Recent reports and comments
All Reports and Comments are available to view on Ingenta Connect at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw.
Volume 21 Issue 1 - February 2012
Volume 20 Issue 4 - November 2011
Volume 20 Issue 3 - August 2011
Volume 20 Issue 1 - February 2011
Volume 19 Issue 4 - November 2010
Volume 19 Issue 3 - August 2010
Volume 19 Issue 1 - February 2010
Volume 21 Issue 1 February 2012
New code of welfare for animal transport in New Zealand
The New Zealand Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), together with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council (NAWAC), has recently published a new code of welfare which outlines the legal minimum standards when transporting any live animal (terrestrial and aquatic) within New Zealand The code does not cover animals exported from New Zealand to other countries and the welfare of exported animals is instead catered for by the International Air Transport Association (when transported by air) or MAF transport standards (when transported by sea).
Thirteen minimum standards are covered under ten headings: responsibilities, competency and stockmanship; equipment; journey planning and documentation; preparation and selection of animals for the journey; loading and unloading; the journey; special requirements; transport in emergencies; emergency humane destruction; and quality management. Each section follows a similar format that includes a general introduction, the relevant minimum standard(s), example indicators that could be used to signal that the minimum standard(s) is being met, and a section describing what is currently considered to be best practice. Most sections finish with further general information and links to helpful guidelines. The appendices include an animal welfare check list, a list of interpretations and definitions of terms used within the code and a section on legislative requirements.
The welfare codes are not legally binding in themselves but they may be used as evidence to support a prosecution for an offence under the relevant legislation. It is a requirement that all codes are reviewed at least every ten years.
Animal Welfare (Transport within New Zealand) Code of Welfare 2011 (September 2011). A4, 41 pages. National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand. ISBN: 978 0 478 38702 5 (print) 978 0 478 38703 2 (online). The guidelines are available at the MAF Biosecurity website: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/regs/animal-welfare/stds/codes, or by emailing: animalwelfare@maf.govt.nz.
E Carter,
UFAW
Use of the whip in horse racing
The use of the whip in horse racing is a controversial topic which there has been some public concern about. In November 2010, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), which is the main organisation that regulates horse racing in Great Britain, began considering the effectiveness of the current rules governing the use of the whip. This proved to be a timely debate due to two high profile cases of whip misuse occurring in the first half of 2011 at two popular race meetings: the John Smith’s Grand National and the Prince of Wales Stakes at Royal Ascot. The winning jockey of the Grand National was suspended for five days following over-use of the whip on his horse, Ballabriggs, on which the whip was used 17 times (exceeding the then recommended maximum of 15 strokes). Another incident followed shortly when a jockey received a nine-day suspension for using his whip 24 times at Royal Ascot when riding the winner, Rewilding, to the finishing line.
Horse racing is a popular pastime in Great Britain and ranks the second most attended sport following football: in 2010, there were over 5.8 million attendees at race meetings. The BHA is keen to ensure that the public has a positive perception of horse racing and that people continue to visit racetracks. In June 2011, the BHA Board agreed the terms of reference for a review: ‘To review the use of the whip in Horseracing in Great Britain’. The review process involved the following: a consultation with relevant stakeholders; a statistical analysis of breaches of the whip Rules; consideration of current academic research on the use of the whip and its effect on horses; the design and manufacture of whips; and public opinion research into the public’s perception of the use of the whip in racing, which was undertaken by SMG/YouGov, a sports research agency. The results of the Review were published in September 2011.
The Review discusses why and how a whip may be used in horse racing. It is considered acceptable to use the whip for safety (for both horse and jockey) and for encouragement (to ensure that the horse is performing at its best). Only a whip that is of an energy-absorbing, cushioned design may be used during racing and, when used correctly, it is thought that the whip does not cause pain or injury to the horse. In 2010, there were 92,025 runners in 9,566 races and the total number of horses that ran was 20,123. According to figures in the BHA review, there would have been approximately 20 occasions when a weal was observed during 2010.
However, although the opinion of the Review Group overall was that the whip is still considered to be necessary in horse racing, it was also made clear that the current Rules and penalties are not effective: there were over 5,202 breaches of whip Rules between January 2004 and April 2011. The BHA is keen to be seen to be taking horse welfare seriously and the Review Group therefore put forward 19 recommendations to provide greater incentive for jockeys to ride within the Rules and to bring about lasting change in behaviour and attitudes.
All 19 recommendations were approved by the BHA Board and the new Rules came into force on 10th October 2011. However, following their introduction, the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) raised a number of concerns and the Rules were amended on 21st October. Additional amendments were then made on 11th November following further disagreement between the BHA and the PJA.
The majority of recommendations relate to the number of times that the whip may be used and the penalties that would be incurred for inappropriate use. Taking into account the recent amendments, jockeys may use their whip seven times in flat races and eight times over jumps. If a jockey exceeds these limits by one, two or three hits, then they will be suspended for two, five or seven days, respectively. If a jockey goes on to use the whip excessively a second time within a 12-month period then the suspension periods for a second offence increase and overuse by one, two, or three hits will incur a suspension of four, ten or fourteen days. However, this is at the discretion of the racing stewards and some hits may be disregarded by the Steward after review of the race video footage and after hearing evidence from the jockey. Where a jockey receives a suspension of seven days or more then he will also forfeit any prize money.
The BHA consider that further scientific research into the use of the whip in racing is required and recommend that that the Authority should continue to support research in this area, and to incorporate any future changes in whip design or technological innovations that may enhance equine welfare. Additionally, the public opinion research showed a general lack of understanding of how and when the whip is used in racing and the BHA therefore recommend that the Authority should publish the results of the Review widely, and keep track of public perception by commissioning further opinion research in the future.
The training of jockeys is also targeted and the BHA recommends that current knowledge on animal welfare and behaviour is incorporated into jockey training. The BHA also proposes that the course content and structure for apprentice jockeys, conditional jockeys, and amateur riders at each stage of their career is revisited to ensure that teaching is effective in explaining the acceptable and correct use of the whip. Additionally it is recommended that greater use is also made of remedial training for jockeys who are identified as having deficiencies in their riding and whip use.
Responsible regulation: a review of the use of the whip in horseracing (September 2011). A4, 77 pages. British Horseracing Authority. British Horse Racing Authority, 75 Holborn, London, WC1V 6LS. Email: info@britishhorseracing.com. The review is available online at: http://www.britishhorseracing.com/whip-review/WhipReview.pdf.
E Carter,
UFAW
The cost of improving farm animal welfare
Compassion in World Farming has recently published a report written by its Chief Policy Advisor, Peter Stevenson. The report considers the economics of livestock farming systems and, specifically, compares the cost of production between intensive systems and those which are thought to offer a higher standard of farmed animal welfare.
The Report reviewed a number of academic studies and these were used to demonstrate that the differences in production costs between the systems are, in some cases, quite low. For example, the on-farm costs of producing a free-range egg is considered to be only 2.08 pence more than a cage egg. It is therefore suggested that the average consumer could switch to eating free-range eggs for a moderate 7.48 pence extra each week (the average per capita consumption of eggs in the United Kingdom is 187 eggs per year). Similar figures are provided for cost comparisons of pig production systems, such as: sow stalls versus group housing; outdoor versus indoor; and various methods for keeping growing pigs.
It is suggested in the Report that systems with higher animal welfare often result in healthier animals, which may result in decreased production costs as a result, such as lower mortality, improved growth rates and lower feed-conversion ratios. It is noted that assessment of the profitability of milk production solely by measuring the conversion of feed into milk ignores a number of other important factors, including fertility, longevity, and milk yield losses and culling due to health problems, and the value of both cull cows and calves. The results of a study looking into the differences between a more robust dairy herd (in which cows are stronger, healthier, have lower milk yields per lactation but greater longevity) and a higher yielding herd concluded that the net margin for a robust herd was 20% higher per cow compared to a high yielding herd.
According to the Report, increased production costs associated with implementing higher welfare practices have a relatively small effect on final retail prices. This is because production costs are only part of the end price and other factors, eg slaughter, processing, packaging, distribution, marketing, also play a role. A study from the United States exemplifies this: it concluded that changing US pork production from sow stall to group-housing systems would result in a 9% increase in costs at the farm-level but only a 2% increase at the retail level. The same study concluded that changing from sow stall to free-range systems, would increase farm-level costs by 18% but retail costs by only 5%.
The Report then goes on to outline various economic drivers that could be used to stimulate higher welfare farming practices. It is proposed that all products should be labelled to indicate the method of production, enabling consumers to take these into account in their purchases, should they wish to do so. Subsidies could also be used to provide incentives for farmers to adopt higher welfare practices, eg via the EU Common Agricultural Policy. The Report considers that full account should be taken of indirect costs such as use of water, soil degradation, greenhouse gas emissions, control of food-borne diseases (eg salmonella and campylobacter), and possible effects on prevalence of non-communicable diseases that may be associated with meat consumption.
Reviewing the costs: the economics of moving to higher welfare farming (August, 2011). A4, 23 pages. A report written by the Chief Policy Advisor, Peter Stevenson, at Compassion in World Farming. ISBN: 1 900156 55 5. Available online at: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2011/r/reviewing_the_costs_august_2011.pdf.
E Carter,
UFAW
The health and welfare prospects of farmed pigs in England
The UK's Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) raises a statutory levy from farmers, growers, and others in the agricultural supply chain, and uses the revenue gained to carry out research and development, for farm-level knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange, and for various marketing activities. The British Pig Executive (BPEX) is the AHDB division responsible for pigs, and one of its aims is to drive the demand for English pork and pig meat products within Great Britain and internationally.
In August 2011, BPEX published a health and welfare strategy for the pig industry in England: ‘20:20 Pig Health and Welfare: A vision for 2020’. An overriding message is the importance of collaborative relationships between producers in England and others in the supply chain, and with the pig industries in Scotland and Wales. It is hoped that by working co-operatively together the following Vision may be achieved: ‘An English pig herd where health and welfare are continually improving, which results in better pig performance, the production of a safe and quality product, reduced environmental impact and increasing sustainability of an industry that contributes fully to national food security’. It is noted that where there are barriers to improving pig health, it is not through lack of knowledge but rather lack of implementation and co-ordination between pig-farms.
Eight key objectives are presented and the means by which the industry and BPEX may deliver these objectives are described under the following headings: health; welfare; food safety and public health; surveillance; biosecurity; facilities and infrastructure; medicines; research; knowledge transfer; and integrated approach. Tail biting, tail docking, teeth clipping, freedom around farrowing, and the husbandry of entire males of greater than 80 kg continue to be subjects of welfare concern. It is recommended that research continues in these areas.
BPEX hopes that the 20:20 strategy will enable the pig industry to set clear, sustainable and achievable outcome targets for 2020 in six important areas: disease elimination; disease impact reduction; welfare outcomes; supply chain; food safety; and environment. BPEX, together with the industry, aims to develop detailed business plans for each area and the outcome targets will be monitored by the British Pig Health and Welfare Council. The report concludes by listing a number of significant milestones, which are given as next steps for the industry during 2012:
- Establish baselines for health and welfare outcomes;
- Agree specific targets for 2020 health and welfare outcomes;
- Extend the Health Improvement Project to all of England;
- Complete development of a system for measuring welfare outcomes;
- Develop a National Control Programme for salmonella in pigs that is approved by the European Commission for introduction in 2012;
- Establish robust mechanisms for routinely evaluating and scoring biosecurity practices on pig farms and establish baseline national biosecurity status on pig farms;
- Review health and welfare research and agree a road map for research in this area from 2013 to 2020;
- Develop accredited health and welfare training modules;
- Review of progress towards the objectives and targets of the strategy.
20:20 Pig Health and Welfare: A vision for 2020 (August 2011). A4, 19 pages. British Pig Executive (BPEX). Available online at: http://www.bpex.org.uk/articles/301566/2020_Pig_Health_and_Welfare.aspx.
E Carter,
UFAW
Volume 20 Issue 4 November 2011
Review of research using non-human primates
The use of laboratory animals in scientific procedures in the United Kingdom is highly regulated and, in the case of non-human primates (NHPs), it is intended that they are only used in scientific studies when no other animal species would provide a suitable model and when no alternative methods are available. Additionally, there must be a high likelihood that the research will lead to important medical advances. The number of NHPs used in scientific procedures each year in the UK are relatively small (in 2010 less than 0.1% of the 3.6 million animals used) however, it is thought that the welfare cost to NHPs in a laboratory environment may be greater than for other animals because of their sentience and social nature. In 2006, the report of a working group chaired by Sir David Weatherall, recommended that the major funding bodies of non-human primate research in the UK should systematically review the outcome of all of their research using NHPs over a ten-year period.
Following the Weatherall report, a Review Panel, chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, carefully assessed research using NHPs between January 1997 and December 2006. Funders of NHP research during this time were the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Wellcome Trust, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). The findings of the Review Panel were published in July 2011.
The Panel considered 67 NHP studies and took into account the scientific quality and importance of the research, the probability of medical and public benefit, and the likelihood of animal suffering. An overall assessment was then made as to whether or not the research was acceptable and justifiable in the circumstances. On the whole, the Panel judged that the use of NHPs was justified in the majority of the projects reviewed. However, 9% of the studies raised concerns and the Panel was unable to clearly discern any scientific, medical or social benefit from them. Although the Panel did remark that it can be difficult to assess the benefit of some research since benefits may only become apparent after a lengthy period of time has passed.
The review is written in a balanced manner and examples of research leading to both positive and negative outcomes described. It includes examples where researchers have contributed towards improving NHP welfare in laboratories through the development of new 3Rs techniques, such as: better husbandry practices in marmoset colonies and a new tissue-friendly head implant for use in awake, monkey behaviour studies. In the neuroscience field, brain imaging and non-invasive electrophysiological methods have refined and replaced some primate use. The Panel commented that technological advances are progressing rapidly and that: “It is important that wherever relevant and practical, new technologies should be used actively to deliver 3Rs improvements”.
Another point raised by the Panel was the need for all researchers to publish their findings, whether positive or negative, in order to prevent unnecessary duplication of experiments. Additionally, funding bodies should, when reviewing project proposals, confirm that the research team has a sufficient breadth of skills and resources to ensure successful completion of the project and dissemination of results.
The Report also commented on other issues including the cost of carrying out research in the UK, the safety of researchers due to harassment by extremists, and the manner in which both funders and researchers engage with the public.
Fifteen recommendations were made in all and it is hoped that the review will inform future science and funding strategies with regards to NHP use.
Review of Research Using Non-Human Primates: Report of a Panel Chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS (July 2011). A4, 51 pages. The report is available at: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/Reviews/review-research-using-nhps.pdf.
E Carter
UFAW
Animal welfare ‘toolkit’ for farm animal veterinarians
The New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA), together with the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), published a leaflet in August 2011 for veterinarians to provide practical advice and guidance when dealing with incidents of compromised farm animal welfare.
Veterinarians may become aware of poor on-farm welfare through various routes and the leaflet lays out the different approaches that may be required depending on the circumstances, eg whether they observe a situation themselves when visiting a farm, or if they are called in by an inspector during a formal investigation. A four-step process for dealing with the situation is then described: 1) Assess — how to assess the whole-farm environment; 2) Plan — how best to develop an action plan; 3) Do — how to help the farmer carry out the action plan; and 4) Review — how to agree a timeframe with the farmer for returning to reassess the situation.
Guidance is given throughout on how best to engage with farmers; the aim being to avoid confrontation and to be supportive. It is pointed out that outside factors may contribute to the occurrence of poor welfare, such as financial difficulties, and it is advised that these factors are borne in mind when talking with the farmer and deciding on an appropriate course of action. The welfare of the animals is ultimately the responsibility of the owner or person in charge of the animals and it is important that they take ownership of the situation, are involved with the development of the action plan, and committed to resolving any welfare issues.
Additional useful sections within the leaflet include: advice on being part of an investigation, how best to deal with interest from the media, points on keeping full and accurate records, relevant legislation, and a list of helpful websites and telephone numbers for both veterinarians and their clients.
The ‘toolkit’ is aimed at New Zealand veterinarians and some of the information given is specific to New Zealand, eg legislation, however, much of the advice is general and may be a useful starting point for veterinarians in other countries when considering how best to deal with similar situations both on-farm, and in other areas of practice, eg companion animals.
The Veterinarians Animal Welfare Toolkit (August 2011). A4, 41 pages. New Zealand Veterinary Association & Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Leaflet. ISBN 978-0-478-38455-0 (Print) ISBN 978-0-478-38456-7 (Online). Available online at: http://www.nzva.org.nz/sites/default/files/domain-0/2011%20Vet%20toolkit.pdf.
E Carter
UFAW
CAWC report on the rescue and re-homing of companion animals
Since 1999 the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) has undertaken independent studies and offered advice on a wide range of companion animal welfare issues. The most recent addition to their publications is a report on the rescue and re-homing of companion animals.
It is estimated that there are approximately 500,000 surplus companion animals each year in the United Kingdom and the task of re-homing unwanted pets is undertaken by many organisations, ranging from large, well-known charities, such as Dogs Trust and the Blue Cross, to small breed societies and species-specific groups, eg The National Ferret Welfare Society. The CAWC report describes how over the last few years many re-homing organisations have experienced an increase in the number of pets relinquished into their care: Cats Protection noted a 77% increase during the first quarter of 2008 when compared to the same time period in 2007, and the RSPCA took care of 57% more pets in 2008 (11,586 animals) than in 2007 (7,347 animals).
To assess whether the welfare needs of relinquished companion animals are met, CAWC reviewed the current guidelines and protocols of a range of re-homing organisations concerned with cats, dogs, rabbits and ferrets. The re-homing process was categorised into six stages: 1) Assessment and selection of suitable animals for re-homing; 2) Preparation of the animals for life in their new homes; 3) Assessment of prospective new homes and owners; 4) Advice given to prospective owners; 5) Knowledge and communication skills of the staff in the re-homing organisation; and 6) Follow-up procedures after re-homing. The report makes six recommendations covering each of the six re-homing stages.
A core point in the report is the importance of correctly assessing the behaviour of animals that have entered the re-homing process and on implementing appropriate rehabilitation and training programmes where necessary. Behavioural problems are one of the main reasons given by previous owners when relinquishing their pets and also by new owners for returning an animal that they have re-homed. The behavioural assessment process of abandoned animals is one that seems to be carried out with varying degrees of success and CAWC notes that where temperament testing is employed on relinquished dogs that: “It is not always clear whether these provide valid indicators of temperament. Nor is it clear whether they are performed by qualified experts, or enthusiasts with varying degrees of expertise or experience”. In relation to dog aggression, the report states: “...understanding about aggression in animals in general, and dogs in particular, are rife with ignorance, misguided theories, and lack of diagnostic skills and development of appropriate remedial action”. It is considered by CAWC that there is an “urgent need for informed discussion about aggression… and about the qualifications required for behavioural assessors and advisors about standardisations, validity and value assessments in rescue, and about solutions to the problems raised by aggressive animals”.
Other interesting points made by CAWC include the importance of achieving the right balance between confidentiality for previous owners and provision of sufficient information about an animal’s history and breeding for rescue staff and prospective owners to fully understand and cater for an individual animal’s needs. It is also advised that where guidelines are used for judging the suitability of prospective owners that these are not adhered to in an overly rigid way and that the individual nature of people is recognised: “An overly robust initial screening process for prospective owners can actually eliminate potentially good owners”.
The ethical issues surrounding euthanasia and ‘no-kill’ policies are also discussed and the report recommends that where euthanasia is decided upon as a policy that the decision should be taken by an executive authority, after consideration and discussion, and not by an individual.
The CAWC report gives a good overview of the scale of unwanted animals in the United Kingdom, and the difficulties faced by re-homing organisations, whilst also suggesting a number of positive approaches to improving the future prospects of rescue animals. All those involved in seeking new and lasting homes for unwanted pets will find this report an informative and interesting read.
Rescue and Re-homing of Companion Animals (June 2011). A4, 29 pages. Companion Animal Welfare Council. Available online at: http://www.cawc.org.uk/reports-completed.
E Carter
UFAW
Genetic welfare problems of companion animals: an information resource for prospective pet owners and breeders
The genetic health of companion animals has been a ‘hot topic’ in recent years, since the screening of the documentary ‘Pedigree Dogs Exposed’ on BBC television in August 2008. This programme alleged that many breeds of pedigree dogs were unhealthy and suffered from significant health and welfare problems caused by extensive inbreeding — a view that has attracted much support. This programme built on previous reports by the Companion Animal Welfare Council on the subject (CAWC 2006, 2008).
Subsequently, four further reports were published addressing the subject (APGAW 2009; CAWC 2009; Rooney & Sargan 2009; Bateson 2010). One of the results of these reports and the associated public interest and concern on health issues related to unsuitable breeding — which continues to be a top welfare concern of veterinarians and vet nurses (PDSA 2011) — was the formation of an independent Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding (http://dogadvisorycouncil.org.uk/).
Another was that there was a need to better educate and inform the public, both breeders and present and prospective pet owners, on the health and welfare of their animals. To address this, UFAW has launched a website that aims to provide clear information about the welfare consequences of hereditary problems in different breeds — not only for dogs but cats, rabbits and others too. The hope is that this will assist responsible breeders in efforts to avoid or tackle genetic health problems in their breed and allow prospective pet owners to better decide which species, breed or strain to choose, and allow them to ask the right questions when obtaining their pet so as to avoid unintentionally perpetuating known genetic problems.
A ‘work in progress’, the website features information on a range of conditions in individual breeds and details on the clinical and pathological effects of these conditions, the intensity and duration of their welfare impacts, the number of animals affected, diagnosis and genetics of the condition, how to know whether an animal is a carrier of the condition or likely to be affected and the methods and prospects for its elimination. At present, amongst the conditions addressed on the site are: brachycephalic airways obstruction syndrome, mitral valve disease, gastric dilatation-volvulus syndrome, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dermoid sinus and ‘bubble-eye’ in, variously, English bulldogs, Boston terriers, Pugs, Cavalier King Charles spaniels, Great Danes, Maine Coons, Rhodesian Ridgebacks and goldfish. Non-inclusion of a breed or condition at this time does not necessarily mean that the condition is not a problem or that the breed has no genetic disorders.
More conditions and breeds are being added on a regular basis and the aim is to feature all conditions of major welfare concern
Genetic Welfare Problems of Companion Animals: An Information Resource for Prospective Pet Owners and Breeders. UFAW web resource. Available at: http://www.ufaw.org.uk/geneticwelfareproblems.php.
References
APGAW 2009 A healthier future for pedigree dogs. The report of the APGAW inquiry into the health and welfare issues surrounding the breeding of pedigree dogs pp 56. The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. Available at http://www.apgaw.org/reports.asp
Bateson P 2010 Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding pp 69. University of Cambridge, UK. Available at http:// www.dogbreedinginquiry.com
CAWC 2006 Breeding and welfare in companion animals: the Companion Animal Welfare Council’s Report on welfare aspects of modifications, through selective breeding or biotechnological methods, to the form, function, or behaviour of companion animals pp 84. CAWC. Available at: www.cawc.org.uk
CAWC 2008 Approaches to tackling genetic welfare problems in companion animals. Report of the Companion Animal Welfare Council Workshop pp 7. 9 October 2008 Westminster, UK. Available at: www.cawc.org.uk
CAWC 2009 Towards an independent advisory body on tackling genetic welfare problems in companion animals? Report of the Companion Animal Welfare Council Workshop pp 5. 17 February 2009, The British Veterinary Association, London, UK. Available at: www.cawc.org.uk
PDSA 2011. Animal Well-being Report pp 40. PDSA: London, UK. Available at: www.pdsa.org.uk/pawreport
Rooney N and D Sargan 2009 Pedigree dog breeding in the UK: a major welfare concern? pp 76. RSPCA: Horsham, UK. Available at:
http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232712491490&mode=prd
SM Wickens
UFAW
Lameness in sheep: UK Farm Animal Welfare Council Opinion
The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) last considered the welfare of sheep in 1994 when it reviewed the industry as a whole and published a 40-page report that included 69 recommendations for improving welfare. These covered: shepherding, training, health and disease, mutilations, identification and unfit sheep. Lameness was recognised as a common welfare problem in the 1994 report and the recent Opinion focuses specifically on this issue. It is widely accepted that lameness causes pain and it is estimated that at any one time in the UK, approximately three million sheep are lame (in 2008 the UK herd comprised of 15.6 million breeding ewes and 16.5 million lambs).
It is noted within the Opinion that although shepherds generally recognise even mild lameness, this does not always lead to treatment. The FAWC notes that: “Some treat the first mildly lame sheep in a group whilst others wait until several sheep are quite lame before catching and inspecting them. Some farmers never catch and treat individual lame sheep but wait until the flock is gathered: this is unacceptable”. Additionally, shepherds may not correctly identify the cause of the lameness and may use the incorrect terminology — which is a cause for concern if this results in the wrong treatment.
The Opinion mentions various conditions that cause lameness including: contagious ovine digital dermatitis, white line disease, granulomas, foot abscesses, inter-digital fibromas, polyarthritis and trauma. However the vast majority of lameness in the UK is caused by the condition commonly known as footrot. This is a bacterial infection with Dichelobacter nodosus, which causes interdigital dermatitis and which can progress to separation of the hoof horn from the corium. The Opinion focuses on footrot and provides advice both on individual treatment and the management of the flock as a whole. FAWC stresses that feet should not be unnecessarily, routinely trimmed (it can do more harm than good) except where re-shaping is needed.
The Opinion recommends that the UK’s Code of Recommendations on Lameness in Sheep should be updated; that the government should work with industry to develop a national strategy to reduce lameness; that the prevalence of lameness in flocks in Great Britain should be reduced to 2% or less within 10 years; and that further research is required into various aspects of lameness, including the causes, management and prevention of footrot.
FAWC Opinion on Lameness in Sheep (March 2011). A4, 13 pages. Farm Animal Welfare Council, UK. Available for download from the FAWC website: http://www.fawc.org.uk/opinions/index.htm.
E Carter
UFAW
Mutilations and environmental enrichment in piglets and growing pigs: UK Farm Animal Welfare Council Opinion
In the UK approximately nine million piglets are born annually and the majority of these animals experience one or more of the following procedures: castration; tooth clipping or grinding; tail docking; ear notching; ear tagging; tattooing; micro-chipping and slap marking. These procedures are considered mutilations. Under The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (England and Wales), and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, a mutilation is a prohibited procedure which interferes with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of an animal and which is carried out for a purpose other than medical treatment. However, the mutilations listed above are permissible by law since they are listed in The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 (there is comparable legislation in Wales and Scotland).
Mutilations permitted under these regulations are generally those which have traditionally been carried out for management and husbandry purposes and are considered to benefit the welfare of an animal in the long-term, when weighed against the short-term pain or stress experienced during the procedure.
The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) has recently published an Opinion on mutilations in pigs (see details below). This describes why and how each mutilation may be carried out on piglets, or growing pigs, and recognises that some of the mutilations are currently considered necessary by the pig industry (eg tail docking to prevent outbreaks of tail biting) and that some are required by law (eg slap marking for identification purposes). However, ideally, no mutilations would be carried out on any pig and the emphasis of the report is on how all stakeholders may work together to reduce or avoid mutilations where possible and, where they are still necessary, to refine procedures so as to minimise any pain or distress caused.
Nine conclusions are drawn and thirteen recommendations made. Surveillance is needed to help farmers avoid the need for mutilations, eg by identifying risk factors. There is a need for the food chain to support the efforts of farmers and Government towards eliminating the need for mutilations, and improved Government guidelines are needed on enrichment for piglets and growing pigs so as to avoid any uncertainties regarding interpretation of the legislation. Actions recommended by the FAWC include: the involvement of breeding companies in efforts towards minimising the need for mutilations, eg by incorporating appropriate behavioural measures in breeding indices; further research into optimal methods of analgesia when mutilations are required; and the formation of a Tail Docking Action Group to find further ways to make progress.
As of the 1st April 2011, the Farm Animal Welfare Council is no longer a Non-Departmental Public Body (following the Government’s Review of Arm’s Length Bodies) but is an expert committee within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under a new title: The Farm Animal Welfare Committee. For over thirty years the Farm Animal Welfare Council has provided independent advice to Governments in the United Kingdom on subjects it believes to be of importance to farm animal welfare. It is envisaged that FAWC’s role will remain unchanged and that it will continue to offer independent advice to Defra, the Scottish Department for Rural Affairs and the Environment and the Welsh Assembly Government’s Department for Rural Affairs.
FAWC Opinion on Mutilations and Environmental Enrichment in Piglets and Growing Pigs (March 2011). A4, 15 pages. Farm Animal Welfare Council, UK. Available for download from the FAWC website: http://www.fawc.org.uk/opinions/index.htm.
E Carter
UFAW
Review of the welfare of three popular companion animals in the UK
The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA) is a UK-based charity, whose mission is to care for the pets of people in need by providing free veterinary services and promoting responsible pet ownership. Recently, the PDSA has published a report reviewing the welfare of dogs, cats and rabbits in the UK with the aim of providing a baseline for annual assessment of the well-being of these animals. The current populations of these pets in the UK are listed as 8.3 million dogs, 11.9 million cats and 1.6 million rabbits.
Since the Animal Welfare Act 2006 came into force any person responsible for an animal, including companion pets, has a duty of care to ensure, within reason, that the following five animal welfare ‘needs’ of that animal are met: the need for a suitable environment; the need for a suitable diet; the need to be able to express normal behaviour patterns; the need to live with, or apart from, other animals; and the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. The report uses these five needs (under the headings: Environment, Diet, Behaviour, Companionship and Health, respectively) as a framework and scores each, according to how well the needs are met, out of 100, and gives an overall index score (the mean index score of the five needs).
The PDSA worked in partnership with YouGov (a research company based in the UK) to canvas the opinion, online, of over 11,000 dog, cat and rabbit owners and approximately 140 veterinary professionals. The survey results are presented by giving an ‘Ideal scenario’, a ‘PDSA overview’ and the ‘Key findings’ for each need for each pet, along with a separate general section covering ownership. Overall, the PDSA Animal Well-being (PAW) report concluded that rabbits are the pet whose welfare is most compromised; with an overall index score of just 53. This compares to 62 for dogs and 65 for cats.
The PAW report provides a general overview of the welfare of dogs, cats and rabbits within the UK, in relation to factors considered important by the PDSA, and highlights areas in which the welfare of these animals could be improved.
The PDSA Animal Well-being (PAW) Report 2011 (2011). A4, 38 pages. The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, UK. Available online at: http://www.pdsa.org.uk/pet-health-advice/pdsa-animal-wellbeing-report
E Carter
UFAW
New animal welfare legislation comes into force in Northern Ireland
Following a lengthy period of consultation, the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 has recently come into effect. The legislation is similar in format and structure to the Animal Welfare Act (England and Wales) 2006 and updates the previous Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. The new legislation contains 60 clauses and five schedules. There are a number of new protective measures and penalties and, as in Great Britain, the major change is the introduction of a ‘duty of care’. It is now compulsory that any individual who is responsible for a protected animal, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, takes reasonable steps to ensure that the welfare needs of an animal in their care are met and failure to do so will be considered an offence.
As in England and Wales, Northern Ireland has chosen to ban the routine docking of dogs’ tails but has allowed an exemption for certified working dogs (Scotland has banned all docking of dogs’ tails, including working animals). Other additions include: a strengthening of penalties for dog fighting; greater enforcement powers for inspectors, including the issuing of improvement notices; raising the minimum age that a child may be sold an animal to 16 years of age; and incorporating a means of issuing Codes of Practice at a later date.
The Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 is a promising step forward and addresses the imbalance between the previously limited protection given to companion animals.
Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (2011). A4, 44 pages. Stationery Office Limited, UK. Available online at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nia/2011/16/2011-03-29
E Carter
UFAW
Prize for research showing how to humanely handle mice
Professor Jane Hurst was awarded the UK’s National Centre for the Three Rs (NC3Rs) 2011 prize for improving animal welfare at the NC3rs Annual Review Meeting on the 25th January 2011. The award was given for her publication (Hurst & West 2010) on improving handling methods for mice. Professor Hurst and Rebecca West have shown that the traditional method of handling, in which the mice are picked up by the base of the tail, results in the mice becoming very anxious as well as aversive to further handling. She has also shown that mice can be more humanely handled by, either coaxing them into a tube from which they can be tipped into the hand or another cage, or by cupping them in the palm of the hand. Mice handled in these more humane ways will subsequently approach a hand placed in the cage while traditionally handled mice retreat from the hand and show behaviours indicative of anxiety. As is often the case, good welfare goes hand-in-hand with good science; as while some traditionally handled mice will eventually habituate to being picked up by the tail, some never do, so that this handling method introduces increased variation into research. Further, the researchers found that restraint methods, such as scruffing the mouse or restraining it by the tail, did not result in stress if one of the humane handling techniques had been used. As it has now been demonstrated that traditional handling evokes strong anxiety and that an estimated 40 million mice or more are used worldwide, the potential for improving welfare becomes clear. Moreover, the techniques will also be relevant to those that keep or handle pet mice.
Taming Anxiety in Laboratory Mice (2010). Hurst JL & West RS. Nature Methods, 7: 825-826. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v7/n10/full/nmeth.1500.html
R Hubrecht,
UFAW
New guidelines on euthanasia from the Canadian Council on Animal Care
Animals used in science may be killed for welfare reasons to prevent unavoidable pain or distress, to provide tissue for research, or to dispose of animals that are no longer needed. Euthanasia is probably one of the least popular of the tasks of animal care personnel, but it is important that it is always carried out in a way that causes the minimum of pain or distress to the animal. Ideally, the pain or distress should be nil, but unfortunately that is not always practically feasible. It is also important that the method chosen should take into account the likely psychological impact on the staff carrying out the procedure and the views of the public, however the welfare of the animal should come first. The Candian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) recent publication (see details below) on euthanasia provides 10 guiding principles to help ensure that it is undertaken as humanely as possible. The document also provides an overview of acceptable methods of euthanasia for various groups of species used in research. This takes into account the results of recent research and some traditional methods of killing animals have been reassessed. For example, there have been increasing concerns and a number of papers regarding the use of carbon dioxide to kill rodents and in these guidelines, the use of this gas, on its own, is relegated to a conditionally acceptable method which needs particular ethical justification. The guidelines refer to an addendum, which was not published at the time of writing but is intended to provide information about the potential impact of particular euthanasia method on research results.
CCAC Guidelines on: Euthanasia of Animals used in Science (2010). A4, 36 pages. Published by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. ISBN: 978-0-919087-52. Available at:
http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/Guidelines_Policies/PDFs/Euthanasia.pdf
R Hubrecht,
UFAW
Voluntary European Declaration signed on alternatives to pig castration
Across the European Union approximately 250 million pigs are reared annually to supply the pig meat market and the vast majority of males are surgically castrated before they are one week old. Castration of piglets occurs for management reasons (to reduce aggression, lessen unwanted mounting behaviour, and prevent unplanned pregnancies) and to decrease the probability of ‘boar taint’. Boar taint occurs in some carcases due to the presence of skatole and androstenone and may be perceived by consumers as unpleasant. Entire, male pigs are most likely to be effected by boar taint (although some female pigs are also affected) and production systems which slaughter animals at higher weights, eg between 100 and 110 kg, frequently castrate all male piglets routinely since these animals are more likely to have reached puberty and there is some association between puberty and taint (additionally if animals have reached puberty then there is a chance that females may become pregnant before slaughter). Sensitivity to boar taint varies between people and there are also differences between countries as to its acceptability (eg consumers in France, Germany and Spain find boar taint highly unacceptable whilst consumers in the UK less so). Carcases with a pronounced taint are considered unfit for human consumption.
It is widely accepted, due to behavioural and physiological indicators, that castration is painful however in the vast majority of cases when castration is carried out, anaesthesia and/or analgesia are rarely used. This is a welfare concern and one which a number of key stakeholders within the pig industry are beginning to address through voluntarily agreeing to a European Declaration on alternatives to surgical castration of pigs. The Declaration has been signed by many key groups within the pig industry, including: COPA-COGECA (European farmers and European agri-co-operatives), VDF (German meat industry association), Danish Agriculture and Food Council, LTO Nederland (Dutch pig farmers organisation) and FVE (Federation of Veterinarians for Europe.
Signatories have agreed that, as of 1 January 2012, the surgical castration of piglets may only be carried out if prolonged analgesia and/or anaesthesia is used, and that by 1 January 2018 castration may not be performed at all (although castration will still be permitted in production systems registered under ‘traditional specialties guaranteed’ or with ‘geographical indications’).
To assist with meeting the deadline for castration, a European partnership on pig castration has been set up with financial support from the European Commission. The aim of this group is to facilitate the carrying out of seven key tasks laid out in the Declaration, such as: agreeing on a common understanding of boar taint; co-ordinating research on methods for recognising boar taint; exploring means of reducing boar taint through breeding (some breeds, eg Duroc, are particularly prone to boar taint, whilst others, eg Hampshire, have naturally low levels); investigating production systems and management of entire males during rearing, transport and at slaughter to reduce sexual and aggressive behaviours; and carrying out a cost/benefit analysis on prohibiting castration.
The focus of the Declaration is on co-operation between interested parties, including the sharing of any costs associated with prohibiting castration, and it is hoped that other operators within the pig industry will join this voluntary initiative and assist with improving the welfare of pigs throughout the EU.
European Declaration on Alternatives to Surgical Castration of Pigs (December 2010). Voluntary declaration signed by key stakeholders in the pig industry. For further information, please visit the following website, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/initiatives_en.htm.
E Carter,
UFAW
Online learning resource available on pig production, welfare and meat quality
Q-PorkChains is an EU-funded research project in which 62 organisations from 19 countries are involved. One output of the project is the Q-PorkChains Open Learning Platform (OLP), an online learning resource covering the pig production industry and pork quality. The OLP provides freely available teaching resources to anyone interested in the pig industry and programmes are divided into modules (chain management, consumer, pig production, product quality) and categories (animal welfare, consumer behaviour, education, meat quality, pork chain, product development, sustainability). Many of the learning resources are provided in a number of different languages.
Within the animal welfare category there are nine learning resources available. Resources vary between explanatory video presentations, such as demonstrating a rapid test for detecting elevated acute phase protein levels in pigs, to a more lecture-style format, eg covering animal welfare-friendly pig housing systems in which users are led through key points of the subject area using notes, charts and video, and which culminates in a self-assessment test. Once users have completed an online course then they have the option of evaluating and feeding-back on their experience of the learning programme.
The long-term goal of Q-PorkChains OLP is to develop a sustainable and dynamic learning resource for use by teachers, trainers, students and employees in the pig production and pig meat industry. It is hoped that such an open and community-type platform will enable people to share their learning experiences and users are invited to contribute to the OLP by submitting their own teaching and learning resources.
Q-PorkChains Open Learning Platform (2011). EU Project funded via the EU 6th Framework Programme, 2007-2011. Q-PorkChains OLP is available at the following website: www.porktraining.org.
E Carter,
UFAW
Defra publishes review of the UK Animal Welfare Research Programme 2005-2010
In 2009/2010 approximately £32.5 million of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) research budget was allocated to animal health and welfare research and of this, £2.9 million was spent on animal welfare research specifically. The Defra animal welfare research programme consists of seven sub-programmes: on-farm poultry; on-farm pigs; on-farm ruminants; on-farm fish; companion animals and game birds; transport and markets; and slaughter. The results from research within these areas are utilised by Defra to ensure that existing animal welfare policies are based on scientific evidence, to identify the need for new policy development and to support Defra in its regulatory role.
In December 2010 Defra published a: Review of the Animal Welfare Research Programme 2005-2010. The aim of this review was to: evaluate completed and current research projects; to assess the current animal welfare research programme in relation to current policy needs; and to consider the future direction and priorities of the programme. To achieve these aims a panel of Defra officials and external referees considered each of the seven sub-programmes within animal welfare under the following headings: Success of research in providing value to Defra; Issues and areas of concern relating to this research; Research gaps and future priorities; and Balance of funding.
Review of the Animal Welfare Research Programme 2005-2010 (December 2010). A4, 44 pages. Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Further information about this publication and copies are available from: Animal Welfare Research Programme Manager, Veterinary Research Unit, Nobel House, Area 4A, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR.
E Carter,
UFAW
EU publishes evaluation on past animal welfare policies and considers options for the future
In 2006 the European Commission (EC) adopted the European Union (EU) Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010. This document laid out EU policy on animal welfare and put forward a strategy for advancing animal welfare within the EU during this period. The Action Plan was a key text for the welfare of animals within the EU since it grouped together, in a single document, all EU policy relating to the protection of animals.
The EC is now preparing a second document, the EU Animal Welfare Strategy 2011 to 2015, to take forward the welfare of animals over the next five years. As part of this process the EC Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO) commissioned GHK Consulting Ltd and ADAS UK Ltd to undertake an independent evaluation of EU policy on Animal Welfare (EUPAW). The final report: Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Policy Options for the Future, was published in December 2010.
The evaluation centred around four main objectives:
- “Undertake an analysis of the results of the EUPAW and a comparison with its objectives;
- Assess the efficiency of the policy in meeting these objectives and its coherence with other areas of EU Policy;
- Establish whether changes are needed to the EUPAW and suggest possible improvements to the scope, structure and working practices, having considered different policy options; and
- Make recommendations for the design of future policy, taking into account socio-economic issues”.
European policy concentrates on the following four areas of activity to progress the welfare of animals: legislation, research, communications, and international initiatives. The evaluation gives an overview of these four areas, with reference to farm animals, experimental animals, companion animals, and wild animals, and also addresses the objectives above by considering eleven evaluation questions.
Interesting issues raised by the evaluation include: a recommendation for greater enforcement of existing legislation; the possibility of extending the scope of EU legislation to include other animal groups that are currently not specifically covered by an existing Directive (eg dairy cows, goats, sheep, turkeys, geese, ducks, horses, rabbits and fur animals: which total about 868 million across the EU); harmonisation of standards to avoid competitive distortions within the internal market; consideration to introducing pet welfare legislation at an EU level, such as a central registration of ownership of dogs; allocating greater amounts of EU funding to the refinement of animal experiments and to zoo animal welfare; and developing an animal welfare communication strategy.
The report will play a key role in the formation of the new animal welfare strategy, which will be published later this year.
Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Options for the Future (December 2010). A4, 211 pages. A report submitted by GHK Consulting Ltd in association with ADAS UK, and commissioned by the European Commission Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection. For further information, or to download the report, please visit the EUPAW website, available at: http://www.eupaw.eu/.
E Carter,
UFAW
Volume 20 Issue 1 November 2011
Responsibility and cost sharing in England regarding animal health and welfare
Following its 15-month deliberations, the Advisory Group on Responsibility and Cost Sharing launched its findings at a meeting at Defra in London on Monday 13th December 2010. The Chair, Rosemary Radcliffe, outlined the proposals and there were additional comments from other members of the Committee: Jonathan Barber, Bill Reilly, James Fanshawe, Mike Sheldon and Diane McCrea. The Report was welcomed by the Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State.
The question addressed by the Group was how industry and government might form a new relationship to work together for animal health and welfare. How should responsibilities and costs be shared, between animal keepers and government, in protecting against and dealing with diseases of economic or human health importance (such as foot and mouth disease or bovine tuberculosis)? This question came into focus as the huge costs to the public purse of dealing with the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak became clear in its aftermath and has been receiving some attention ever since. The Advisory Group role was to find a way forward with this issue. Its aims were: (i) to reduce the risk and cost of animal disease and improve the welfare of kept animals and also (ii) to rebuild and maintain trust between animal keepers and the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and to improve the effectiveness and value for money of measures for disease control.
The Advisory Group concluded that responsibility-sharing arrangements must precede any further discussion of cost sharing and it has developed a new model for a system to take this forward: an England Partnership Board. It is proposed that this should have about 12 members, an external Chair, and comprise external members and Defra officials, with the former in clear majority. It will be an integral part of the Defra decision-making process. The proposal is for a new and unique arrangement that may not have precedents or parallels in government. No legislative changes are required for this body to be established so there are no reasons why it could not be set up quite rapidly.
The Partnership Board will be responsible for strategy, policy development, prioritisation of expenditure and strategic oversight of delivery on all kept animal health and welfare issues. It is recognised that its success will depend on picking the right people, that these will communicate and engage with stakeholders effectively, that Ministers will need to be comfortable with the arrangements and willing to accept Board’s advice, that Defra officials will need to adapt to new ways of working, and that there will need to be leadership from industry organisations in demonstrating commitment to making the new model work.
The current spending review means there is an even stronger focus on value for money and it is proposed that there is a staged approach to sharing costs. This will include undertaking full review of the value for money of all government-funded activities; looking for efficiencies; considering scope for enhanced fee and charges regimes; review of compensation arrangements (and working with insurers to explore the possibility of new arrangements in this area); and to encourage stakeholders to develop projects with public pump-priming funding. The Advisory Group has not recommended a general animal disease levy.
The benefits to be gained are improvements in efficacy in policy-making and implementation, through increased challenge and scrutiny of policies and priorities; a single strategic overview of animal health and welfare policies within Defra, and greater understanding and acceptance of policy among stakeholders. The England Partnership Board will need to liaise with authorities in the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
It is understood that Ministers will respond to these proposals in the Spring of 2011.
Report of the Responsibility and Cost Sharing Advisory Group (December 2010). The Responsibility and Cost Sharing Advisory Group. A4, 120 pages. Published by Defra and available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/animalhealth/sharing/advisory-grp/index.htm
JK Kirkwood
UFAW
Compliance with regulations on use of lead shot over wetlands in the UK
It is thought that lead poisoning can severely affect the welfare of wildfowl. To protect wildfowl from disease and mortality associated with lead poisoning arising through the ingestion of lead shot, the UK is committed to phasing out the use of lead shot over wetlands. To this end, the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations came into force in 1999 requiring that lead shot must not be used for shooting over specified wetlands. In order to assess compliance with these regulations, Defra commissioned an 18-month study which: (a) identified shot types from ducks purchased from game suppliers across England, and (b) conducted questionnaire surveys of those involved in hunting wildfowl.
The conclusions were: “That non-compliance with the regulations was high across English… regions, with 70% of ducks (344/492) having been shot with lead”. The results of the questionnaire survey indicated that understanding of the regulations was poor and 45% of those legally obliged to use non-lead shot indicated that they sometimes or never complied with the regulations. It was found that over a third of those who should be using non-lead shot disagreed with the reasons behind the regulations and factors in this were views that non-lead shot is expensive, not widely available and not as effective as lead. Some approaches to improving compliance are discussed in the report.
Compliance with the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 (July 2010). Report to Defra from the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust with contribution from the British Association of Shooting and Conservation. A4, 100 pages. Available at:
http://www.wwt.org.uk/files/HQ-PR/Lead/LeadShotRegulationsComplianceReport.pdf
JK Kirkwood
UFAW
The Farm Animal Welfare Forum consults on a means of labelling food from farm animals within the European Union
The Farm Animal Welfare Forum (FAWF) is a collaboration of seven organisations concerned with improving the welfare of farmed animals. Supported by the Tubney Charitable Trust, the FAWF hopes to encourage all parties within the foodchain, including farmers, policy-makers, retailers, manufacturers and consumers, to work together in delivering higher welfare standards for animals reared for food.
Three areas have been prioritised by the FAWF for action within Europe: confidence for consumers about animal welfare and food quality; a positive future for farmers based on high welfare, high quality and sustainability; and a substantial overall improvement in animal welfare standards.
In June 2010, FAWF published a paper for consultation in which they laid out their proposals on how a mandatory labelling system for food from farmed animals within the European Union may be implemented. Labelling has increasingly been an area of focus as various surveys have indicated that consumers would like more information about on-farm animal welfare at the point of purchase to enable them to make informed decisions.
The FAWF paper concentrates on fresh and frozen meat from pigs and chickens since FAWF believe that chicken and pig farming systems are the most readily categorised and that these farm animals are most likely to be kept in barren, highly stocked indoor conditions. Additionally, pig meat is consumed in the greatest quantity in the EU.
The FAWF would like the European Union to work strategically towards:
- All fresh and frozen chicken and pig meat sold through retail outlets across the EU labelled by method of production by 2015;
- The establishment of 3–5 categories of livestock production system;
- Minimum criteria for each category of production system for each livestock species being defined by EU law;
- Labelling terms or descriptors being agreed for each production system and species based on consumer and market testing;
- The introduction of welfare outcome assessment to provide further information and evidence about the welfare credentials of each category of production system, within 5 years.
Labelling Food from Farm Animals: Method of Production Labels for the European Union (June 2010). A paper for consultation with Stakeholders produced by the Farm Animal Welfare Forum. A4, 20 pages. For further information, please visit the FAWF website, available at: www.fawf.org.uk, or contact: Farm Animal Welfare Forum, PO Box 762, Godalming, GU7 9EQ, UK
E Carter
UFAW
Defra puts forward new regulation to allow beak trimming of laying hens
Under The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007, laying hens within England may be beak trimmed if the procedure is carried out by a qualified member of staff and on birds that are less than 10-days old. The aim of beak trimming is to reduce feather pecking and cannibalism and involves cutting off up to one-third of a hen’s beak using either a hot blade or infra-red technology. Beak trimming is considered by many to be an insult to a bird’s welfare since it involves the loss of a sensory organ and trimming may result in acute and chronic pain.
A ban on routine beak trimming of laying hens was due to come into force from 31st December 2010. However, following a Defra consultation, carried out in January 2010, the ban on beak trimming has been removed and a new regulation, ‘The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (Amendment) Regulations 2010’, laid before Parliament. The new Regulation would allow beak trimming of day-old chicks intended for laying using infra-red treatment only. Infra-red beak-trimming techniques are relatively new but have become the routine means of trimming the beaks of day-old chicks at hatcheries and are considered to be less of an insult to welfare than hot-blade trimming. Excluding parent stock, in 2008 approximately 90% of the 19.6 million laying hens in England were beak trimmed using infra-red.
Although the Government’s long-term aim is to ban all beak trimming, a viable alternative to prevent feather pecking and cannibalism is yet to be found. The Beak Trimming Action Group (a body set up by the Government in 2002 and consisting of scientists, welfare groups, and industry) has been tasked with creating an action plan to work towards a beak-trimming ban in 2016, although progress will be reviewed in 2015.
The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations (2010). Draft regulation laid before Parliament under section 61(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. Available at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/draft/pdf/ukdsi_9780111503553_en.pdf
E Carter
UFAW
New Zealand plans to phase out gestation crates for sows
Gestation crates (also known as sow stalls) have been used for many years throughout the pig industry to house sows individually during their 16-week gestation. Narrow and constrictive by design, gestation crates usually have partially- or fully-slatted concrete floors with little or no bedding. Favoured by some producers for management reasons (eg better utilisation of space, ease of cleaning, prevention of aggressive interactions between sows and individual feeding of sows), gestation crates have been shown to have a negative impact on sow health and welfare. Sows are unable to turn around and many normal behaviours, such as rooting and social interaction, are restricted and abnormal stereotypic behaviours, such as bar-chewing and tongue rolling, are increased. Inactivity and concrete floors can also lead to weakened bones, lameness, inflamed joints, and skin abrasions.
Due to the adverse impact of gestation crates on sow welfare, some countries (eg UK, Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands) and some US states (eg Florida, Arizona, California) have banned the use of them completely and alternative systems, such as group housing, are encouraged. Other countries have put in place legislation to phase out the use of gestation crates over the coming years (all European Union member states by 2013, Australia by 2017).
The latest country to legislate against the use of gestation crates is New Zealand. The New Zealand Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), together with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council (NAWAC), have recently published a new code of welfare for pigs which includes a minimum standard that reduces the use of gestation crates to only four weeks after mating by 2013 and completely prohibits their use by 2015.
The new code of welfare for pigs updates a previous code issued in 2005 and lays out nineteen minimum standards under eight general topics: stockmanship; food and water; shelter and housing; behaviour and management of sows, piglets and boars; handling and husbandry procedures; disease and injury control; emergency humane destruction; and welfare assurance schemes. Welfare codes play a key role in improving the care of animals by describing how best to keep and manage animals and by providing extra detail about areas covered by animal welfare legislation.
Animal Welfare (Pigs) Code of Welfare (December 2010). National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. A4, 44 pages. ISBN 978-0-478-37503-9 (Print), ISBN 978-0-478-37504-6. Available at http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/codes/pigs/index.htm. Animal Welfare Directorate, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, PO Box 2526, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
E Carter
UFAW
Volume 19 Issue 4 November 2010
Worse things happen at sea: the welfare of wild-caught fish
Ask most people with an interest which animal’s welfare merits the most attention, the answer is likely to be the chicken, because of the number farmed each year. This report by Alison Mood of FishCount makes a compelling argument that it is fish we should be more concerned about. The report, which details the welfare of fish in commercial fishing, makes for grim reading as the author gives statistic after statistic that highlights the extent of the problem, not least of which is the sheer number of individual fish affected.
Although the amount of fish caught annually is only reported in tonnage, the report has tried to estimate likely numbers based on mean weights of the fish species caught and their length. The number calculated is staggering and dwarfs that of all farmed animals. Compared to the 3 billion mammals and 57 billion birds reported by the Food and Agriculture Organisations (FAO) of the United Nations as farmed in 2008, FishCount estimated that between 970,000,000,000 and 2,740,000,000,000 (ie 0.97–2.74 trillion) individual fish are caught each year, with a conservative best estimate in the order of a trillion fish! (Those interested in how this number was arrived at are advised to read the separate document at the FishCount website which details the assumptions made). Further, the report points out that these figures take no consideration of fish caught illegally, or as bycatch or caught and used as feed for others.
As one attempts to grasp the scale of individuals affected, the report moves on to detail the different methods by which fish are commonly caught and the welfare challenges and insults of each. Trawling, purse seining, gill, tangle and trammel nets, rod and line and hand-line fishing, trolling, pole and line and long-line fishing, trapping and harpooning are all covered in this section. Of all these, it is trawling — and shrimp trawling in particular — that comes out as the most problematic; those in which capture and landing are swift and where the fish is most likely to be landed alive, such as rod and line, as the most humane.
According to the report, fish caught by trawling suffer many insults; fish caught in trawl nets are funnelled back towards a narrow closed end — the ‘cod end’ — where they are trapped. As a trawl continues and further fish are caught, those in the cod end are increasingly forced together and suffer skin and scale damage, from contact with other fish and the net itself, and crushing. Average figures of 29% of fish dying before landing in a 2-hour trawl and 61% in a 4-hour trawl are given. Deep-caught fish with swim bladders further suffer during the landing process as, as they are raised to the surface, changes in pressure cause parts of the gut to be forced out of the mouth and anus, eyes to bulge and swim bladders to burst.
For the survivors, death does not come quickly. In common with most of the other methods of fishing, most fish landed are left to suffocate in air, despite the fact that they are conscious. The report quotes studies that have shown that the time for fish to become insensible is between 55–250 minutes. Indeed, this time may be even longer if the fish are chilled on landing as the process of chilling slows metabolic rate, in addition to the additional distress it causes. For those methods of fishing which target larger fish, such as line fishing, gutting is more common and time to insensibility quicker — between 25–65 minutes. It should be pointed out, however, that such gutting commonly occurs whilst the fish is conscious, ie without stunning. As the report states, such methods of killing ‘would fail any standard of humane slaughter’ and would be unthinkable as commercial practice for animals such as cows or pigs.
There is much more of note in the report. Issues to do with the lack of selectivity of some of the methods of fishing and survival rates in this non-targetted ‘bycatch’ are discussed. Bycatch levels can be high: 40–60% of fish caught by trawlers in the mixed fishery of the North Sea, and the FAO estimates that 8% of the recorded landed global catch is discarded. This is of concern because whilst the assumption has been that discarded individuals usually survive, studies have shown that the death rate may be much higher — a rate of 77–100% is mentioned with regard to an observed herring trawl.
In the later sections of the report, the author moves from highlighting the concerns to suggesting ways by which these can be alleviated. Most simply, the report calls for a reduction in the number of fish caught. It gives several examples of how this could be achieved, eg by adopting more selective methods of fishing that reduce bycatch and through greater control of illegal fishing. As it states, because the numbers involved are so great, even a small reduction in fishing of 0.1% would mean 1 billion fewer deaths. Another measure highlighted is to increase the size fish are allowed to grow before being caught, as this would mean fewer fish would need to be caught to produce the same yield. A fourth is to reduce the numbers of fish caught not directly for food, but which are used, for example, to feed other fish. Such ‘fishmeal’ makes up between a quarter and a third of total annual recorded fish tonnage, and because of their small number, a much larger proportion of the individual fish caught (NB To produce 1 kg of farmed salmon, 3–4 kg of wild fish have to be caught).
Refinements to reduce fish suffering are also detailed; through the speeding up of the capture process, the modification to fishing gear and handling, the adoption of methods for humane slaughter, through avoiding the use of live-bait fish and purpose-killed bait fish, and the choice of more humane capture methods, eg not fishing below 20 m for fish with swim bladders. Such modifications, the report argues, could be sold to the fisherman and the consumer under the banner of ‘higher quality’ as fish which are captured and dispatched swiftly and more humanely produce a better quality flesh.
It finishes by calling on animal welfare and environmental groups to become more involved in raising awareness of the welfare issues concerning fishing and lobbying retailers, fisheries and governments to develop and adopt more humane and sustainable practice.
This important report is not without fault however. It is at its weakest when dealing with the issue of fish sentience. Here, the author lays out some of the evidence in support of the fish’s ability to feel pain and suffer. Too much of what is cited here comes from secondary rather than primary sources, and is dated. For example, an RSPCA report from the early 1980s is cited as evidence that fish feel pain, as are the BBC news website and a report from a UK national newspaper, the Daily Mail; this despite the fact that there is more up-to-date research on the issue. Nonetheless, few would argue that fish don’t at least deserve the benefit of doubt on these matters. More problematic is when the author addresses the issue of fish feeling fear and panic as the supporting evidence is somewhat superficial. Certainly its brevity distracts from the otherwise persuasive arguments and evidence offered elsewhere in the report.
It is to be hoped that this report marks an important turning point in our use of fish — a sea change in our attitude towards them if you will — and that all those involved in their capture and harvesting take note of it. As it points out, at present the sentience of fish is little acknowledged by the commercial fishing industry; similarly the concept of fish suffering is not covered by existing codes of practice, including the laudable Marine Stewardship Council standards for well-managed fisheries. This report, one trusts, should help to change this.
Worse Things Happen at Sea: Report on the Welfare of Wild-Caught Fish (August 2010). A4, 139 pages. By Alison Mood, fishcount.org.uk. Available to be downloaded from: http://fishcount.org.uk
S Wickens
UFAW
Good Practice Guide for animals used in scientific purposes
The aim of this guide is to promote the humane and responsible use of animals for scientific purposes and to encourage the highest standard of husbandry and animal care. It encompasses all aspects of the care and use of animals in medicine, biology, agriculture, veterinary and other animal sciences, industry and teaching. Split into 8 sections, covering the acquisition of animals, facilities, responsibilities of investigators and teachers amongst others, it is well written and clear and incorporates the latest thinking and recommendations on animal use. Grounded in the principle that animals should always be given the benefit of any doubt concerning pain relief, and with a specific appendix that address the pain, this guide can perhaps be regarded as a model for others looking for guidance on this subject or seeking to draft their own guide.
Good Practice Guide for the Use of Animals in Research, Testing and Teaching (2010). A4, 40 pages. National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Copies of these documents can be obtained from: The Secretary, National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, PO Box 2526, Wellington 6140 New Zealand. It is also available for download from: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/animal-welfare/pubs/naeac/guide-for-animals-use.pdf
S Wickens
UFAW
New Zealand code of welfare for dogs
For those of us concerned about companion animal welfare, this Code of Welfare for Dogs from the New Zealand Government will be of interest. Following, as it does, the recently published England, Wales and Scotland Codes, it provides an opportunity to compare the issues of concern between these countries and look at how they have been addressed.
Under New Zealand legislation any individual or organisation can draft a code of welfare, and this one was drawn up by a group convened by the New Zealand Companion Animal Council, which included representatives from the Royal New Zealand Society for the Protection of Animals, New Zealand Veterinary Association and Vet Nurses Association, Federated Farmers of New Zealand, Companion Animal Society, Unitec, New Zealand Kennel Club and the Institute of Animal Control Officers.
The Code is split into 10 sections and details 21 minimum standards that New Zealand dog owners must meet. In addition, each section and sub-section of the Code thereof, contains an introduction to the area of concern and further outlines recommended best practice and other general information deemed relevant.
Amongst the minimum standards are those that address expected issues such as food and feeding, access to water, euthanasia and ill-health and injury. Other standards are more specific and cover concerns that include debarking, removal of dew claws and aids for behavioural modification; as such these may be less anticipated but perhaps no less welcome.
In drawing up this Code, the group have also been able to incorporate some of the recommendations that recent reports, such as the UK’s Bateson Inquiry (see Reports and Comments, Animal Welfare 19[ii]) have made regarding the better safeguarding and regulation of the genetic health of dogs. The Code therefore requires that:
-
‘Breeders must make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the genetic make-up of both sire and dam will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of known inherited disorders.’ (Minimum standard No7 — Breeding); and
-
‘…..(b) People supplying puppies must, at the time of supply, disclose to persons receiving them, any known inherited disorders that the puppy or adult dog may be predisposed to which may cause health and/or welfare problems during the dog’s lifetime.’ (Minimum standard No9 — Supply of Puppies).
This swiftness of implementation is in contrast to the UK, where there is continuing debate about how to best address the recommendations of these reports.
Supporting the Code, is an accompanying document which outlines some of the considerations and debate that took place during its drafting and which makes for interesting reading (http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/animal-welfare/req/codes/dogs/dogs-code-of-welfare-report.pdf) Prominent in this is the section on tail docking. In the Code, tail docking (or banding) is allowed without analgesia before the pups eyes open. That this recommendation wasn’t arrived at without much debate is revealed by the amount of attention devoted to the subject in the report. Indeed, from this it is clear that this advice remains under review, and there is a desire to conduct further research on the issue. A contract for this research was put out to tender but, in the end, not awarded.
Another interesting point is the decision taken by the Code to set both a lower and upper limit on body condition, making it an offence to keep a dog that is too thin but also that is ‘grossly obese’. The weight of pets, and increasingly levels of obesity, has been a popular focus of attention in the veterinary press in recent years but to my knowledge this is the first time it has been specifically legislated for.
Finally, and perhaps surprisingly given some of requirements of the other standards, is the omission to require dogs to be routinely vaccinated. Although recommended as best practice, the accompanying standard simply requires that “dogs known to be infected with an infectious disease must be…. securely isolated so as to prevent infecting other dogs (Minimum Standard 11)”. No doubt others will have their own opinions as to whether this is an oversight or not.
Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare 2010 (2010). A4, 51 pages. National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Copies of these documents can be obtained from: Animal Welfare Directorate, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, PO Box 2526, Wellington 6140 New Zealand. It is also available for download from: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/codes/dogs
S Wickens
UFAW
New Zealand code of animal welfare 2010: commercial slaughter
The New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999 came into force on 1 January 2000 This established the basic obligations relating to the care of animals but the detailed requirements were set out in separate Codes. The Animal Welfare (Commercial Slaughter) Code of Welfare was issued in 2002. This was revoked when the new Code came into force on 28 May 2010. Failure to meet the minimum standards set out in the Code may be used as evidence to support a prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act. Alternatively, someone charged with an offence under the Animal Welfare Act may use as a defence evidence that they have equalled or exceeded the minimum standards in the Code.
The Code covers all farmed mammals, birds (including ostriches and emus), finfish (including eels), crustaceans and other species defined in the Animal Welfare Act 1999, that are slaughtered to provide animal products for trade. Also included are wild mammals and birds caught alive and taken into a person’s care and later killed. Finally, the Code applies to finfish (including eels), crabs, lobsters and crayfish caught from the wild and kept alive onshore, until slaughtered for sale as food.
The publication is divided into eight chapters plus appendices. Chapter 1 is the Introduction and outlines the purpose of the Code, to whom and to what animals it applies, what happens if the Code is not followed and how the Code relates to other welfare codes. Chapter 2 deals with the required training, competences and supervision of personnel involved in stunning and slaughter, and sets out the minimum levels of knowledge and competence required of management and personnel involved in the stunning and slaughter of animals.
Chapters 3 through 6 deal with large and small mammals, birds and aquatic species. Each Chapter is divided into sections dealing with the handling, restraint, stunning and bleeding of the various species, and in each section the minimum standards required are specified. Many sections also include a paragraph outlining the recommended best practice. The Chapter on birds relates mainly to poultry, but includes a section dealing with the specific requirements for ostriches and emus. Chapter 6 on aquatic species is divided into two sections, one covering farmed and wild-captured finfish and eels, and the other dealing with farmed and wild-captured crabs, rock lobsters and freshwater crayfish.
Chapter 7 sets the minimum standards for the slaughter of animals outside slaughterhouses by home-kill service providers and pet food operators. The responsibilities and obligations of the individuals involved in the restraint, stunning and slaughter of the animal are defined, and the minimum standards set out in relation to those for animals killed in a slaughterhouse. In Chapter 8 the need for a quality assurance programme with written procedures is emphasised, and the minimum standards for the document set out.
Appendix I provides diagrams showing the optimum position on the skull of the animal for the use of a captive-bolt gun or a free-bullet firearm. Diagrams are given for cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, equines and deer. Appendix II details the signs of an effective stun in farmed mammals when a penetrating/non-penetrating captive bolt gun, a head-only electrical stunner or a head-to-body electrical stunner is used. Interpretations and definitions of terms used in the Code are given in Appendix III, and the legislative requirements of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 with particular reference to the Code are set out in Appendix IV. Finally, Appendix V outlines the process for developing and revising codes of animal welfare in New Zealand, and provides a list of the current animal welfare codes.
Animal Welfare (Commercial Slaughter) Code of Welfare 2010 (2010). Available from National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, Animal Welfare Directorate, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, P O Box 2526, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand. ISBN 978-0-478-36341-8 (print), ISBN 978-0-478-36342-5 (online). http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare
AC Hughes
HSA
New Zealand welfare code for sheep and beef cattle
The New Zealand Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), together with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council (NAWAC), has recently published a new code of welfare for sheep and beef cattle. Welfare codes play a key role in improving the care of animals by describing how best to keep and manage animals and by laying out minimum standards. Codes also provide extra detail about areas covered by animal welfare legislation and, although not legally binding in themselves, may be used as evidence to support a prosecution for an offence under the relevant legislation. It is a requirement that all codes are reviewed at least every 10 years.
The Sheep and Beef Cattle Code of Welfare applies to all sheep and cattle in New Zealand which are principally farmed for meat, fibre and/or offspring, rather than milk. It also covers animals of recognised dairy breeds if they are being reared and farmed for meat production.
Twenty minimum standards are listed under six main headings: Stockmanship and Animal Handling; Food and Water; Shelter; Behaviour; Health, Injury and Disease; and Husbandry Practices. Each section follows a similar format, including a general introduction, background information, the relevant minimum standard and, in some sections, recommended best practice. Also included for useful reference are body condition score charts for sheep and beef cattle, a list of interpretations and definitions of terms used within the code and a section on legislative requirements.
Animal Welfare (Sheep and Beef Cattle) Code of Welfare 2010 (June 2010). A4, 49 pages. National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand. ISBN: 978 0 478 363531. The guidelines are available at the MAF Biosecurity website: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/stds/codes, or by emailing: animalwelfare@maf.govt.nz.
E Carter
UFAW
FAO animal welfare guidelines on cattle identification
The Animal Production and Health Division (AGA) of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) has produced a working document for consultation purposes on the identification of beef cattle. It is intended that, Guidelines for Animal Welfare: Identification of Beef Cattle, will form the first publication of an FAO series focused on animal welfare during key livestock husbandry practices.
Individual identification of animals is necessary to define ownership, to enable traceability and to aid disease control. Additionally, identification allows farmers to monitor the performance of individual animals, the herd as a whole, and enables review of management practices. However, the process of animal identification often involves handling, herding and restraint, followed by a marking procedure which may be painful. Identification can therefore be a stressful event in an animal’s life and it is important that handlers give due care and consideration to animal welfare when carrying out the procedure.
A number of permanent and temporary identification methods are available to farmers. The guidelines recognise that there is no one ‘ideal’ method and rate twelve possible methods (ear tattooing; ear tagging [plastic and electronic]; fire, freeze and chemical branding; intra-ruminal bolus; injectable transponder; nose printing; retinal scanning; ear notching; and paint marks) against six desired characteristics: (1) permanence, (2) ease of application, (3) low cost, (4) legibility at a distance, (5) safety for operators, and (6) animal welfare.
A summary chart illustrates how well each identification method meets the six criteria and a further table expands on risks to animal welfare by scoring the potential for each method to cause: pain, stress/distress, infection, parasite infestation, extra handling, later site lesions, or allergic reaction. Detailed explanations are then given on how best to carry out the five most commonly used identification procedures (ear tattooing, ear-tagging (visual and electronic), fire branding, freeze branding and paint marking) to ensure that risks to animal welfare are minimised.
Throughout the guidelines there is emphasis on the capacity of cattle to learn and handlers are reminded that cattle will remember people, facilities and places, and any positive or negative incidents associated with them. It is recommended that habituation and operant conditioning, together with positive reinforcement, are used when training and handling cattle to minimise negative reactions. Advice and practical tips are given on how best to achieve this.
The FAO hopes that the guidelines will serve as a general training tool and that they will be of use to farmers, veterinarians, animal scientists and cattle handlers.
Guidelines for Animal Welfare: Identification of Beef Cattle (2010). Working document for consultation purposes. FAO (eds) MJR Paranhos da Costa, F Galindo Madonado, X Manteca i Vilanova, SM Huertas Canén, D Dahlanuddin, C Phillips,and D Battaglia. FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines. No 4. Rome. Available for download at: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/animal-welfare/aw-awhome/detail/fr/item/42766/icode/.
E Carter
UFAW
Animal welfare, ethics and the 3Rs — an online teaching resource
The concept of the 3Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement, was devised by William Russell and Rex Burch at UFAW, and propounded in their 1959 book: The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Since then they have been adopted internationally to improve the welfare of laboratory animals through changing the way in which laboratory animal experiments are designed and carried out.
In 2007, a report entitled, In vivo sciences in the UK: sustaining the supply of skills in the 21st Century, and published by the Bioscience Federation and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), highlighted a need for future in vivo scientists to receive greater training in animal welfare, ethics and the 3Rs. With the support of the National Centre for the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and the Laboratory Animal Science Association (LASA), Dr David Lewis, University of Leeds, undertook a project to evaluate the provision of training in animal welfare, ethics and law within UK Higher Education and to gather and disseminate good practice and teaching materials.
The project culminated in the publication of Animal Welfare, Ethics and the 3Rs: Training materials and resources. The booklet, which is freely available online, covers a range of strategies for teaching students about animal experimentation, animal welfare, the 3Rs, legislation, and other associated topics. Twenty-two lesson plans are included in total, all of which are clearly laid out and encourage the audience to consider the use of animals in research from various standpoints through a variety of teaching approaches, such as group discussions, role play, individual and group presentations, workshops and self-directed learning. Guidance notes for both students and tutors are incorporated, together with many useful website links to other constructive resources. Lessons are predominantly aimed at teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students, although Key Stage 4 & 5, Schedule 1 users, Personal Licence Holders, Animal Care and Welfare Staff, and others are also catered for. The lesson plans may be used as they are or modified to suit individual requirements.
The online publication is intended to be a living document that is updated as and when new information is available.
Animal Welfare, Ethics and the 3Rs: Training Materials and Resources (2009). A4, 65 pages. Dr David Lewis, University of Leeds. Available from: 3Rs@leeds.ac.uk, or at: http://www.bps.ac.uk/uploadedfiles/Education/3RsResourceeVersionDec09.pdf.
E Carter,
UFAW
EFSA publishes two Scientific Opinions on broiler chickens
Many billions of chickens are raised and slaughtered annually to supply the commercial meat market and meat chickens (broilers) have undergone increasingly intense selective pressure to grow faster and convert feed more efficiently. In 2000, the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) published a report that reviewed in detail the welfare of chickens kept for meat production and concluded that: “Most of the welfare issues that relate specifically to commercial broiler production are a direct consequence of genetic selection for faster and more efficient production of chicken meat, and associated changes in biology and behaviour”. The report describes a number of disorders that compromise the welfare of broiler birds including leg problems, contact dermatitis conditions, ascites and sudden death syndrome. Additionally, it was concluded that the welfare of broiler breeders is adversely affected due to severe feed restriction.
Following the SCAHAW report, the European Union put forward a proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production. This Directive, published in 2007, became the first piece of legislation to address the welfare of broiler birds across all European Union (EU) member states. Council Directive 2007/43/EC set out minimum standards for chicken holdings, such as maximum stocking densities, lighting levels, litter quality and feed requirements, as well as introducing a condition that people attending chickens must have either suitable experience or training. Member states were required to incorporate these standards into domestic legislation by 30 June 2010. Additionally, the Directive requires the EU Commission to submit a report to the European Parliament by 31 December 2010 regarding the influence of genetic parameters resulting in poor welfare of chickens.
The European Commission therefore requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to produce two scientific opinions covering: (i) the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercials broilers, and (ii) the welfare aspects of the management and housing of the grand-parent and parent stocks raised and kept for breeding purposes. Following a two-tier consultation process, involving a Technical Meeting of relevant stakeholders in 2009 and a web-based public consultation in early 2010, the EFSA AHAW Panel published both Scientific Opinions (outlined below) in June of this year. These will assist the European Commission in preparing the report for the European Parliament later in the year.
Scientific Opinion on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers
The welfare of commercial broiler birds may be compromised through a variety of means. The EFSA Scientific Opinion provides an overview of the welfare of broiler birds in general and describes eleven common conditions that result in poor welfare, including musculoskeletal disorders, respiratory diseases, thermal discomfort and behavioural restriction. This section is followed by a discussion of a range of indicators which could be used to record and assess welfare on-farm and at the slaughterhouse.
The Opinion then reviews the genetic selection of broiler birds for: production; reproduction; and health, fitness, and welfare traits. The interaction between genotype and environment is also examined and a risk assessment undertaken on the probability of exposure to a hazard, and the magnitude of poor welfare effects of that exposure. Factors which scored the highest risk were unbalanced body conformation, high stocking density, fast growth rate, low light intensity and wet litter.
EFSA closes the report by listing its main conclusions and twenty-three recommendations. Additionally, the following three issues were recommended as areas for further research: causes of reduced mobility and associated welfare problems, eg pain and social interactions; the interaction of environmental factors and genetics with regard to welfare; and the development of practical methods for independent health and welfare surveillance and objective assessment and recording of welfare indicators in broiler flocks.
Scientific Opinion on the welfare aspects of the management and housing of the grand-parent stocks raised and kept for breeding purposes.
The Opinion begins by providing an overview of current husbandry and management practices during hatching, rearing, production and slaughter of breeding stock. This section is followed by a review of factors which may compromise the health and welfare of breeding birds, such as: severe feed restriction, mutilations (de-toeing, de-spurring, comb dubbing and beak trimming), leg weakness, stocking density, and cage housing.
The results of a risk assessment show the impact of housing and management on the welfare of broiler breeders, including genetic selection influences. The top five hazards according to risk scores were: barren environments, high stocking density, fast growth rate, feed restriction and low light intensity.
The report concludes with twenty-five recommendations on: husbandry and housing systems; feed restriction; mating aggression; mutilations; slaughter and culling; and disease and biosecurity. A number of areas requiring further research are also put forward.
Scientific Opinion on the Influence of Genetic Parameters on the Welfare and the Resistance to Stress of Commercial Broilers (2010). A4, 82 pages. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), EFSA Journal 2010 8(7): 1666. Available online at: www.efsa.europa.eu.
Scientific Opinion on the Welfare Aspects of the Management and Housing of the Grand-Parent Stocks Raised and Kept for Breeding purposes (2010). A4, 81 pages. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). EFSA Journal 2010 8(7): 1667. Available online at: www.efsa.europa.eu.
Outcome of the Stakeholders and Public Consultation on Health and Welfare Aspects of Genetic Selection in Broilers (2010). A4, 87 pages. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). EFSA Journal 2010 8(7): 1670. Available online at: www.efsa.europa.eu.
The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers) (2010). A4, 150 pages. Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. European Commission. 2000. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf.
E Carter,
UFAW
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
