This opinion paper considers the relative validity and utility of three concepts: the Five Freedoms (FF), Five Domains (FD) and Quality of Life (QoL) as tools for the analysis of animal welfare. The aims of FF and FD are different but complementary. FD seeks to assess the impact of the physical and social environment on the mental (affective) state of a sentient animal, FF is an outcome-based approach to identify and evaluate the efficacy of specific actions necessary to promote well-being. Both have utility. The concept of QoL is presented mainly as a motivational framework. The FD approach provides an effective foundation for research and evidence-based conclusions as to the impact of the things we do on the mental state of the animals in our care. Moreover, it is one that can evolve with time. The FF are much simpler. They do not attempt to achieve an overall picture of mental state and welfare status, but the principles upon which they are based are timeless. Their aim is to be no more than a memorable set of signposts to right action. Since, so far as the animals are concerned, it is not what we think but what we do that counts, I suggest that they are likely to have a more general impact.

No abstract

Simple SummaryUsing an adaptation of the domain-based welfare assessment model, a panel of horse welfare professionals (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement) assessed the perceived harms, if any, resulting from 116 interventions that are commonly applied to horses. Scores for Domain 5 (the integrated mental impact) gathered after extensive discussion during a four-day workshop aligned well with overall impact scores assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop, although some rankings changed after workshop participation. Domain 4 (Behaviour) had the strongest association with Domain 5, whilst Domain 1 (Nutrition) had the weakest association with Domain 5, implying that the panellists considered commonly applied nutritional interventions to have less of a bearing on subjective mental state than commonly applied behavioural restrictions. The workshop defined each intervention, and stated assumptions around each, resulting in a set of exemplar procedures that could be used in future equine welfare assessments.AbstractThe aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; n = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity—competition; C12 Activity—work; C13 Activity—breeding females; and C14 Activity—breeding males. Scores on a 1–10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1–10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) an...

A qualitative risk assessment identified Salmonella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica, Toxoplasma gondii and Trichinella spp. as the most relevant biological hazards in the context of meat inspection of swine. A comprehensive pork carcass safety assurance is the only way to ensure their effective control. This requires setting targets to be achieved in/on chilled carcasses, which also informs what has to be achieved earlier in the food chain. Improved Food Chain Information (FCI) enables risk‐differentiation of pig batches (hazard‐related) and abattoirs (process hygiene‐related). Risk reduction measures at abattoir level are focused on prevention of microbial contamination through technology‐ and process hygiene‐based measures (GMP/GHP‐ and HACCP‐based), including omitting palpation/incision during post‐mortem inspection in routine slaughter, as well as hazard reduction/inactivation meat treatments if necessary. At farm level, risk reduction measures are based on herd health programmes, closed breeding pyramids and GHP/GFP. Chemical substances listed in Council Directive 96/23/EC were ranked into four categories. Dioxins, dioxin‐like polychlorinated biphenyls and chloramphenicol were ranked as being of high potential concern. However, chemical substances in pork are unlikely to pose an immediate or short term health risk for consumers. Opportunities for risk‐based inspection strategies by means of differentiated sampling plans taking into account FCI were identified. Regular update of sampling programmes and inclusion of inspection criteria for the identification of illicit use of substances were also recommended. Meat inspection is a key component of the overall surveillance system for pig health and welfare but information is currently under‐utilised. The changes proposed to the pig meat inspection system will lead to some reduction in the detection probability of diseases and welfare conditions. The difference is likely to be minimal for diseases/conditions that affect several organs. To mitigate the reduced detection probability, palpation and/or incision should be conducted as a follow‐up to visual inspection whenever abnormalities are seen.

Most transgenic mice are generated by the direct microinjection of DNA fragments into the pronuclei of fertilized eggs. It has been generally assumed that the majority of integration events occur prior to the first round of chromosomal DNA replication (Palmiter and Brinster, 1986). In this study we have determined by comparison of PCR, Southern blot and transmission frequencies that at least 62% of integration events generate a mosaic (somatic and/or germline) G0 transgenic mouse. Furthermore, the statistical probability of transgene-containing cells segregating to the various early embryo lineages implies that this is probably an underestimate of the true mosaic frequency. Thus, the majority of DNA injected into fertilized mouse eggs intergates after the first round of chromosomal DNA replication, therefore most G0 transgenic mice are derived from a mosaic embryo.