From an animal's point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare

Dawkins, Marian Stamp

doi:10.1017/s0140525x00077104

Cited by 847 publications

(418 citation statements)

References 236 publications

(203 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

383

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The welfare of an animal is interpreted by humans Animal welfare should be assessed from the point of view of the animal (Dawkins, 1990). When a single aspect of welfare is considered, the animal's point of view may perhaps be obtained using measures of preferences (e.g.…”

Section: Specific Features Linked To the Concept Of Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints

Botreau

Bracke

Perny

et al. 2007

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The overall assessment of animal welfare is a multicriterion evaluation problem that needs a constructive strategy to compound information produced by many measures. The construction depends on specific features such as the concept of welfare, the measures used and the way data are collected. Welfare is multidimensional and one dimension probably cannot fully compensate for another one (e.g. good health cannot fully compensate for behavioural deprivation). Welfare measures may vary in precision, relevance and their relative contribution to an overall welfare assessment. The data collected are often expressed on ordinal scales, which limits the use of weighted sums to aggregate them. A sequential aggregation is proposed in the Welfare Quality R project, first from measures to welfare criteria (corresponding to dimensions with pre-set objectives) and then to an overall welfare assessment, using rules determined at each level depending on the nature and number of variables to be considered and the level of compensation to be permitted. Scientific evidence and expert opinion are used to refine the model, and stakeholders' approval of general principles is sought. This approach could potentially be extended to other problems in agriculture such as the overall assessment of the sustainability of production systems.

show abstract

Section: Specific Features Linked To the Concept Of Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints

Botreau

Bracke

Perny

et al. 2007

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The amount of work that animals are able and willing to do in order to obtain a reward depends on the trade-off between the incentive value of the reward and the amount of work needed to obtain it (Dawkins, 1990). In this study, we aimed for an equal level of feeding motivation in all sows.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of locomotion score on sows’ performances in a feed reward collection test

Bos

Nalon

Maes

et al. 2015

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sows housed in groups have to move through their pen to fulfil their behavioural and physiological needs such as feeding and resting. In addition to causing pain and discomfort, lameness may restrict the ability of sows to fulfil such needs. The aim of our study was to investigate the extent to which the mobility of sows is affected by different degrees of lameness. Mobility was measured as the sow's willingness or capability to cover distances. Feed-restricted hybrid sows with different gait scores were subjected to a feed reward collection test in which they had to walk distances to obtain subsequent rewards. In all, 29 grouphoused sows at similar gestation stage (day 96.6 ± 7 s.d.) were visually recorded for gait and classified as non-lame, mildly lame, moderately lame or severely lame. All sows received 2.6 kg of standard commercial gestation feed per day. The test arena consisted of two feeding locations separated from each other by a Y-shaped middle barrier. Feed rewards were presented at the two feeders in turn, using both light and sound cues to signal the availability of a new feed reward. Sows were individually trained during 5 non-consecutive days for 10 min/day with increasing barrier length (range: 0 to 3.5 m) each day. After training, sows were individually tested once per day on 3 non-consecutive days with the maximum barrier length such that they had to cover 9.3 m to walk from one feeder to the other. The outcome variable was the number of rewards collected in a 15-min time span. Non-lame and mildly lame sows obtained more rewards than moderately lame and severely lame sows ( P < 0.01). However, no significant difference was found between non-lame and mildly lame sows ( P = 0.69), nor between moderately lame and severely lame sows ( P = 1.00). This feed reward collection test indicates that both moderately lame and severely lame sows are limited in their combined ability and willingness to walk, but did not reveal an effect of mild lameness on mobility. These findings suggest that moderately and more severely lame sows, but not mildly lame sows, might suffer from reduced access to valuable resources in group housing systems.

show abstract

“…Brown et al, 2008], as we use these inter-changeably in this paper. Good welfare means experiencing positive emotional states, while poor welfare involves severe or prolonged suffering [e.g., Dawkins, 1990;Mason and Mendl, 1993;Brown et al, 2008]. Clarifying what welfare is not helps augment this definition.…”

Section: What Do We Mean By Welfare?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here, we summarize key welfare indices, especially those sensitive to psychological well-being (stress, frustration, and anxiety/fear), as detailed in many stress and welfare texts [e.g., Archer, 1979;Dawkins, 1980Dawkins, , 1990Mason and Mendl, 1993;Broom and Johnson, 1993;Toates, 1997;Clubb and Mason, 2002, p. 7;Brown et al, 2008; further references are given below where they refer to additional specifics]. We cover behavioral and psychological changes (A), then physiological changes (B), and, finally, the consequences of physiological changes for reproduction and health (C).…”

Section: How To Assess Elephant Welfare?mentioning

confidence: 99%

How should the psychological well‐being of zoo elephants be objectively investigated?

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal welfare (sometimes termed ''well-being'') is about feelings -states such as ''suffering'' or ''contentment'' that we can infer but cannot measure directly. Welfare indices have been developed from two main sources: studies of suffering humans, and of research animals deliberately subjected to challenges known to affect emotional state. We briefly review the resulting indices here, and discuss how well they are understood for elephants, since objective welfare assessment should play a central role in evidence-based elephant management. We cover behavioral and cognitive responses (approach/avoidance; intention, redirected and displacement activities; vigilance/startle; warning signals; cognitive biases, apathy and depression-like changes; stereotypic behavior); physiological responses (sympathetic responses; corticosteroid output -often assayed noninvasively via urine, feces or even hair; other aspects of HPA function, e.g. adrenal hypertrophy); and the potential negative effects of prolonged stress on reproduction (e.g. reduced gametogenesis; low libido; elevated still-birth rates; poor maternal care) and health (e.g. poor wound-healing; enhanced disease rates; shortened lifespans). The best validated, most used welfare indices for elephants are corticosteroid outputs and stereotypic behavior. Indices suggested as valid, partially validated, and/or validated but not yet applied within zoos include: measures of preference/avoidance; displacement movements; vocal/postural signals of affective (emotional) state; startle/vigilance; apathy; salivary and urinary epinephrine; female acyclity; infant mortality rates; skin/foot infections; cardio-vascular disease; and premature adult death. Potentially useful indices that have not yet attracted any validation work in elephants include: operant responding and place preference tests; intention and vacuum movements; fear/ stress pheromone release; cognitive biases; heart rate, pupil dilation and blood pressure; corticosteroid assay from hair, especially tail-hairs (to access endocrine events up to a year ago); adrenal hypertrophy; male infertility; prolactinemia; and immunological changes. Zoo Biol 29:237-255,

show abstract

From an animal's point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare

Cited by 847 publications

References 236 publications

Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints

Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints

Effect of locomotion score on sows’ performances in a feed reward collection test

How should the psychological well‐being of zoo elephants be objectively investigated?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About