Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include ‘quality of life’ and related concepts

Abstract

Ideas within the animal welfare science arena have evolved continuously throughout the last 30 years, and will continue to do so. This paper outlines some of these developments. These included reformulation of the five freedoms concept into the five domains of potential welfare compromise. This accommodated weaknesses in the former by distinguishing between the physical/functional and the mental factors that contribute to an animal's welfare state. This development reflected a rising scientific acceptance that the mental experiences of animals were legitimate foci for study and highlighted that what the animal itself experiences represents its welfare status. Initially, most concepts of animal welfare emphasised predominantly negative subjective experiences, such as thirst, hunger and pain, and negative affective states or feelings including anxiety, fear and boredom, but today positive experiences or emotions such as satiety, vitality, reward, contentment, curiosity and playfulness are also considered to be important. During the same period, the focus shifted from evaluating the impacts of individual mental subjective experiences or emotions towards seeking a more comprehensive, multifactorial understanding. The five domains concept was specifically designed to achieve this. Subsequent notions about quality of life (QoL) had the same objective, and emphasised the importance of positive experiences. However, some approaches to QoL assessment relied heavily on empathetic speculation about what animals may experience subjectively and this raised concerns about inappropriate anthropomorphic projections. Such pitfalls may be minimised when informed personnel rigorously apply objectively based methodologies to QoL assessments limited to a short time frame. It is clear that both formal and somewhat less formal QoL assessments of this type are already used to guide decision-making about the ongoing care and therapeutic management of animals on a daily basis. However, application of the recently introduced concepts of 'a life not worth living', 'a life worth avoiding', 'a life worth living' and 'a good life' is problematical, because extending the assessment time scale to the whole of life is attended by a number of as yet unresolved difficulties. Accordingly, their value in the practical management of animals is limited so that, at present, reliance on the minimum standards and recommendations for best practice outlined in codes of practice or welfare will continue to be necessary and worthwhile. Nevertheless, these concepts have value in providing a contextual theme that strongly focuses attention on the promotion of a lifelong QoL with an overall balance that is positive.

Dairy calves’ preference for rearing substrate

“…The scientific study of animal welfare is multi-disciplinary and includes fields such as ethology, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, immunology and nutrition. What constitutes animal welfare has been influenced by what society deems as acceptable and unacceptable ways of treating animals (Green & Mellor, 2011) and has led to vague and often contradictory views on how welfare can be assessed (Green & Mellor, 2011;. As a result, there is no universal view of what constitutes good animal welfare (Green & Mellor, 2011) and this lack of agreement has led to contrasting research methods and interpretations of results Rushen & de Passillé, 1992).…”

“…For example, those that are concerned with the biological functioning of the animal, those concerned with how the animal is feeling, such as 'affective state' and those that judge good welfare as allowing the animal to live a natural life (Fraser, 2003). These three views of animal welfare are closely related to the individual's world view and beliefs, and have contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of animal welfare (Fraser, 2003;Green & Mellor, 2011). The first view of biological functioning is held by people involved in animal production, such as veterinarians and farmers.…”

“…This view was developed in parallel with the other two views. Natural living comprises of the animal having the ability to express normal, natural behaviours and that the animal should be living away from the constraints of modern society Fraser, 2003;Green & Mellor, 2011;Rushen et al, 2008). The view of natural living is difficult to incorporate into animal welfare assessment as aspects of this view are prevented in modern production systems and may not be adequate in terms of its full welfare implications (Broom, 2011;Green & Mellor, 2011).…”

“…What constitutes animal welfare has been influenced by what society deems as acceptable and unacceptable ways of treating animals (Green & Mellor, 2011) and has led to vague and often contradictory views on how welfare can be assessed (Green & Mellor, 2011;. As a result, there is no universal view of what constitutes good animal welfare (Green & Mellor, 2011) and this lack of agreement has led to contrasting research methods and interpretations of results Rushen & de Passillé, 1992). Animal welfare can be characterised as state within an animal, therefore, the animal must be both sentient and conscious as welfare relates to the experienced sensations that may be negative, neutral or positive.…”

“…Natural living can highlight negative consequences within modern systems such as restrictive housing and has relevance when considered alongside biological function and affective state (Green & Mellor, 2011).…”