Identification of indicators of cattle and sheep welfare in abattoirs

Abstract

are astonishing. No mention, for example, of two of the key protagonists, Calvin Schwabe, in the USA, and Lord Soulsby, in the UK, not least as chairman of the House of Lords report on antimicrobial resistance and as president of the Royal Society of Medicine in 1998-2000. Schwabe, in a symposium at the Royal Society of Arts in 1991, addressed interactions between human and animal medicine past, present and future (Michell 1993). He emphasised the episodic character of medical-veterinary collaboration, with peaks and troughs, rather than steady progress. Historically, what began as one medicine subsequently polarised into human and veterinary research. He also emphasised that, in the 20th century, comparative medicine became diverted excessively towards creating laboratory animal models, rather than studying spontaneous occurring diseases. Gibbs asserts that One Health was born of fear in 2004. Yet, in 2000, the Medical Research Council (MRC), according to its then chairman Sir George Radda, 'warmly endorsed the proposal for a Comparative Clinical Sciences Panel' to foster collaborative study of diseases shared by humans and animals, infectious or not, in order to learn from the similarities and differences. To protect the MRC against accusations of spending 'human' research funds on animal diseases, the proposal included a trial period during which the MRC would award the grants using funds raised from veterinary industries. Tragically, those industries failed to grasp the opportunity to justify a permanent panel. All progress in comparative medicine towards fulfilling the promise widely acknowledged in the 19th century is welcome. The danger is that, in the 21st century, it may be hijacked by zoonoses as it was by rodent models in the 20th. Of course zoonoses are important, not least antimicrobial resistance, but they are part of comparative medicine, not the entirety; comparative genetics, for example, or comparative oncology (as recognised by National Institutes of Health) are at least as important. The paramount value of comparative medicine, call it what you will, derives not from the infections that may come from animals but the insights into mechanisms, prevention and treatment of disease, both human and veterinary.

Using Longitudinal Assessment on Extensively Managed Ewes to Quantify Welfare Compromise and Risks

“…Ewes are vital to farm productivity, and maintaining ewes in good welfare has a significant impact on farm health and profitability. To date, most of the studies investigating sheep welfare have been conducted on lambs at transport [ 15 , 16 ], abattoirs [ 17 , 18 ], or in more intensive sheep farming conditions [ 1 , 6 , 19 , 20 ] and less attention has been given to the on-farm welfare of extensively managed ewes. This could be attributed to the general perception of positive welfare under extensive conditions but also to the complexity of assessing welfare in extensive systems, where time and labour limitations make it difficult to observe ewes in an undisturbed state, particularly in larger flocks and/or paddocks [ 7 ].…”