Throughout its 25-year history, the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment has been regularly updated to include at each stage the latest authenticated developments in animal welfare science thinking. The domains of the most up-to-date Model described here are: 1 Nutrition, 2 Physical Environment, 3 Health, 4 Behavioural Interactions and 5 Mental State. The first four domains focus attention on factors that give rise to specific negative or positive subjective experiences (affects), which contribute to the animal’s mental state, as evaluated in Domain 5. More specifically, the first three domains focus mainly on factors that disturb or disrupt particular features of the body’s internal stability. Each disturbed or disrupted feature generates sensory inputs which are processed by the brain to form specific negative affects, and these affects are associated with behaviours that act to restore the body’s internal stability. As each such behaviour is essential for the survival of the animal, the affects associated with them are collectively referred to as “survival-critical affects”. In contrast, Domain 4, now named Behavioural Interactions, focusses on evidence of animals consciously seeking specific goals when interacting behaviourally with (1) the environment, (2) other non-human animals and (3) as a new feature of the Model outlined here, humans. The associated affects, evaluated via Domain 5, are mainly generated by brain processing of sensory inputs elicited by external stimuli. The success of the animals’ behavioural attempts to achieve their chosen goals is reflected in whether the associated affects are negative or positive. Collectively referred to as “situation-related affects”, these outcomes are understood to contribute to animals’ perceptions of their external circumstances. These observations reveal a key distinction between the way survival-critical and situation-related affects influence animals’ aligned behaviours. The former mainly reflect compelling motivations to engage in genetically embedded behavioural responses, whereas the latter mainly involve conscious behavioural choices which are the hallmarks of agency. Finally, numerous examples of human–animal interactions and their attendant affects are described, and the qualitative grading of interactions that generate negative or positive affect is also illustrated.

Simple SummaryThe Five Domains Model is now increasingly used to assess the welfare status of a wide range of species in markedly different circumstances. Particular strengths are that the Model facilitates structured, systematic and comprehensive evaluations of animals’ negative and positive mental experiences, the overall balance of which underlies their welfare status or quality of life. Importantly, the Model also clarifies the specific internal and external factors that give rise to those experiences. The welfare evaluation published here is the first to use the most up-to-date version of the Model, and stands as a detailed example that may assist others undertaking such welfare evaluations in other species and contexts. Moreover, it is the first such evaluation of a companion animal. It employs a fictitious scenario involving a working farm dog before, during and after it sustains a serious hind leg injury requiring amputation and its subsequent rehoming as a pet. A wide range of negative and positive experiences are graded, interactions between them are revealed, and the balance between negative and positive states at different stages of the scenario is described. Such Model evaluations can highlight current practices that merit re-evaluation. More generally, when major welfare issues are identified, use of the Model could enhance expert witness participation in related prosecutions by highlighting scientifically supported connections between indicative physical/functional states and behaviours and their associated negative experiences in ill-treated animals. Five Domains Model evaluations can also facilitate quality of life assessments and end-of-life decisions.AbstractThe present structured, systematic and comprehensive welfare evaluation of an injured working farm dog using the Five Domains Model is of interest in its own right. It is also an example for others wanting to apply the Model to welfare evaluations in different species and contexts. Six stages of a fictitious scenario involving the dog are considered: (1) its on-farm circumstances before one hind leg is injured; (2) its entanglement in barbed wire, cutting it free and transporting it to a veterinary clinic; (3) the initial veterinary examination and overnight stay; (4) amputation of the limb and immediate post-operative recovery; (5) its first four weeks after rehoming to a lifestyle block; and (6) its subsequent life as an amputee and pet. Not all features of the scenario represent average-to-good practice; indeed, some have been selected to indicate poor practice. It is shown how the Model can draw attention to areas of animal welfare concern and, importantly, to how welfare enhancement may be impeded or facilitated. Also illustrated is how the welfare implications of a sequence of events can be traced and evaluated, and, in relation to specific situations, how the degrees of welfare compromise and enhancement may be graded. In addition, the choice of a companion animal, contrasting its welfare status as a working dog and pet, and consider...

Wildlife management can influence animal welfare and survival, although both are often not explicitly integrated into decision making. This study explores fundamental concepts and key concerns relating to the welfare and survival of stranded cetaceans. Using the Delphi method, the opinions of an international, interdisciplinary expert panel were gathered, regarding the characterisation of stranded cetacean welfare and survival likelihood, knowledge gaps and key concerns. Experts suggest that stranded cetacean welfare should be characterised based on interrelated aspects of animals’ biological function, behaviour, and mental state and the impacts of human interventions. The characterisation of survival likelihood should reflect aspects of stranded animals’ biological functioning and behaviour as well as a 6-month post-re-floating survival marker. Post-release monitoring was the major knowledge gap for survival. Welfare knowledge gaps related to diagnosing internal injuries, interpreting behavioural and physiological parameters, and euthanasia decision making. Twelve concerns were highlighted for both welfare and survival likelihood, including difficulty breathing and organ compression, skin damage and physical traumas, separation from conspecifics, and suffering and stress due to stranding and human intervention. These findings indicate inextricable links between perceptions of welfare state and the likely survival of stranded cetaceans and demonstrate a need to integrate welfare science alongside conservation biology to achieve effective, ethical management at strandings.

This descriptive study explored how end-of-life management was taught to students in all eight Australasian veterinary schools. A questionnaire-style interview guide was used by a representative at each university to conduct structured interviews with educators in a snowball sampling approach. Four categories of animals were addressed: livestock, equine, companion and avian/wildlife. This article focuses on the first part of the questionnaire: teaching the technical aspects of euthanasia. Euthanasia techniques were taught at more universities in clinical years than preclinical years. Clinical teaching relied on opportunities presenting, for example, euthanasia consultations. Few universities gave students a chance to practise euthanasia during a consultation and those that did were all with livestock. Competency in euthanasia techniques is an important aspect of clinical practice and these findings can be used to inform curriculum reviews of veterinary training.

No abstract

Management of live cetacean strandings generally focuses on refloating animals, yet there is a lack of scientific data to inform decision-making. Valid indicators that are practical to measure are needed to assess welfare status and survival likelihood for stranded cetaceans. The Delphi method was applied to gather international and interdisciplinary expert opinion to provide face validity to potential indicators of stranded cetacean welfare and survival likelihood. Two online questionnaires were conducted. In the first questionnaire these experts identified potential indicators of stranded cetacean welfare and survival likelihood. These indicators were subsequently scored by the same experts in questionnaire two, based on their value for assessing welfare/survival likelihood and being practical to measure. Indicators considered valuable and practical for assessing welfare and survival likelihood at strandings included animal-based indices of body and skin condition, signs of physical trauma, respiration rate and various behaviours. Resource-/management-based indicators related mainly to human intervention and should be correlated with animal-based indices to provide relevant evaluations. Importantly, inextricable links between welfare and survival for stranded cetaceans are emphasized, with 90% of indicators being similar for both. Investigations into these indicators should be conducted to develop a practical, science-based assessment framework to inform decision-making during stranding events.

This study set out to explore how euthanasia decision‐making for animals was taught to students in eight Australasian veterinary schools. A questionnaire‐style interview guide was used by a representative at each university to interview educators. Educators were interviewed about their teaching of euthanasia decision‐making for four categories of animals: livestock, equine, companion and avian/wildlife. Using thematic analysis, the terms provided by participants to describe how (mode of teaching) and what (specific content) they taught to students were categorised. Information about content was categorised into human‐centred factors that influence decision‐making, and animal‐based indicators used to directly inform decision‐making. All eight representatives reported some teaching relevant to euthanasia decision‐making at their university for livestock, companion animal and avian/wildlife. One representative reported no such teaching for equid animals at their university. Observation of a euthanasia case was rarely reported as a teaching method. Five universities reported multiple modes of teaching relevant information, while two universities made use of modalities that could be described as opportunistic teaching (e.g., 'Discussion of clinical cases'). Factors taught at most universities included financial considerations, and that it is the owner's decision to make, while animal‐based indicators taught included QoL/animal welfare, prognosis and behaviour change. Overall, most universities used a variety of methods to cover relevant material, usually including lectures and several other approaches for all animal types. However, because two universities relied on presentation of clinical cases, not all students at these veterinary schools will be exposed to make, or assist in making, euthanasia decisions.

No abstract