Dairy calves are typically fed restricted amounts of milk. Although feed restrictions are predicted to result in negative affective states, the relative aversiveness of ‘hunger’ remains largely unexplored in this species. Here, we investigated whether the conditioned place preference paradigm can be used to explore how calves feel when experiencing different levels of satiation. This paradigm provides insight into what animals remember from past experiences, the assumption being that individuals will prefer places associated with more pleasant or less unpleasant experiences. Sixteen Holstein calves were either fed a restricted (3 L per meal totalling 6 L per day) or ‘enhanced’ milk allowance (ad libitum up to 6 L per meal totalling up to 12 L per day) in their home-pen. Calves were then placed in a conditioning pen for 4 h immediately after being fed their morning meal to allow them to develop an association between the pen and their state of post-prandial satiation. Calves were conditioned across four days with their satiation state alternating between days to allow them to develop an association between pen and satiation levels. On the 5th day, calves were individually allowed to roam freely between the two pens for 30 min. We expected that calves would prefer the pen where they previously experienced higher levels of satiation, but our results show no to limited effects of treatment. However, some methodological issues (colour and side bias) prevent us from drawing strong conclusions. We discuss reasons for these issues and potential solutions to avoid these in future studies.

Human empathy towards non-human animals (Animal Empathy; AE) has shown a strong gender bias, with women demonstrating higher levels than men. This study aimed to investigate the influence of animal experiences on AE in a male-only sample. It was hypothesised that there would be different levels of AE between men with experiences caring for pets, men with experience in animal agriculture, and men with limited animal experiences. Ninety-one Australian men (18yrs+) completed an online survey evaluating their level of AE using the Animal Empathy Scale (AES). Additionally, they were asked what in their experience they think has influenced their beliefs about how animals think and feel. As expected, AE levels differed significantly between groups, with those in the pet ownership experience group demonstrating higher AE levels than the other two groups. All three groups displayed high endorsement for direct interactions with animals in adulthood as being most influential in shaping their beliefs about how animals think and feel. However, our quantitative results support the idea that not all experiences are worth the same, with the responsibility and sacrifice involved in pet caring appearing to be most influential to the development of AE. These findings have implications for the importance of human-animal interactions in understanding animal sentience and the development of AE in males.

Major advancements in ecology and biodiversity conservation have been made thanks to methods for marking and individually tracking animals. Marking animals is both widely used and controversial due to the potential consequences for animal welfare, which are often incompletely evaluated prior to implementation. Two outstanding knowledge gaps concerning the welfare consequences of individual marking are their short-term behavioural impacts and the relative impacts from marking versus the handling of animals while carrying out procedures. We addressed these knowledge gaps through an experimental study of alpine newts (Ichthyosaura alpestris) in which we varied handling and marking procedures. Examining individual responses to handling, toe clipping and visible implant elastomer (VIE) injection over 21 days showed that handling and marking elicited increased newt activity and hesitancy to feed compared to animals that did not get handled or marked. These effects were apparent even when animals were handled only (not marked), and marking did not further increase the magnitude of responses. Increases in newt activity and feeding hesitancy were transient; they were not observed in the weeks following handling and marking. While previous studies emphasise the welfare impacts of marking procedures themselves, these findings highlight that handling alone can elicit behavioural changes with possible costs to welfare. Yet, the transient nature of behavioural responses suggests that immediate costs of handling may be subsequently compensated for in the short term.

Drawing upon data from a study examining experiences of accessing support for pets from the UK animal welfare charity Blue Cross, this paper illuminates reasons why people might not seek support when they need it. This applies to those who are struggling financially and are eligible for, but do not take, free/reduced cost veterinary care, or are having other problems (e.g. the animal’s disruptive behaviour or ill health, struggling to care for the pet due to changing circumstances or health problems, or coping with pet loss). Twenty Blue Cross service users (15 female, five male, age 29–67) took part in individual online interviews using a semi-guided narrative approach, where they were encouraged to share their experiences of reaching out. They were also asked to reflect upon why others may not do the same, and if they had any recommendations for organisations to help them reach these people. Findings echo other studies that highlight a fear of being judged, disclosure and stigma. Guilt, shame, lack of awareness, financial concerns, and wanting to manage independently, all play important roles. These factors have implications for the way support services are advertised and delivered to ensure animals receive the care needed. We describe these reflections and recommendations and identify three broader ideological narratives underpinning participants’ stories: ‘giving back’; ‘equity’, and ‘sacrifice’. These reveal how wider societal attitudes and values shape identities and behaviours. It is vital that support on offer is reframed to explicitly counteract these influences to ensure optimal animal and human welfare.

Tail docking is a husbandry practice widely incorporated in sheep farms around the world. It is an irreversible mutilation that impairs animal welfare, both immediately and in the longer term. The defence of tail docking as a practice is centred around the perception that doing so contributes to the promotion of local hygiene, allowing the use of the wool, facilitating reproductive management and reducing the chances of myiasis, a disease caused by the invasion of blowfly larvae in the tissues of warm-blooded animals. However, current understanding of farm animal welfare questions the need to maintain practices such as tail docking. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of tail docking on the incidence of Cochliomyia hominivorax myiasis in sheep in an experimental flock in Brazil during a six-year retrospective cohort study. Relative risk, odds ratio and incidence rate ratio were the association measures adopted. A total of 4,318 data-points were collected and supplied the analytical model. Tail docking did not decrease the risk and, on the contrary, was found to increase the chances of sheep being affected by myiasis. The results support the hypothesis that tail docking is not a protective factor against the occurrence of myiasis and further fuel calls for a rethink of tail docking being deployed as a blanket measure in the prevention of myiasis in sheep.

Animals under human care are exposed to a potentially large range of both familiar and unfamiliar humans. Human-animal interactions vary across settings, and individuals, with the nature of the interaction being affected by a suite of different intrinsic and extrinsic factors. These interactions can be described as positive, negative or neutral. Across some industries, there has been a move towards the development of technologies to support or replace human interactions with animals. Whilst this has many benefits, there can also be challenges associated with increased technology use. A day-long Animal Welfare Research Network workshop was hosted at Harper Adams University, UK, with the aim of bringing together stakeholders and researchers (n = 38) from the companion, farm and zoo animal fields, to discuss benefits, challenges and limitations of human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions for animals under human care and create a list of future research priorities. The workshop consisted of four talks from experts within these areas, followed by break-out room discussions. This work is the outcome of that workshop. The key recommendations are that approaches to advancing the scientific discipline of machine-animal interactions in animals under human care should focus on: (1) interdisciplinary collaboration; (2) development of validated methods; (3) incorporation of an animal-centred perspective; (4) a focus on promotion of positive animal welfare states (not just avoidance of negative states); and (5) an exploration of ways that machines can support a reduction in the exposure of animals to negative human-animal interactions to reduce negative, and increase positive, experiences for animals.

Human evaluation of animal emotional expressivity can inform animal welfare. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) has been applied to domesticated and some non-domesticated animals, but its use in primates is limited despite their emotional expressivity. We aimed to develop and apply a QBA for bonobos (Pan paniscus) through two consecutive studies. We applied Free Choice Profiling (FCP) and the Fixed List methodology, respectively, in Study 1 and 2, and invited students and bonobo experts to rate video clips of zoo-living bonobos of different sexes and age classes, and before and after moving to a new enclosure. In Study 1, students described dimension 1 as ranging from ‘quiet/calm’ to ‘angry/active’ and dimension 2 from ‘sad/anxious’ to ‘happy/loving’. Experts described dimension 1 ranging from ‘quiet/relaxed’ to ‘nervous/alert’ and dimension 2 from ‘nervous/bored’ to ‘playful/happy’. Using a fixed list of descriptors, informed by findings from Study 1, students in Study 2 described dimension 1 as ranging from ‘quiet/calm’ to ‘agitated/frustrated’, and dimension 2 from ‘sad/stressed’ to ‘happy/positively engaged’. Experts described dimension 1 as ranging from ‘quiet/calm’ to ‘active/excited’, and dimension 2 from ‘sad/bored’ to ‘happy/positively engaged’. Students scored adults as more ‘calm/quiet’ and experts scored subadults as more ‘happy/positively engaged’. Additionally, experts in Study 2 rated bonobos as more ‘active/excited’ in their new enclosure. Reliability was moderate to good for the dimensions. Additionally, animal-directed empathy of observers influenced QBA scores. This is the first time, FCP has been successfully used as a method to study primate emotional expressivity. Our findings show the promise of employing QBA in primate studies and in industry, with validation of additional metrics to enable its use for welfare-monitoring purposes.

The capture of wild-living animals can provide valuable information that is critical in developing and implementing effective conservation actions. These capture procedures, however, often require direct handling of individuals by researchers, and conservationists should constantly seek to improve capture methods so that the impacts on animal welfare are minimised. The ngwayir (western ringtail possum; Pseudocheirus occidentalis) is a critically endangered arboreal marsupial in need of effective conservation. It is, however, not amenable to conventional trapping, leading to the use of methods such as nest robbing and tranquilisation using dart guns or pole syringes, which involve potentially serious animal welfare risks and longer exposure of animals to humans as compared to conventional trapping. In pursuit of an improved capture method, we investigated opportunistically whether placing traps above the ground would increase the capture success rate of the species, using wire cage traps baited with universal bait and fruit. Between 2010 and 2019, we deployed trapping grids in Locke Nature Reserve and adjacent campsites near Busselton, WA, Australia, with traps placed on the ground for 1,985 trap nights and traps placed on horizontal tree branches, fallen trees or fences, 1–2 m above ground for 694 trap nights. With the above ground traps we trapped 82 ngwayirs out of 694 trap nights, 27 in autumn and 55 in spring. We also captured eleven common brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula; 1.6% trap success rate), 12 King’s skinks (Egernia kingii; 1.7%) and five black rats (Rattus rattus; 0.7%). Trapping success rate was higher in elevated traps (up to 18.3%) compared to traps on the ground (0.5%) and using fruit as bait increased the trap success rate. These results suggest that using elevated traps baited with fruit is a practical, effective method to capture the ngwayir.

Free-ranging native Dartmoor and Exmoor ponies have not only held strong cultural and environmental significance for thousands of years within their respective national parks, but their environmental benefits and naturally selected characteristics have also been acknowledged and harnessed for conservation grazing and rewilding programmes. Despite a wealth of literature regarding the welfare of sports, leisure and working horses, there is little information concerning the welfare of free-ranging and extensively grazing ponies. The present study compared the welfare of native Exmoor and Dartmoor ponies grazing on the moors in their respective national parks (n = 47) with those that have been translocated to other areas of the UK for use in conservation grazing and rewilding programmes (n = 29) using a specifically designed observational welfare assessment protocol for free-ranging ponies. The results showed a significant difference between common land and conservation grazing ponies in the scores for Body Condition Score, Water Quality and Availability, Environmental Hazards, Human Disturbance, Skin and Coat Condition and the Human Approach Test. Despite no evidence of significant welfare compromise being identified, this study emphasises the importance of year-round monitoring of welfare and the feasibility of the observational welfare protocol to be used by pony keepers and grazing managers in the future.

If livestock at risk of poor welfare could be identified using a risk assessment tool, more targeted response strategies could be developed by enforcement agencies to facilitate early intervention, prompt welfare improvement and a decrease in reoffending. This study aimed to test the ability of an Animal Welfare Risk Assessment Tool (AWRAT) to identify livestock at risk of poor welfare in extensive farming systems in Australia. Following farm visits for welfare- and non-welfare-related reasons, participants completed a single welfare rating (WR) and an assessment using the AWRAT for the farm just visited. A novel algorithm was developed to generate an AWRAT-Risk Rating (AWRAT-RR) based on the AWRAT assessment. Using linear regression, the relationship between the AWRAT-RR and the WR was tested. The AWRAT was good at identifying farms with poor livestock welfare based on this preliminary testing. As the AWRAT relies upon observation, the intra- and inter-observer agreement were compared in an observation study. This included rating a set of photographs of farm features, on two occasions. Intra-observer reliability was good, with 83% of Intra-class Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) for observers ≥ 0.8. Inter-observer reliability was moderate with an ICC of 0.67. The AWRAT provides a structured framework to improve consistency in livestock welfare assessments. Further research is necessary to determine the AWRAT’s ability to identify livestock at risk of poor welfare by studying animal welfare incidents and reoffending over time.

Animal welfare offences encompass a heterogeneous range of crimes, including violence and various forms of negligence toward animals’ needs. However, there is limited understanding of the offenders’ rationalisations concerning their criminal behaviour against animals, despite this information being essential for enhancing the prevention of these crimes. Our data comprised 1,443 judgements in animal welfare offences in Finland between January 2011 and May 2021. We categorised the rationalisations used by defendants and identified differences between offender profiles according to the offence type. Nearly all defendants responded to the charges. Overall, defendants appealed most often to their challenging circumstances, e.g. a lack of resources. Defendants charged with offences against production animals offered more explanations than the other defendants and often denied their responsibility for the animals, or having caused them any harm, and appealed to financial problems, weather conditions, and having too many animals. Moreover, they frequently challenged the norms, appealing in particular to the immorality of the authorities, who were mostly official veterinarians. Defendants charged with animal hoarding offences rationalised their actions similarly to animal farmers, whereas those charged with violent crimes against animals more often cited provocative or otherwise problematic behaviour of the animal victim. Our results support the observation that farmers may perceive official animal welfare supervision negatively. Violent animal welfare crimes and animal hoarding stand out as distinctive types of crime at the level of rationalisations. The differences between offence types and offenders’ underlying motivations should be considered when developing animal welfare control, agricultural support systems, and crime prevention.

The objective of this study was to identify factors more commonly observed on farms with poor livestock welfare compared to farms with good welfare. Potentially, these factors may be used to develop an animal welfare risk assessment tool (AWRAT) that could be used to identify livestock at risk of poor welfare. Identifying livestock at risk of poor welfare would facilitate early intervention and improve strategies to promptly resolve welfare issues. This study focuses on cattle, sheep and goats in non-dairy extensive farming systems in Australia. To assist with identifying potential risk factors, a survey was developed presenting 99 factors about the farm, farmers, animals and various aspects of management. Based on their experience, key stakeholders, including veterinarians, stock agents, consultants, extension and animal welfare officers were asked to consider a farm where the welfare of the livestock was either high or low and rate the likelihood of observing these factors. Of the 141 responses, 65% were for farms with low welfare. Only 6% of factors had ratings that were not significantly different between high and low welfare surveys, and these were not considered further. Factors from poor welfare surveys with median ratings in the lowest 25% were considered potential risks (n = 49). Considering correlation, ease of verification and the different livestock farming systems in Australia, 18 risk factors relating to farm infrastructure, nutrition, treatment and husbandry were selected. The AWRAT requires validation in future studies.

An animal welfare education community of practice (AWECoP) for those teaching animal welfare science, applied ethology, and/or animal ethics was created to develop a dialogue amongst educators within the field of animal welfare science. The purpose of this paper is to describe the history, objectives, and members’ experiences within this community. AWECoP hosts 6–8 meetings annually for members to discuss topics relevant to our community and exchange teaching resources; within its first two years, the community has grown to 121 members representing approximately 70 institutions across six continents. A 12-question, mixed-method survey was distributed to capture member demographics, engagement with AWECoP, motivations for joining, and self-evaluation of AWECoP’s impacts. Quantitative data from the survey are presented descriptively, while reflexive thematic analysis was applied to the qualitative data. Survey respondents (n = 54) felt that AWECoP is a vital community and safe space for members to share their ideas and receive feedback, inspiration, information, and resources regarding subject-specific and broader pedagogical topics. As a result, a majority experienced professional (e.g. development of new contacts) and personal (e.g. increased feeling of belonging in their field) benefits, as well as impacts realised in their teaching practice. We conclude with an examination of challenges faced in ensuring AWECoP remains accessible to a growing membership and offer recommendations for facilitating similar communities to support fellowship and training in the teaching of animal welfare and related disciplines.

The use of animals as scientific models is argued to be crucial for producing new scientific and medical knowledge and clinical treatments. However, animal research continues to raise socio-ethical concerns. In recent years, there has been a push for openness amongst the life science community, with the aim of increasing the transparency of animal research to wider publics. Yet, how this push for openness is experienced by those responsible for the care and welfare of research animals requires further study. This paper draws upon qualitative interviews with Named Veterinary Surgeons (NVS) in the UK and explores how they practise openness, avoid openness, and, at times, challenge the way their role is represented within openness agendas. Overall, this social scientific analysis reveals that the current openness agenda has the potential to create tensions for professionals, as they seek to manage regulatory and public imaginaries of the veterinary identity alongside the animal research controversy. The paper concludes by arguing for a culture of dialogue, where openness includes allowing those with responsibilities for animal welfare to express ambivalence or concern about their own role. Finally, the paper calls for sustained academic work on relations between the veterinary profession and wider society, particularly areas that involve contested practices in which care and harm may coincide.

Russell and Burch’s 1959 original definitions of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) are widely used today as standards for the ethical use of non-human animals in research, although they have a number of limitations. Authors and institutions around the world have addressed some of these, coming up in certain cases with more accurate, functional, and up-to-date definitions. However, not only do there still remain limitations needing to be addressed, but some that have been addressed resulted in discrepancies, contradictions, and general confusion as to how best apply the 3Rs in practice. In order to clarify the meaning of the 3Rs and enable more optimal implementation of these principles in animal experimentation, this article provides a theoretical discussion for revised definitions of the original 3Rs via examination of some of their main limitations and inconsistencies. First, we offer up the original definitions as presented in the context of Russell and Burch’s book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Then, we examine the main limitations and present clear specifications and requirements for such revised definitions. After presenting our revised definitions, we conclude with various implications for animal welfare within the context of experimentation.

A wide range of animal taxa, including vertebrates and invertebrates, are controlled or kept by humans. They may be used as pets, for recreation, sport and hobbies, as working animals, as producers of animal-derived (food) products or as biomedical models in research. There is a need for clear guidance on the treatment of animals, regardless of their phylogenetic distance from humans. Current animal welfare concepts, which emphasise animal sentience and the ability of animals to experience negative or positive mental states, are limited in scope to a small proportion of the animal kingdom, as the vast majority of species are (currently) thought to lack sentience. We discuss four options for addressing the question of which basic concept(s) could be used to derive guidelines for the treatment of animal species, sentient or non-sentient: (1) alternative concepts tailored to specific groups of species; (2) ‘welfare’ concepts not presupposing sentience; (3) the precautionary principle; or (4) the concept of animal integrity. Since questions regarding the appropriate treatment of animals, including species with a large phylogenetic distance from humans, have an ethical/moral dimension, we also address who counts morally and how much, and how animals should be treated given their moral status. We suggest that the concept of animal integrity, possibly complemented and extended by the concept of habitat/ecosystem integrity, is suitable for application to all species. However, a current concept of animal welfare should serve as the primary basis for guidance on how to treat species that are sentient and capable of experiencing emotions.

According to the Bayesian brain hypothesis, the brain can be viewed as a predictive machine, such that predictions (or expectations) affect how sensory inputs are integrated. This means that in many cases, affective responses may depend more on the subject’s perception of the experience (driven by expectations built on past experiences) rather than on the situation itself. Little research to date has applied this concept to affective states in animals. The aim of this paper is to explore how the Bayesian brain hypothesis can be used to understand the affective experiences of animals and to develop a basis for novel predictions regarding animal welfare. Drawing from the literature illustrating how predictive processes are important to human well-being, and are often impaired in affective disorders, we explore whether the Bayesian brain theories may help understanding animals’ affective responses and whether deficits in predictive processes may lead to previously unconsidered welfare consequences. We conclude that considering animals as predictive entities can improve our understanding of their affective responses, with implications for basic research and for how to provide animals a better life.

The welfare of horses involved in sport and leisure activities has come under increasing scrutiny, both from within the equine sector and from the public. A systematic review of scientific evidence was conducted to derive observable, evidence-based behavioural measures of positive or negative affective state and factors relating to quality of life in the domestic horse (Equus caballus). Two separate searches (including the terms ‘emotion/affect’, or ‘stress’) were conducted, with 179 articles being retained. In Part I of this two-part review (companion paper published simultaneously), articles relating to the extent to which the species-specific needs of the horse are fulfilled in the home environment (n = 21), in relation to social grouping (n = 20), and during weaning (n = 14) were reviewed. Experimental tests of affective state in relation to housing and management (n = 8), and studies relating to stereotypical behaviour (n = 7) were also included. Opportunities for behavioural expression were dependent upon the provision of social and physical resources. Withdrawn or agitated behaviours in situ, avoidance behaviour during handling and agonistic intra-species interactions were indicative of negative affective state. Affiliative intra-specific social interactions, and forage ingestion were considered positive signs. For horses to live a good life, their need for space, companionship, and forage must be prioritised from birth and throughout their lives.