 978 81 88722 27 3. Written by BA Daniel and S Walker. Produced by the Zoo Outreach Organisation Trust. Further information available from the Zoo Outreach Organisation Trust, PB 1683, Peelamedu, Coimbatore 641004, Tamil Nadu, India; Email: zooreach@zooreach.org; Website: www.zooreach.org
E Carter
UFAW
Animal welfare in wildlife management and conservation
This year’s RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar was on ‘Convergence or Conflict: Animal Welfare in Wildlife Management and Conservation’. The Seminar reflects growing interest in this area, globally, and the increasing recognition that concern for animal welfare should not just focus on domesticated animals. It is also an area of particular interest in Australia owing to the inclusion of wild animals in the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy.
The Seminar, held in the Canberra, Australia, CSIRO Discovery Centre, carried a range of papers that had an Australian flavour but themes that are internationally applicable: humane management of unwanted wild animals, the impacts of urbanisation, agricultural and pastoral development and climate change, better engagement of public support, and essentially, how to produce outcomes that meet animal welfare and conservation goals in a range of interventions.
A report was also launched during the course of the day on cat ecology and management. It covers cat ecology, legislative status in Australian states and territories, impacts on native fauna, cat abundance monitoring and management strategies. Cat management is a topic of serious concern to regulatory authorities, animal welfare societies and conservationists alike, and often a cause of tension between them. For instance, there have been recent debates on the management of stray cat colonies by trap-neuter-release programmes, with questions being raised about the animal welfare and conservation impacts of such programmes. Full copies of this report are available online at www.feral.org.au/feral_documents/CatReport_web.pdf.
RSPCA Science Seminars have been held for over 10 years. Previous topics include animals and human health, transport, farm animal welfare, animal cruelty, aquatic animal welfare, humane vertebrate pest control, companion animal welfare and equine welfare. See www.rspca.org.au for full list, including proceedings and papers.
The topic of animal welfare and conservation (the animal welfare impacts of human interventions carried out in the name of conservation), is attracting growing interest, with more and more seminars and workshops on the topic covering the range of opinions. This year’s May issue of Animal Welfare (volume 19, number 2), focused on one such workshop. For those interested, a seminar in Oxford later this year will also deal with this subject. See www.compassionateconservation.org for more information.
RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar on Convergence or Conflict: Animal Welfare in Wildlife Management and Conservation (February 2010). Abstracts and poster presentations available at: http://www.rspca.org.au/what-we-do/science-and-policies/science-seminar.html
K Littin
Senior Adviser Animal Welfare,
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,
New Zealand
New Regulations for racing greyhounds in England
The welfare of racing greyhounds became a topic of public interest around five years ago when concerns were raised over the welfare of dogs both at the racetrack and once their racing lives had finished. Following these concerns the government gave a commitment, under the Animal Welfare Bill 2006, to introduce secondary legislation specifically to safeguard the welfare of racing greyhounds.
Considerable work has since been undertaken in the area, including two prominent investigations: an independent review of the greyhound racing industry, led by Lord Donoughue, and a six-month inquiry into the welfare of racing greyhounds, by the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. Additionally, many working groups and meetings between industry representatives and welfare groups have taken place, along with a full public consultation of a set of draft Regulations in 2009. The culmination of this work is the ‘Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010’, published in March 2010 and in effect from April 2010.
The new Regulations hope to both improve the welfare of racing greyhounds in England and improve the traceability of greyhounds once they leave the sport. To this end, a number of minimum standards have been introduced and any person operating a greyhound racing track will now be required to obtain a licence from their local authority. In order for a licence to be granted a number of key conditions will have to be satisfied, including:
-
A veterinary surgeon must be present at all race meetings, race trials and sales trials to inspect any dog before it runs and to provide first aid treatment where necessary;
-
Appropriate facilities must be provided for the veterinary surgeon, including: a lockable room, lockable drug cabinet, hot and cold running water, fridge, freezer, and an examination table — these facilities must be in close proximity of the track and for the sole use of the attending veterinary surgeon;
-
All tracks must provide ventilated kennelling for at least 20% of the dogs present and kennels must be of a minimum size (although the minimum dimension will not apply to kennels built before the Regulations came into force);
-
All racing greyhounds must be uniquely identified by both a microchip and, if born after the date the Regulations come into force, via an earmark — these details must be placed on a national database;
-
All tracks must keep records of all greyhounds raced or trialled, along with current owner and trainer details — records must be kept for a minimum of ten years; and
-
The attending veterinary surgeon must record any injury sustained by a greyhound whilst racing and a record of this injury must be kept at the track for a minimum or ten years.
The Regulations are predominantly aimed at ‘independent’ tracks. There are 33 racing tracks in England and the majority (26) are regulated by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB). The remaining seven operate independently. The GBGB have their own welfare standards (which already comply with the Regulations) and they have recently received UKAS accreditation to act as a regulator of welfare standards at a national level. Tracks registered with the GBGB will be exempt from the licence requirement in the Regulations whilst independent tracks will be required to obtain a licence from their local authority.
The Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 (March 2010). A4, 10 pages. Published by the Stationary Office Limited. A copy of the Regulations can be found at the Office of Public Sector Information website:http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/uksi_20100543_en_1.
E Carter
UFAW
Wild bird care in the garden: a scientific look at large scale, do-it-yourself, wildlife management
In May, veterinary surgeons, epidemiologists, wildlife biologists, conservationists, animal welfare scientists and other concerned individuals met at the Zoological Society of London to discuss wild garden birds and the impact that human interaction with these birds has on their health and welfare. Of particular interest was the practice of supplementary feeding.
The symposium started with an introduction by Dr James Kirkwood (UFAW) detailing the background to this meeting, the genesis of which was the formation of the Garden Bird Health Initiative in 2003. The GBHi aims were to develop and publish guidelines about how to best feed garden birds in order to maximise the benefits for their welfare and conservation and, with the help of a network of members of the public used as its ‘eyes and ears’, to undertake a major garden bird health surveillance and research project. One of the areas of particular interest was the epidemiology of infectious diseases amongst those birds that visit feeding stations.
The talks that followed reflected this enterprise and its interests. Dr Kirkwood was followed by Chris Whittles (CJ WildBird Foods Ltd) who gave a short history of garden bird feeding, focusing particularly on the role of companies such as his in promoting change in the type and quality of food being put out for garden birds; from suet balls and low grade peanuts in red plastic net bags in the 1960s, to the current diverse range of polycarbonate and metal tubular feeders and foods such as mealworms, peanut cakes, nyjer seed and sunflower hearts.
The next speaker, Dr Darryl Jones (Griffith University) discussed attitude to wild bird feeding in Australia. Unlike the UK, where supplementary feeding of birds is generally regarded as a positive activity, he reported active opposition to the practice, especially amongst those who were more conservation-minded. In Australia, the birds visiting feeders tend to be more carnivorous and meats and cheeses are a feature of the food put out. Conservationist groups are concerned that such food supplementation may artificially increase the density of these predatory species, as well as the general nutritional adequacy of the foods being provided, the possible spread of disease, and most significantly, the possibility of birds becoming dependant on these anthropogenic foods. Dr Jones pointed out, however, that there is very little data that supports these concerns; experiments with Australian magpies have, for example, showed little/no such dependency. Rather, supplementary feeding has been found to encourage earlier breeding, more frequent breeding attempts, and increased productivity. Dr Jones concluded that for all its ubiquitousness there is precious little known about the impact of supplementary feeding and that we are engaged on a worldwide experiment that needs to be better studied.
Dr Stuart Bearhop (University of Exeter) then described how variation in the uptake of food supplements by wild birds could be tracked by using stable isotopes, an approach which offers the possibility of the sort of questions raised by Dr Jones as to dependency on anthropogenic foods to be answered. His study of blue tits showed no effect of fat or fat and vitamin E on breeding at population level but an effect at individual level, the level at which natural selection occurs, where supplemented birds laid earlier and produced more chicks.
The effect of supplementary feeding was also the focus of the contribution by Dr Stuart Reynolds (University of Birmingham), who looked at its impact on breeding performance in great tits and blue tits. He found that although intake of supplements by individual birds was trivial — he likened it to the birds ‘snacking’ on supplements — it was found to still have a marked and multiple effect on the bird’s breeding outputs. He showed that in fed woodlands the first egg-laying date in both species was advanced, but brood size reduced. In addition, hatching success was reduced in fed treatments for blue tits, which experienced decreased fledging. He concluded that birds might consider food supplements as an ‘insurance’ food resource that could influence breeding phenology and that defence of food supplements may bring birds into more direct conflict with others as they encourage more frequent crossing of territory boundaries.
The next talk, by John Mallord (RSPB), discussed the role of food supplementation in helping declining species. Since 1994, there has been a sharp drop (66%) in the population of house sparrows in Greater London and there are suggestions that this might be due, in part, to shortages in invertebrate food affecting nestling survival. Sixty-six sites were identified around London, half of which were provided with mealworms twice a day from mid-April to mid-August from 2005 to 2009, equating to 3 million worms (or 380 kg) each year. Supplementary provision of mealworms was found to increase productivity. The effect was greatest the smaller the colony, with the largest colonies showing little or no effect. Dr Mallord put this down to the fact that the same number of mealworms was provided irrespective of colony size and calculated that to maintain population stability 150 mealworms are needed per (male) bird per day. He concluded that invertebrate food is indeed a limiting factor of reproductive success in house sparrows.
As the previous talk demonstrated, monitoring breeding success of urban birds is very important to understand whether management efforts are working. David Leech from the BTO presented results from the UK Nest Box Challenge, launched in 2007, which seeks to gather data on productivity of birds nesting in urban and suburban gardens. Using the on-line data filing system volunteers are able to record data on clutch size, nest box occupancy and other aspects such as garden features, and presence of predators and other species. Among the preliminary results it has emerged that tits occupancy is lower in coniferous gardens, and that blue tits are more abundant than Great tit in urban areas. Blue tit laying date occurs 1.5 days later per every 100 km further north in the UK, and blue tits and great tits lay earlier in urban areas.
The following speaker, Mike Toms (BTO), presented results from the UK Garden Birdwatch Survey, which similarly allows volunteers to record the type and number of birds that visit their gardens. Started in 1995, it receives over 5 million submissions a week, and allows changes in abundance to be monitored and related to other factors outside the garden to understand the cyclic use of gardens by birds. For example, blackbirds seem to disappear from gardens in autumn, when they look for berries elsewhere, and coal tits and siskins use gardens less frequently if natural food sources are more plentiful. A related survey also showed the additional interesting finding that eye size is a good predictor of when birds first become active relative to the sunrise, with birds with larger eyes arriving to gardens first.
The rest of the meeting was then taken up with talks examining garden bird health and risk factors for infection. Dr André Dhondt (Cornell University) presented the problem of the bacterium Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in house finches in North America. This novel strain of Mycoplasmal conjunctivitis causes only a mild problem to poultry but severe symptoms in wild birds. Disease prevalence varies seasonally, peaking in autumn and in late-winter/beginning of spring, while it is at its lowest during the breeding season. Two years after the disease first appeared in the east of the USA in 1996, the population of eastern finches, which were introduced in 1940, had declined by over 50%, while in the west the population remained stable. It seemed that in the west, where the species is native and more genetically heterogenous, birds were more resistant to the disease, although this may have also been due to a less virulent strain present in the west. Individuals that are stressed by food or social competition also seem more susceptible to contracting Mycoplasmal conjunctivitis. Genetic heterozygosity also influences response to the infection.
Becki Lawson (Institute of Zoology) presented the case of trichomonosis, an emerging infectious disease caused by the protozoan Trichomonas gallinae, which is usually found in columbiforms and raptors. From 2005, post mortem examinations carried out as part of the GBHi scheme showed that greenfinches and chaffinches had started to be infected and die from Trichomonas gallinae. From 2006, high rates of mortality in the greenfinch were beginning to be reported through the BTO Garden Birdwatch Scheme linked to this disease and August and September were identified as the peak months of a seasonal epidemic. The Breeding Bird Survey also showed a decline in the breeding population of greenfinches in 2007. The range of susceptible species is increasing in the UK, and affected birds examined now include dunnocks, tits, and a blackbird. It is thought that the infection is likely to have started from sympatric feeding with columbiforms, and to persist through contact between passerines. Keeping the feeding station clean and disinfected is advised to help reduce the risk of infection.
Dr Scott McBurney (University of Prince Edward Island, Canada) talked about his work on tracking trichomonosis in Canada, where it is also an emerging infectious disease, first recognised in 2007. Here, finches are the birds most affected and the peak for the disease occurs in July, but a lack of volunteers reporting sick and dead birds is constraining data collection. In order to study the disease, birds were caught at three sites, and oral and cloacal swabs taken. Trichomonas gallinae was detected, but only from oral swabs, cloacal swabs and bird baths tested negative. More importantly, Trichomonas was isolated from seed removed from a bird feeder at a site where trichomonosis was identified as causing mortality, the first time this has been found. Further research is being carried out.
Dr Tom Pennycott (Scottish Agricultural College) changed disease focus and reported on his work monitoring salmonellosis, which began in 1995. He explained that throughout the year garden birds have to fight pathogens, with infections peaking at different times: Salmonella spp from November to March, Escherichia coli O86 peaking from March to May, and Trichomonas gallinae from July to November. From 2005, he reported a steady fall in cases of salmonellosis, with the greenfinch the species that had previously accounted for the highest levels of infection (95% of infected birds) now only accounting for 40% of detected cases. Similarly, one third of E .coli cases used to involve greenfinches, but now accounted for only 14% of the species affected. Dr Pennycott hypothesised that this may be due to the decline in greenfinches caused by Trichomonas gallinae, resulting in fewer of these birds available to be infected by other pathogens.
Dr Lisette Coiffait (BTO) summarised some of the findings of other work carried out surveying bird mortality initiated as a result of the GBHi. This highlighted disease as a possible problem associated with supplementary feeding of birds. A study carried out from October 2006 to March 2008 showed that most gardens did not have diseased birds but those that had, saw sick birds for 1–2 weeks. Out of a total of 255 dead birds, it was found that 58% had died of a disease (trichomonosis in 68% of cases and salmonellosis in 20%). Greenfinches and chaffinches were the two species most frequently found dead and submitted for post mortem examinations, which showed that the greater majority died from infectious disease. Disease incidence also seemed associated with the provision of large quantities of food but it was difficult to confirm that provision as such directly increases disease risk. Other factors that contributed to gardens experiencing a higher disease incidence included high numbers of tube feeders but no provision of bird baths. Dr Coiffait called for more controlled studies to further elucidate the most important factors influencing disease risk.
Finally, Dr Kate Arnold (University of York), presented the results of an experiment on neophobia in tits, which showed that the stronger species of tits (great) showed preference for familiar colours and pushed weaker species (coal) to novel, and potentially more risky, feeders. She concluded that changing colour of feeders in garden can increase the chance of subordinate species feeding.
The symposium provided an excellent opportunity to exchange ideas and highlight areas that should be the focus of future research. Gardens are becoming increasingly important habitats for wildlife in urban environments, and as the speakers demonstrated, it is essential that scientific knowledge is advanced to help garden animal welfare. At present, there is much still to be discovered.
Wild Bird Care in the Garden: A Scientific Look at Large Scale Do-it-Yourself Wildlife Management (May 2010). UFAW International Animal Welfare Symposium. Abstracts and poster presentations available at: http://www.ufaw.org.uk/wildbirdcareinthegarden.php
D Dadam
Institute of Zoology,
London, UK
S Wickens
UFAW
Codes of Practice for the welfare of companion animals in England: dogs, cats and equines. A lesson in devolved decision-making?
In November 2008, the devolved Welsh Regional Assembly published the first Codes of Practice for the welfare of cats, dogs and equines, as called for under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Over a year on, Defra has now published their version of the same Codes for England (The Scottish Parliament still has yet to do so, although they have consulted).
These Codes highlight the differences that can arise between the regions through their devolved legislative powers in the area of animal health and welfare and their consultation processes and it is interesting to compare their solutions to the same task. Whilst both sets of Codes use a framework based upon the Five Freedoms, with sections that give advice on the need for a suitable environment, diet, exhibition of normal behaviour, companionship and health and welfare, the Defra/English Codes are much briefer and to the point and dispense with the more extensive (and at times, arguably contentious) guidance that was contained within the second of the two-part Welsh codes; the Defra dog code runs to 9 pages for example, the two sections of the Welsh to 56.
As might be expected by this discrepancy, the legislative touch for English pet owners is a much lighter one than is experienced by the Welsh. For example, and as previously reported in the Report and Comment on the Welsh Codes, the summary section on ‘Environment’ in the Dog code requires owners to “make sure your dog has a suitable place to live” by providing it with “a comfortable, dry, draught-free resting area to which it has constant access and where it feels safe” and that it is “kept away from potentially harmful substances”. This contrasts with the Defra Code which states that “Your dog needs a safe environment…. and protection from hazards”. The resting area needs to be “comfortable, clean, dry, quiet” and “draught free”, although there is no requirement for constant access nor that this resting area has to be the place where the dog feels safe (although it should have access to such a place). Further, there is no requirement in the Defra Code, unlike the Welsh, that dogs have a specific bed “with no sharp corners or splinters as these may cause injury”, nor that any large plants that the dogs have contact with “are in a stable container that cannot be knocked over” or that owners should “clean up after your dog at home using a plastic bag or ‘pooper scooper’ and to dispose of any faeces in the waste bin, particularly where there are children around”. Whether you feel that these omissions are a good or bad thing is likely to depend upon your views on the role of legislation and the common-sense of the public. Certainly, if the devil is in the detail, the Defra Codes seem to be trying to trying to ensure that it is a much reduced devil.
In the place of Part 2 of the Welsh Codes, the Defra Codes are content to direct owners to other sources of information, of which the owners’ veterinary surgeon is identified as the primary and most important, along with the websites of numerous animal welfare charities and other concerned organisations (something the Welsh Codes do too but which, because of their length, feels more secondary). This former approach clearly requires the legislative body to have faith that the named organisations, such as the Dogs Trust and RSPCA, will be able to fulfil their role as sources of relevant information and that their advice will not conflict. The more prescriptive route taken by the Welsh Codes avoids this issue, but means that the advice in the Codes will need to be more regularly reviewed by the Welsh Assembly to ensure that it stays current and reflects changes in knowledge.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Defra equine Code differs in tone from the cat and dog Codes in that it is slightly lengthier and more similar to the Welsh Code, which itself is closely akin to the long-standing and successful codes that exist for sheep, cattle and other farmed animals — a reflection of the way they are housed and managed perhaps and not on the place they hold in peoples’ lives.
It is with interest that we await the publication of the Scottish version of the Codes; will they follow the lead of the Welsh or Defra codes or will they adopt another third approach? The decision they take will demonstrate which of the style of Codes they prefer and may place pressure on the unfavoured regional style and Codes to be amended to come in line with the others.
The Codes of Practice for the Welfare of Cats, Dogs and Equines (2009). A4, 8 pages (cat), 9 (dog), 25 (equines). Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. Copies of these documents are available for download from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cruelty/index.htm
S Wickens,
UFAW
Pedigree dog health and welfare part 2. Findings of the Bateson inquiry into dog breeding.
With the publication of the Bateson ‘Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding’ the likely future for dog breeding in the UK becomes clearer. This report, by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS, follows close on the heels of that of The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare’s report into the health and welfare issues surrounding the breeding of pedigree dogs, which was published in November 2009 (and which was the subject of a Report and Comment in Animal Welfare 20:1). Taken together, these complimentary reports challenge the current status quo of The Kennel Club’s control and regulation of the breeding of pedigree (and other) dogs in the UK and raise the distinct possibility that, in line with their key recommendations, it passes instead to a non-statutory Advisory Council on Dog Breeding. The Bateson report advises that the role of this Council should be “to develop evidence-based breeding strategies that address the issues of poor conformation, inherited disease and inbreeding, as appropriate to the specific breed, and to provide advice on the priorities for research and development in this area”. What makes the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Bateson report more likely than is sometimes the case is that the Bateson inquiry was commissioned by The Kennel Club itself, along with the UK charity Dogs Trust.
The findings and views in the report are based on the responses received to an initial call for evidence in February 2009 and subsequent interviews that took place with a range of interested individuals and organisations that included politicians, civil and public servants, scientists, veterinary surgeons, dog breeders, and representatives of animal care charities.
The report starts with chapters considering issues surrounding the domestication of the dog, assessment of animal welfare and genetics and inbreeding before detailing the welfare costs of dog breeding and making recommendations as to the way forward. In the latter sections, Bateson is keen to acknowledge the work that has taken place to address issues of dog breeding. Examples include the work carried out in gathering data on the range and prevalence of different inherited diseases in breeds by the Royal Veterinary College, The Kennel Club’s work to educate and better train judges to recognise and reward good health and fitness of dogs to behave normally, its collaboration with the Animal Health Trust to develop a Mate Select Facility by which breeders can find the most appropriate mate for a dam and its Accredited Breeders Scheme which seeks to encourage the breeding of healthy puppies. However, even when doing so, he also highlights where improvements must occur. For example, he calls for greater public funding for research into companion animals and their health and welfare and to support the gathering of information on disease prevalence from a broad spectrum of veterinary surgeries, University veterinary hospitals and other major clinical centres. Similarly, he feels that the KC Accredited Breeders Scheme does not yet fully deliver on its assurance of good welfare standards for both parents and litters and lists 10 conditions which he sees must be met as a minimum for any such scheme to be judged as adequate. These include that all pre-mating tests for inherited disease appropriate to the breed or breeds are undertaken on both parents, that no mating takes place if the tests indicate that it would be inadvisable because it is likely to produce welfare problems in the offspring and/or is inadvisable in the context of a relevant breeding strategy; that every puppy is identified by microchip prior to sale and that all pre-sale tests on the puppy which are appropriate to the breed have been carried out. Whilst Bateson expresses the hope that The Kennel Club will be able to ensure that these and the other conditions become part of their Accredited Breeders Scheme, he warns that if intransigence on the part of breeders means that are not, that a new scheme incorporating these should be implemented through the Advisory Council on Dog Breeding. He also calls for a revision of Breed Standards to encourage the selection for morphologies that will improve the welfare status of breeds.
It is not only The Kennel Club and breeders that come in critical attention. Bateson also focuses on veterinary surgeons, the public and existing legislation and calls for action here too. He identifies the dilemma that faces vets who derive income from treating health problems caused by heritable conditions and whose duty is also to advise against the breeding of increased numbers of dogs with these conditions. He encourages vets to become more active in the screening of dogs and in the collection of anonymised data on the prevalence of heritable conditions from veterinary surgeries and to become more involved in enforcement of dog breeding and sales legislation. He calls for the public to give more thought to the acquisition of a dog and be more selective in who they purchase it from and the questions they ask whilst doing so. Better education of the public is identified as necessary for these goals to be achieved. Finally, he notes that a national system of microchipping all dogs would assist Local Authorities (LA) with the enforcement of existing legislation. He indicates that this, along with a nationwide list of all LA-registered dog breeders, would allow data to be gathered on the number of puppies bred and sold each year and would make it much easier to trace animals back to the owner and breeder.
The Kennel Club was swift to respond to the Bateson report, broadly welcoming it and its recommendations and pointing to all the ways it is and/or intends to meet these (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2896/23/5/3). As part of these it indicates that it will now arrange a meeting with all relevant parties to discuss the detail of Professor Bateson’s report along with the issues raised in the APGAW and RSPCA reports into dog breeding. In addition, it has announced the formation of a new Dog Health Group, to replace the former KC Breed Health and Welfare Strategy Group. This new group has a broader remit and additional independent experts, including canine and human geneticists, veterinary surgeons and an epidemiologist and is clearly an attempt to counter the need for an independent Advisory Council set up along the lines recommended by Bateson.
(NB: The Kennel Club response to the APGAW report can be found here: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2768/23/5/3)
Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding (January 2010). P Bateson, University of Cambridge. A4, 69 pages. Available to be downloaded from http:// www.dogbreedinginquiry.com
S Wickens,
UFAW
Whither the strategy for animal health and welfare in England? The parting thoughts of the England Implementation Group.
This third and, with its dissolution, final report of the England Implementation Group (EIG) reviews the progress that has been made in the five years since the publication in 2004 of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain (AHWS) and the challenges that remain. The report acknowledges that “There are few good indicators of what is happening to disease and welfare so much of this report reflects developments in process and partnership working, and attitudes and initiatives”. As such, “It is an opinion piece…..” that reflects the views of the members of the EIG.
It considers a range of areas, including exotic and endemic disease, animal welfare, biosecurity and farm health planning, sectoral approaches to AHWS delivery, veterinary services and surveillance and makes recommendations for each as to possible ways ahead. These are aimed predominantly at Defra.
The EIG was founded as an independent body tasked to drive forward delivery of the vision and strategic aims of the AHWS. With its demise no group is currently tasked with monitoring, evaluating and challenging the industry and Defra on the implementation of the AHWS. In his 2008 review of the EIG, David Eves noted both that Defra lacked the capacity to maintain some of the valuable work of the EIG and needed “the reality checks that EIG can provide for progress with both the AHWS and new policy proposals, helped by the external stakeholder advice which the EIG can attract and refine …..”. This report also expressed concern that in any interim between the dissolution of the EIG and the establishment of another body to take on this responsibility, such momentum and progress that the EIG had made risked being lost.
What of the report itself? As might be expected, the authors take the opportunity to highlight successes during the EIG’s existence. They point to progress in contingency planning for exotic disease and outbreak management, with a greater focus on working in partnership through Defra-stakeholder Core Groups. They note that vets involved with farm practice have moved further to increasing specialisation and service delivery, in line with the ‘prevention is better than cure’ theme of the AHWS. Similarly, there has been progress through the risk-based approach to inspection and enforcement of animal health and welfare, and closer working between Local Authorities and Animal Health (previously the State Veterinary Service). EIG also highlights its role in raising the profile of disease surveillance, something it views as central to an ongoing measure of the success of disease control and the health status of the UK’s animals. It also celebrates the establishment of livestock, equine and companion health and welfare councils (the “sector councils”) and the co-ordination in planning they bring.
Nonetheless, the list of concerns and recommendations is lengthy. For example, with respect to animal welfare, the EIG is concerned that there is less working in partnership on animal welfare issues than on animal health, so that whilst good concepts are developed there is little support for their implementation. As a matter of urgency, it recommends that Defra should revisit the commitments made in its 2007 Animal Welfare Delivery Strategy and facilitate development of an AWDS Action Plan. The EIG sees this plan as being a living document to be developed in collaboration with the sector councils, such as the Farm and Companion Animal Welfare Councils, in which specific actions for different stakeholders are identified and timescales for achievement set. As part of this, they also call for Defra to help establish effective working groups for each of the main groups of kept animals, which could develop welfare codes for each, based on welfare science and recognised best practice.
Similarly, they call for Defra to increasingly consult with such sector councils, so that these have some real input into policy development. Some have established priorities for action but for these to be implemented effectively EIG sees that there needs to be greater engagement with them from Defra.
The benefit that could be brought through Defra working more closely with the livestock sector, to improve evaluation and co-ordination of disease surveillance and thus the production of a more coherent picture of all types of disease incursion, is also identified. In addition, the report points out that Animal Health’s surveillance activities should extend sufficiently to provide benchmarks on key health and welfare conditions, essential if any meaningful indicators of progress are to be established.
The report finishes by the EIG laying out its vision for the future and the role and remit it would like for the body that will take over delivery of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. This includes that the new body be fully independent and have real authority and clear powers, taking on the responsibility of Ministers for decision making at a senior level. The remit of the Board must be unambiguous and that responsibility for welfare aspects that are associated with health/disease control should rest with the new body and that it must be careful not to neglect animal welfare issues beyond the farm. The new body must engage with stakeholders and look to develop new funding mechanisms to ensure that the cost of implementing change is equitably shared.
Defra has indicated that it intends that the new group, the Responsibility and Cost Sharing (RCS) body, will take on responsibility for the delivery of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. Whilst it remains unclear at this stage how many of the EIG concerns the RCS will address, Defra has recently published a draft Animal Health Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny “to help implement its plans for responsibility and cost sharing to deliver improved animal health and welfare in England”, which should help clarify matters.
Third and Final Report on Progress and Challenges in Delivering the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy in England (January 2010). England Implementation Group (EIG). A4 24 pages, Defra, UK. Report available for download from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/eig/pdf/eig-progress-report110110.pdf
S Wickens,
UFAW
Volume 19 Issue 1 February 2010
A life worth living? A strategy for UK farm animals in the 21st century that moves on from just the prevention of poor welfare
Arguably, the most important and far-reaching report on the welfare of farm animals was the UK’s Brambell Committee report of 1965. This set the long-term agenda for policy on farm animal welfare in Britain and, in that it contained the first exposition of the principles that have come to be known as ‘The Five Freedoms’, internationally too, and not only in farm animal welfare.
The recently published report by the UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Council, itself formed as a result of a recommendation in the Brambell report, considers policy developments since this seminal report and whether Brambell’s vision for animals farmed either intensively or extensively has been realised. The report is split into six sections which variously address ethical considerations for the humane treatment of farm animals, current policies and their implementation and welfare assessment, indicators and surveillance. Furthermore, and central to the FAWC report, it seeks to set the agenda and strategy for the next twenty years.
At the heart of FAWC’s agenda setting is a shifting of focus, with a recommendation that policy moves beyond concern for the absence of cruelty and unnecessary suffering and a duty to provide for an animal’s needs to one that additionally seeks to ensure an acceptable quality of life over an animal’s lifetime. In this, it reflects much recent debate and discussion about animal welfare and captures the current zeitgeist. As with the Five Freedoms, when outlining this proposal FAWC comes up with something that seeks to encompass this view which is both catchy and easily understood, that of the concept of a ‘life worth living’.
Using this concept, FAWC recognises three states: ‘a life worth living’, ‘a good life’ and ‘a life not worth living’, and recommends that in future the minimum legal standard for the welfare of a farm animal should be a test of whether it has ‘a life worth living’. As it implies, any farm animal that fails this test should be judged to have ‘a life not worth living’ and “….. would be literally better off dead”. Such an animal “…..should either have its quality of life speedily enhanced, eg through veterinary attention or a change in its husbandry, or it should be killed promptly and humanely”. ‘A good life’ develops the concept further and defines this positive state as the life of those animals’ that experience a substantially higher standard of welfare than the minimum prescribed by the law and the provision of opportunities for an animal’s comfort, pleasure, interest and confidence.
But what is ‘a life worth living?’ The report defines it thus: “At one level — though this is not sufficient by itself — the balance of an animal’s experiences must be positive over its lifetime”, ie that the positive experiences should outweigh the negative. “Any pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm must be necessary, proportionate and minimal”. It also “…..requires provision of an animal’s needs and certain wants, and care by all involved. Wants are those resources that an animal may not need to survive or to avoid developing abnormal behaviour, but nevertheless improve its quality of life.”
Examples are given to further explain this concept. Vaccination and transport are highlighted by the report as acceptable practices in that, whilst they unavoidably cause pain and/or suffering, they are only short-lived and are countered by the benefit they bring or the weight of other positive experiences during a life that was otherwise worth living. Examples of a life not worth living include an animal that suffers from a severe debilitating disease that is untreatable, a severe physical state such as starvation or dehydration, and severe negative mental states, such as chronic, intense pain, fear or distress.
FAWC goes further than such generalisations however, and gives some very specific examples of areas where it has concerns. A “broiler chicken that starts to become lame between the second and fourth week of its life (which typically lasts six weeks) and then deteriorates further until it dies because it cannot reach drinkers and feed troughs would experience significant, unremitting pain and distress for about half its lifetime”. As such, FAWC concludes, the bird would not have had a life worth living. Similarly, “It is hard to conceive how certain systems of husbandry could ever satisfy the requirements of a good life because of their inherent limitations. Examples include the barren battery cage for laying hens, and the long-term housing of beef cattle on slats, denied access to pasture.”
There is much else within the report, on current UK policy and its implementation and suggestion for a future strategy for farm animal welfare in the UK that suggests it has the potential to be just as influential as the Brambell report it seeks to emulate. Certainly, it does not pull its punches. In discussing UK success in meeting the implicit goals outlined by Brambell, it states: “…..progress appears to have slowed recently: the proportion of farms that are classified as causing ‘unnecessary pain or distress’ in Animal Health’s surveys has not changed for the past nine years. This evidence of poor welfare, the lingering problems of endemic disease, the continued reliance on mutilations and behavioural restrictions suggest that the standard of welfare of farm animals has yet to reach a satisfactory level. In this sense, and despite the considerable progress that has been made since 1965, some would argue that the government has not fully discharged its responsibilities as the guardian of farm animal welfare in the UK. In the context of future strategy, policy and its implementation, there is more still to do to ensure that farm animal welfare is given proper consideration as part of a thriving livestock industry.”
FAWC concludes the report by recommending that the primary aim of any future strategy for farm animal welfare in Great Britain ought to be that every farm animal has a life worth living and that a growing number have a good life. Two secondary aims are also highlighted: i) to provide citizens with independent information about food, farming and farm animal welfare and ii) to establish market mechanisms that enable concerned consumers to make informed decisions about the welfare provenance of animal products, both home produced and imported.
For this new strategy to be effective, FAWC details eight conditions that must be fulfilled:
i. The government acts as the guardian of farm animal welfare;
ii. Standards for a good life to be defined by an independent body;
iii. Minimum welfare standards to be defined by quality of life;
iv. Stockmen to be educated and trained to a high standard about animal welfare;
v. Welfare assessment to be valid, feasible and rigorous with independent audit;
vi. The food supply chain to show due diligence with marketing claims verified;
vii. Citizens to be educated about food and farming from childhood;
viii. Animal products to be labelled according to welfare provenance to provide consumer choice.
Ten medium to long-term goals that relate to ensuring these conditions are met are also outlined, and FAWC states that it believes that it should be possible for the government and commerce to have policies in place to ensure their implementation by 2015. Finally, FAWC recommends that progress against these goals should be monitored independently and the results published.
Good though this report is, its true worth will ultimately depend on the UK government and regional assemblies response to it. It remains to be seen whether they will have the appetite to rise to the challenges it outlines but if they do then this report has the potential to take a place alongside the Brambell report as a key moment in the development of animal welfare policy in the UK.
Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future (2009). Farm Animal Welfare Council in the UK, A4, 70 pages. Available from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, Area 5A, 9 Millbank, c/o Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR and at http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports.htm
S Wickens,
UFAW
Pedigree dog health and welfare: Findings of the APGAW inquiry
Anyone involved in the breeding of pedigree dogs in the UK has been living in interesting times of late. Since the screening of the documentary ‘Pedigree Dogs Exposed’ on BBC television in August 2008, which alleged that the ‘ideal breed standards’ set by the Kennel Club have resulted in inbred, unhealthy pedigree dogs suffering from significant health and welfare problems, breeder practice has been under scrutiny like never before. Numerous reports, committees and press releases from a diverse range of organisations have all sought to further comment, either to defend current practice or to highlight concerns and recommend action. As a result, the UK government has been placed under considerable pressure to do something, to legislate and to regulate practice. This report, from the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) inquiry into the breeding of pedigree dogs is the latest of a long line of publications in this area, but one that marks a significant step in that it is one of two inquiries whose findings the government have stated they are awaiting before deciding upon their course of action (the other being the Bateson independent inquiry into dog breeding, published in January 2010).
The APGAW inquiry was set up in November 2008 with the remit of investigating welfare issues surrounding pedigree dogs in the UK, the identification of factors which may improve standards at all stages of dogs’ lives, and to provide advice on potential measures suitable for secondary legislation concerning the issue under the Animal Welfare Act. Split into seven sections, the APGAW report, based on evidence from all interested parties, outlines the background to the inquiry and the severity and scale of the problem, and addresses in turn the dog breeding world, the veterinary profession, legal requirements, the sale of dogs and the consumer and the funding of change.
Perhaps the most notable finding was that there are indeed serious problems with the health and welfare of many pedigree dogs and that measures should be taken to improve these. These measures, which are then detailed, are numerous and specific. Amongst these are the imposition of restrictions on the breeding of closely-related dogs and the number of times a sire can be used for breeding. The development of specific breeding strategies for different breeds of dogs, based upon genetic advice aimed at reducing the occurrence of health and welfare problems, is recommended. To assist this, the report indicates that a national database to collect information on the occurrences and extent of heredity diseases and health and welfare concerns for each breed should be set up. The report calls for health testing of dogs by veterinarians to identify hereditary and other diseases prior to breeding to become standard practice, and a legal necessity when selecting sires and dams for commercial breeding.
A role for the Kennel Club (KC) in the provision of information on health problems of different breeds and in the listing of breeders following recommended practice regarding health tests is identified. The inquiry felt that recommended practice should be outlined in each dog breed club’s Code of Ethics, which the inquiry also believed needed to be more rigorously policed, both by the clubs themselves and the KC. Indeed, in this whole area of enforcement of standards, the inquiry identified the KC as needing to be much more robust and active. The inquiry calls for the Kennel Club to make a decision as its primary role; that of the registration of dogs or of the promotion and improvement of dog health and welfare, with a clear steer given that APGAW believes it should be the latter.
Following on from this steer, the inquiry also states that KC breed standards should ensure that the confirmation they require ensure that a dog is ‘fit for purpose’ rather than simply meeting an arbitrarily set of standards based upon visual aesthetics. Further recommendations regarding which dogs are allowed to participate in KC dog shows and a requirement for health screening for involvement in these are also made, along with a greater role for the veterinarian in developing strategies to improve the health of dogs identified, through the issuing of health certificates. Puppy sale contracts to protect the consumer are called for and Defra is advised that it should take forward a public awareness campaign on the disadvantages of buying a puppy without careful consideration.
The inquiry was aware, however, that such voluntary calls and recommendations for action may not be sufficient to ensure the health and welfare of all dogs are adequately protected. In such a situation, the inquiry states that regulation of health and welfare standards will have to occur through the passing of relevant legislation, to include a code of good practice. The inquiry believes that the formation of an independent advisory body would be the best way to achieve this, which would provide advice and make recommendations through the KC to breed clubs and societies on the setting of breed standards and to advise the government on the need for further action. The timeframe that APGAW suggest for judging the success of the Kennel Club’s efforts in taking forward these recommendations and setting its house in order is not long, only up to the next UK general election, which must occur before June 2010. The inquiry believes that this is all the time that is needed to allow these changes to be made, and that after the election a judgement should made as to their effectiveness and the need for legislative control.
(NB: The Kennel Club response to the APGAW report can be found here: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2768/23/5/3)
A Healthier Future for Pedigree dogs. The Report of the APGAW Inquiry into the Health and Welfare Issues Surrounding the Breeding of Pedigree Dogs (November 2009). The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, A4, 56 pages. Available to be downloaded from http://www.apgaw.org/reports.asp
S Wickens,
UFAW
Project to develop animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on stunning and killing
In December 2005 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) held a scientific colloquium in Parma on ‘Principles of risk assessment of food producing animals’. One of the conclusions was that there was no standardised methodology for animal welfare risk assessments. Since then various EFSA animal welfare reports have been published which include risk assessments but none of these addressed stunning and killing of farmed and laboratory animals. This is the subject of a report published in October 2009 (see details below).
Everyone would like there to be clear, unambiguous, scientifically-grounded methodology for animal welfare assessment but in the introduction the authors draw attention to the difficulties. “Definitions of animal welfare can hardly be defended scientifically. Instead they are formulated on the basis of the context and the goals one wants to achieve. Regardless of the definition chosen there will be alternative views on what is an appropriate definition. However some definitions are more useful than others in a scientific context. From a risk management and communication perspective, the choice should also match the opinion of most people, or at least be understandable or acceptable.”
The objective of risk assessment is to identify and characterise potential hazards (in this case to animal welfare) and to estimate the probability and magnitude of their effects. The application of risk assessment to animal welfare is relatively new and the development of methodologies is ‘work in progress’. In Chapter 4, the authors review the use of the risk assessment approach in recent EFSA reports and discuss some of the difficulties in comparison with risk assessment approaches to food safety (which are, arguably, much more straightforward).
The Report includes a review of stunning and killing methods including electrical methods, captive bolt, free bullet, water jet, air jet, neck dislocation and decapitation and also considers public health implications of various methods. It then goes on to consider the welfare risks at stunning and killing and how these risks may be assessed. Lists of potential hazards were drawn from literature surveys and a 5-point scale was developed for categorisation of the severity of adverse effects. Based on the analyses, tables are presented of good stunning and killing practices and critical control points for various stages of the procedure. For example, for slaughter cattle: unloading to lairage, holding pens, passageway, during restraint and during stunning. For each potential hazard, these tables list ‘dos’ and don’ts’. For example, for use of captive bolts, the ‘dos’ are “no corneal reflex no rhythmic breathing” and the ‘don’ts’ are “do not continue if recovery signs present”.
The Report ends with a recommendation that the commissioning of a risk question needs to be formalised and as limited as possible. It provides useful information and analysis and illustrates the challenges of developing welfare assessment methods.
Project to Develop Animal Welfare Risk Assessment Guidelines on Stunning and Killing (October 2009). Prepared by Algers B, Anil, H, Blokhuis H, Fuchs K, Hultgren J, Lambooij B, Nunes T, Paulson P, and Smulders F. Technical Report submitted to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 88 Pages with an annex of 25 pages. Available at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902958022.htm
JK Kirkwood,
UFAW
FAWC publishes opinion on the welfare of UK dairy cows
Dairy cow welfare has received increasing coverage and the most recent report to be published in this area is an ‘Opinion on the welfare of the dairy cow’ by the UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). FAWC periodically issues Opinions with the aim of advising government bodies within the United Kingdom on subjects that they believe to be of particular importance to farm animal welfare.
The FAWC last considered dairy cow welfare in 1997 when it published a report in which 191 recommendations were made on a wide range of aspects, including: stockmanship, building design, calving aids, mutilations, unwanted progeny, zero-grazing, rearing heifers and calves, nutrition and cow health. The recent opinion is much more specific in its focus and FAWC identifies six areas of critical importance:
- The supply of trained, skilled dairy farmers and stockmen;
- The incidence, prevalence and causes of lameness, mastitis, metabolic diseases and injuries in dairy cows;
- The level of infertility in both heifers and cows, though this is not itself a direct measure of welfare;
- The lack of centralised recording schemes yielding data at the national level;
- Breeding policies for dairy cattle; and
- Public surveillance of welfare.
The FAWC Opinion is sympathetic to the difficulties faced by the dairy industry over the past ten years (input costs have risen and milk prices have decreased, often below the cost of production) and they remark that these difficulties have in turn resulted in less investment in areas such as education, recruitment and training, and farm infrastructure; all of which can have effects on dairy cow welfare. The FAWC also recognises the efforts made by the industry to improve dairy cow welfare following their 1997 report, including the introduction of breeding initiatives that consider health and welfare and reducing many traditional causes of lameness, eg sole ulcers. However, the general feeling of the Opinion is that more needs to be done to improve the welfare of dairy cows and areas that were of concern ten years ago are still of concern today: overall prevalence of lameness and mastitis have remained unchanged or have increased, and conception rates have been decreasing year-on-year and now stand at only 40%. Additionally, the FAWC note that there is a problem with the recruitment and retention of dairy staff in the UK and that there are currently a number of barriers to training initiatives in the industry, including a low perceived value and lack of awareness of the benefits of training. The UK is also one of the few countries within the European Union that does not have a centralised national database for recording dairy cow health and welfare, which the FAWC believe compromises the ability of the UK dairy industry to make national improvements in welfare.
In conclusion, the FAWC consider that “the evidence is that the welfare of dairy cows has not improved significantly over the last decade” and five recommendations are made to ensure that today’s dairy cow has “a life worth living”.
FAWC Opinion on the Welfare of the Dairy Cow (October 2009). Farm Animal Welfare Council. 14 p A4. Available for download from the FAWC website: http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports.htm or by contacting the FAWC Secretariat, Area 5A, 9 Millbank, c/o Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR, UK
E Carter,
UFAW
Welfare Quality® publishes pig, poultry and cattle assessment protocols
2004 saw the official start of ‘Welfare Quality®’, a project described as the largest piece of integrated research to be carried out on animal welfare within Europe. The project, supported by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme: Food Quality and Safety, has been co-ordinated by Professor Harry Blokhuis of Wageningen University and Research Centre, and involved over 40 partner institutes and universities. The primary aim of Welfare Quality® has been to develop a scientifically-based method for assessing and improving farm animal welfare across Europe through integrating animal welfare into the food quality chain. Four main areas of research were identified as key issues for investigation at the start of the project:
- Consumers, retailers and producers concerns and requirements for animal welfare and welfare friendly products;
- To develop a robust on-farm welfare monitoring and information systems for selected farm animal species;
- To define integrated, knowledge-based, practicable species-specific strategies to improve farm animal welfare; and
- To implement a welfare monitoring and information system and welfare improvement strategies developed.
In October 2009, the final stakeholder conference: ‘Delivering Animal Welfare and Quality: Transparency in the Food Production Chain’, was held in Uppsala, Sweden. The conference was used to summarise the progress made during the five-year project and also to launch the Welfare Quality® assessment protocols for pigs, poultry and cattle. Pigs, poultry and cattle had been selected as the three species to focus on when developing a standardised assessment method due to their economic and numeric importance.
These assessment protocols each follow the same format and contain: a background of the Welfare Quality® project; guidelines describing the type and method of data to be collected when assessing an animal unit (defined as a section of a farm, a transport unit or a slaughter plant that deals with a certain type of animal); scoring sheets and how to calculate scores once measurements have been taken; and general guidelines for use when visiting an animal unit.
Each protocol is based around four welfare principles considered to be key to high standards of animal welfare: good feeding, good housing, good health and appropriate behaviour. A total score is calculated for each principle by considering twelve welfare criteria (between two and four for each principle) which in turn are scored for a range of welfare measures (between 30 and 50 measurements for each species).
The majority of welfare measures are animal-based, which is a key feature of the Welfare Quality® assessment method. Animal-based measures involve taking measurements directly from the animals themselves, such as behavioural or clinical observations, as opposed to the more traditionally-used resource or management-based measures, eg how much space does an animal have or what is the farm protocol for managing animals in a certain situation. For example, the welfare principle ‘good housing’ has three welfare criteria: comfort around resting, thermal comfort, and ease of movement. To assess these criteria in sows and piglets the following animal-based measures are taken: bursitis and shoulder scores (sows); absence of manure on the body (sows and piglets); and panting and huddling (sows and piglets). Additionally, two resource measurements are taken: space allowance and assessment of farrowing crates. Each of these measures is described and a method of scoring given to create a criterion-score.
Once scores have been obtained for each criterion then these are, in turn, synthesised to give an overall score for the welfare principle. The four principles are then integrated to give the farm unit an overall classification into one of four categories: excellent, enhanced, acceptable, and unclassified.
Although the scoring system as a whole appears to be quite complicated on first viewing (and there has been a great deal of debate regarding the weighting and synthesising of various scores), the actual — on the ground — assessment has been deliberately kept as simple as possible and many measurements are scored using a straightforward binary or three-point scale. Additionally, the use of value judgements has been minimised where possible and veterinary expertise or specialist behavioural knowledge is not required to undertake the process. However, training is considered essential and Welfare Quality® state that “…no individual or organisation can be considered capable of applying these methods in a robust, repeatable and valid way without attending harmonised training approved by the Welfare Quality® consortium”.
It is hoped that the data gathered using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocols will provide pertinent information to farmers and unit managers regarding the welfare status of their farms compared to those of their peers and will enable them to monitor changes in welfare over time and assist with decisions when implementing welfare improvement strategies. It is also intended that the data will, in the future, help to inform consumers and retailers of the welfare status of the producers from whom they purchase products.
Although the Welfare Quality® project has reached the end of its five-year timeline, it is hoped that the connections between individuals and organisations made during the project will remain strong and that work will continue. The assessment protocols are regarded as ‘living documents’ to be updated and revised as new scientific knowledge comes to light.
Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle (October 2009). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands. A4, 182 pp ISBN: 978-90-78240-04-4. £5. Available at: http://www.welfarequality.net or from info@welfarequality.net.
Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs (Sows, Piglets, Growing and Finishing Pigs) (October 2009). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands.A4, 122 pp ISBN: 978-90-78240-05-1. £5. Available at: http://www.welfarequality.net or from info@welfarequality.net.
Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying hens) (October 2009). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands. A4 114, pp ISBN: 978-90-78240-06-8. £5. Available at: http://www.welfarequality.net or from info@welfarequality.net.
E Carter,
UFAW
Revision process to update EU legislation protecting the welfare of laboratory animals continues
For more than twenty years, Council Directive 86/609/EEC has acted as the foundation for national legislation to regulate the use of animals in experimental and scientific procedures across the European Union (in the United Kingdom this Directive is enacted through the Animals [Scientific Procedures] Act 1986). Included within the Directive are minimum standards for the acquisition and care of vertebrate animals used in experiments and training of staff who handle animals or supervise scientific procedures.
Council Directive 86/609/EEC originally came into force to avoid disruption in trade between countries of the European Community as legislation to protect laboratory animal welfare varied between individual countries. Consequently, Council Directive 86/609/EEC emerged in November 1986 to ensure that protective animal welfare measures were “approximated so as to avoid affecting the establishment and functioning of the common market, in particular by distortions of competition or barriers to trade”.
In 2001, the European Commission noted that, since its adoption, the Directive had become increasingly outdated due to advances in animal welfare science and the evolution of new scientific procedures and technologies, such as cloning, transgenics and xenotransplantation. Additionally, the expansion of the European Union had presented a number of challenges regarding the implementation of regulations across member states. Other problems included: difficulties in collating and interpreting data, such as the exact number of animals used and the severity of experiments undertaken; limitations in the scope of the Directive with some animals currently excluded, eg animals used in educational training within institutions; and a lack of standardised training for individuals working with laboratory animals.
In November 2008, the European Commission published the first draft revision of the Directive. This included a number of measures that aimed to strengthen the existing legislation, significantly improve the welfare of animals used in safety testing and biomedical research, promote the replacement, reduction and refinement of animals used in scientific procedures and harmonise the implementation of regulations, so improving the overall quality of research conducted. To achieve these aims, various new provisions were proposed, including: a ban on the use of great apes apart from in exceptional circumstances; restrictions on the use, breeding and acquisition of non-human primates; a widening of the scope of the Directive to include specific invertebrate species, foetal forms from last third of their development, and animals used in basic research, including education and training; minimum requirements for animal housing and care; and changes in inspection, monitoring and enforcement
The European Parliament published a first reading of the revised Directive in May 2009 which tabled a number of amendments. In a parallel process, the revised Directive is now being discussed by the Council of Ministers, which comprises representatives from the Agricultural and Fisheries Council from each Member State. Within the UK, Sub-Committee D (Environment and Agriculture), of the EU Committee of the House of Lords, recently undertook an inquiry into the revised Directive and a report was published in November 2009, to help inform the official UK position.
The European Commission, European Parliament and Council of Ministers will now continue the trilogue process until a consensus position is reached.
European Parliament Legislative Resolution of 5 May 2009 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes (2009). European Parliament. 2009. Brussels. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-TA-2009-0343&language=EN&ring=A6-2009-0240.
The Revision of the EU Directive on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes (2009). Volume 1: Report. House of Lords. European Union Committee. 22nd Report of Session 2008-2009. 2009. 40 pp, A4. London: The Stationary Office Limited. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/164/16402.htm.
E Carter,
UFAW
