Literature DB >> 24875152

Positive animal welfare states and reference standards for welfare assessment.

D J Mellor1.   

Abstract

Developments in affective neuroscience and behavioural science during the last 10-15 years have together made it increasingly apparent that sentient animals are potentially much more sensitive to their environmental and social circumstances than was previously thought to be the case. It therefore seems likely that both the range and magnitude of welfare trade-offs that occur when animals are managed for human purposes have been underestimated even when minimalistic but arguably well-intentioned attempts have been made to maintain high levels of welfare. In light of these neuroscience-supported behaviour-based insights, the present review considers the extent to which the use of currently available reference standards might draw attention to these previously neglected areas of concern. It is concluded that the natural living orientation cannot provide an all-embracing or definitive welfare benchmark because of its primary focus on behavioural freedom. However assessments of this type, supported by neuroscience insights into behavioural motivation, may now carry greater weight when used to identify management practices that should be avoided, discontinued or substantially modified. Using currently accepted baseline standards as welfare reference points may result in small changes being accorded greater significance than would be the case if they were compared with higher standards, and this could slow the progress towards better levels of welfare. On the other hand, using "what animals want" as a reference standard has the appeal of focusing on the specific resources or conditions the animals would choose themselves and can potentially improve their welfare more quickly than the approach of making small increments above baseline standards. It is concluded that the cautious use of these approaches in different combinations could lead to recommendations that would more effectively promote positive welfare states in hitherto neglected areas of concern.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Affective neuroscience; baseline standards; cognitive bias; natural living; positive welfare; reference standards; what animals want

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24875152     DOI: 10.1080/00480169.2014.926802

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Z Vet J        ISSN: 0048-0169            Impact factor:   1.628


  21 in total

1.  Automated bioacoustics: methods in ecology and conservation and their potential for animal welfare monitoring.

Authors:  Michael P Mcloughlin; Rebecca Stewart; Alan G McElligott
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 4.118

2.  Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the "Five Freedoms" towards "A Life Worth Living".

Authors:  David J Mellor
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 3.  Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare.

Authors:  David J Mellor
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 4.  Equine Welfare during Exercise: An Evaluation of Breathing, Breathlessness and Bridles.

Authors:  David J Mellor; Ngaio J Beausoleil
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2017-05-26       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 5.  Changes in the Welfare of an Injured Working Farm Dog Assessed Using the Five Domains Model.

Authors:  Katherine E Littlewood; David J Mellor
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 6.  Forensic Use of the Five Domains Model for Assessing Suffering in Cases of Animal Cruelty.

Authors:  Rebecca A Ledger; David J Mellor
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 7.  Assessment of Welfare in Zoo Animals: Towards Optimum Quality of Life.

Authors:  Sarah Wolfensohn; Justine Shotton; Hannah Bowley; Siân Davies; Sarah Thompson; William S M Justice
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 8.  Making Decisions under Ambiguity: Judgment Bias Tasks for Assessing Emotional State in Animals.

Authors:  Sanne Roelofs; Hetty Boleij; Rebecca E Nordquist; Franz Josef van der Staay
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.558

Review 9.  Moving beyond the "Five Freedoms" by Updating the "Five Provisions" and Introducing Aligned "Animal Welfare Aims".

Authors:  David J Mellor
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 10.  Guidelines for Inspection of Companion and Commercial Animal Establishments.

Authors:  Clifford Warwick; Mike Jessop; Phillip Arena; Anthony Pilny; Catrina Steedman
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2018-07-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.