os critérios mencionados, associada a uma explicação sobre a avaliação do bem-estar animal. Espera-se oferecer ao leitor uma base para o entendimento desta nova ciência, indispensável aos profissionais cujo trabalho gira em torno da interação entre seres humanos e animais.Palavras chave: bem-estar animal, estresse, necessidades, saúde, sofrimento.ABSTRACT -Welfare is a word widely used by public in many situations and its meaning is often not precise. However, an objective definition is needed if the concept is to be used scientifically and professionally. Moreover, welfare has to be defined in such a way that it can be readily related to other concepts such as: needs, freedoms, happiness, coping, control, predictability, feelings, suffering, pain, anxiety, fear, boredom, stress and health. This review presents a definition of animal welfare which satisfies these criteria, as well as explaining how to assess welfare. Its main objective is to offer the reader a basis for an understanding of this new science, which is essential to those whose work centres on the human-animal interaction.

O conflito entre recursos financeiros escassos e a necessidade de investimento para assegurar a qualidade de vida dos animais afeta diretamente as atitudes em relação ao bem-estar de animais de produção no Brasil. Em alguns países, esse conflito encontra-se em ampla discussão. Os principais conceitos necessários ao entendimento dessa questão são apresentados brevemente abaixo, incluindo os aspectos econômicos descritos no relatório sobre Bem-Estar Animal, Economia e Regulamentação, recentemente publicado pelo governo do Reino Unido, o qual constitui um dos artigos mais completos sobre o assunto. As informações são apresentadas contextualizadas para o atual cenário mundial e para a situação brasileira em relação ao bem-estar de animais de produção. Animal welfare and production: economic aspects – Review Abstract The conflict between scarce financial resources and the need to invest on animal life quality directly affects the attitudes towards farm animal welfare in Brazil. In some countries, this is an ongoing discussion. The main concepts related to the understanding of this issue are briefly presented below, including economic aspects described on the Report on Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy, recently published by the government of the United Kingdom, which constitutes one of the most comprehensive papers on the subject. The information is commented in light both on the current world scenario and on the Brazilian situation regarding farm animal welfare.

Our aim was to study Brazilian consumer attitudes towards cell-based meat and related issues. From 408 respondents from Curitiba and 218 from Joinville, the majority was women with higher level of education; 65.2% and 70.2% frequently consumed meat and 50.7% and 50.9% would not stop eating meat; 81.6% and 82.6% had little or no knowledge about cell-based meat. After watching an explanatory video, 41.9% and 34.4% stated they would eat cell-based meat without restrictions; 24.5% and 23.9% stated they would try depending on conditionals. Overall, 63.6% declared they would eat cell-based meat; among vegetarians and vegans, 24% and 8% stated they would eat cell-based meat, with additional 25.0% and 27.0% stating “it depends”; thus, the major public for cell-based meat seems to be meat eaters. Animal welfare was the principal reason for considering not eating meat and a major benefit of cell-based meat. In conclusion, the majority of respondents would not stop eating meat; additionally, they would eat cell-based meat.

Métodos de diagnóstico e pontos críticos de bem-estar de bovinos leiteirosWelfare assessment methods and critical points for dairy cattle

No abstract

The Welfare Quality consortium has proposed a science-based protocol for assessing broiler chicken welfare on farms. Innovative features make the protocols particularly suited for comparative studies, such as the focus on animal-based welfare measures and an integration procedure for calculating an overall welfare status. These protocols reflect the scientific status up to 2009 but are meant to be updated on the basis of inter alia implementation studies. Because only few such studies have been done, we applied the Welfare Quality protocol to compare the welfare of broiler flocks in Belgium (representing a typical European Union (EU) country which implies stringent animal welfare legislation) versus Brazil (the major broiler meat exporter to the EU and with minimal animal welfare legislation). Two trained observers performed broiler Welfare Quality assessments on a total of 22 farms in Belgium and south Brazil. All of the farms produced for the EU market. Although the overall welfare was categorized as 'acceptable' on all farms, many country differences were observed at the level of the welfare principles, criteria, and measures. Brazilian farms obtained higher scores for 3 of the 4 welfare principles: 'good feeding' (P = 0.007), 'good housing' (P < 0.001), and 'good health' (P = 0.005). Four of the 10 welfare criteria scores were, or tended to be, higher on Brazilian than Belgian farms: 'absence of prolonged thirst' (P < 0.001), 'ease of movement' (P < 0.001), 'absence of injuries' (P = 0.002), and 'positive emotional state' (P = 0.055). The only criteria with a higher score for the Belgian farms than their Brazilian counterparts were 'absence of prolonged hunger' (P = 0.048) and 'good human-animal relationship' (P = 0.002). Application of the Welfare Quality protocol has raised several concerns about the validity, reliability, and discriminatory potential of the protocol. The results also call for more research into the effect of animal welfare legislation as broiler welfare on the south Brazilian farms appeared to be superior to that on the Belgian farms. Animal-based welfare assessments on a larger sample of farms are needed to evaluate to what extent these findings may be generalized.

This paper comprises brief descriptions by faculty at 13 veterinary schools in Europe, North America, South America, and Australasia that summarize undergraduate training in animal welfare at the respective schools and how students are assessed.

This trial was designed to test the effects of insulin, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), and their interaction on milk protein and selected blood parameters in dairy cows. Eight Holstein cows (86 +/- 10 d in milk) were divided in two groups and used in two replicates of a Latin square design with four animals, four periods, and four treatments: 1) intravenous infusion of saline, 2) infusion of saline and subcutaneous administration of 40 mg of rbST per day, 3) intravenous infusion of 12 mg of insulin per day coupled with glucose infusion, and 4) rbST administration combined with insulin and glucose infusion. The glucose infusion rate was adjusted to maintain euglycemia. Each experimental period lasted 14 d: treatments were administered during the first 6 d, and no treatment was administered during the following 8-d resting phase. The average daily amount of glucose infusion needed to avoid hypoglycemia was 2.8 kg/cow when only insulin was infused as opposed to 2.2 kg/cow when both insulin and rbST were administered, indicating that either rbST causes a peripheral resistance to insulin or rbST increased liver gluconeogenesis or both. Data from the last 3 d of infusion were analyzed by using the SAS system for mixed models. Percent protein of milk tended to be lower (2.84 vs. 2.79%) and milk urea content was lower (16.6 vs. 14.8 mg/dl) during rbST administration, regardless of insulin infusion. Insulin infusion increased percent protein (2.78 vs. 2.85%) and percent casein (2.36 vs. 2.46%) and decreased milk urea content (17.1 vs. 14.3 mg/dl) regardless of rbST administration. For milk yield, protein yield, casein yield, lactose percent, and lactose yield, there were significant interactions between insulin and rbST administration. For example, casein yield averaged 1.17, 1.12, 1.20, and 1.28 kg/d for saline, insulin, rbST, and insulin combined with rbST, respectively. Similarly, there was a significant interaction between insulin and rbST on IGF-I levels, which were 122.5, 181.3, 342.3, and 492.2 ng/ml for saline, insulin, rbST, and insulin combined with rbST, respectively. In conclusion, these results clearly demonstrated that insulin interacts with bST in early lactation to improve milk protein synthesis and yield in dairy cows. These effects are probably mediated through a combination of bST nutrient mobilization, bST-induced gluconeogenesis, bST-induced insulin peripheral resistance, and bST/insulin synergism on insulin-like growth factor-I secretion and on mammary epithelial tissue.