1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The behavior and welfare of neglected species: some examples from fish and mammals

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Animal welfare is the state of an animal’s body and mind and the level to which its requirements are satisfied. Animal welfare is affected by human decisions and actions. Numerous decisions concerning animals are driven by human desires to enhance their own lives, and some of these decisions may be influenced by self-interest or a strong emphasis on economic factors. How to assess the welfare state of animals is a central issue in animal welfare science. Two critical questions can be used to address animal welfare: first, is the animal healthy, and second, does the animal have what it needs? Both of these questions can potentially be answered using the study of animal behavior. The development of behavioral methodologies is crucial for evaluating welfare in contexts where concern for animal welfare is often highest, such as on intensive modern farms and sites where working animals are used. Herein, we discuss animal welfare by focusing on some of its major concepts and explanations. Later, to illustrate key aspects of animal welfare, we chose to examine the information that is available for some ‘neglected’ livestock species, which are commercially important on a global basis and found in large numbers: buffaloes ( Bubalus bubalis), camels ( Camelus dromedarius), donkeys ( Equus asinus), mules ( Equus asinus × Equus caballus), and lumpfish ( Cyclopterus lumpus). We chose these species because there are major ongoing concerns about their welfare, and more research is required to help solve the various problems. Overall, there are strong imbalances in terms of the species that are usually studied in terms of animal welfare research, and we call for greater attention to those that have traditionally been neglected.

          Related collections

          Most cited references98

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

          Simple Summary This review outlines the latest in a succession of updates of the Five Domains Model, which, at each stage, incorporated contemporary verified scientific thinking of relevance to animal welfare assessment. The current update includes, within the structure of the Model, specific guidance on how to evaluate the negative and/or positive impacts of human behaviour on animal welfare. Persons whose actions may be evaluated include, but are not limited to, livestock handlers, owners of draught animals, veterinary care staff, pound/shelter staff, zoo-keepers, wildlife managers, hunters, researchers, companion animal owners, owners of sport/recreational animals, animal trainers and service animal handlers. Situations where human–animal interactions may have negative welfare impacts include: when animals have had little or no prior human contact, when human presence adds to already threatening circumstances, when human actions are directly unpleasant, threatening and/or noxious, when humans’ prior actions are remembered as being aversive or noxious and when the actions of bonded humans cause unintended harms. In contrast, situations where human–animal interactions may have positive welfare impacts include: when the companionable presence of humans provides company and feelings of safety, when humans provide preferred foods, tactile contacts and/or training reinforcements, when humans participate in enjoyable routine activities or in engaging variable activities, when the presence of familiar humans is calming in threatening circumstances and when humans act to end periods of deprivation, inhibition or harm. The explicit delineation within the Model of the potential impacts of human interactions on the welfare of animals enhances the Model’s utility. Additional updates in this latest version are also explained. Abstract 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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Extending the 'Five Domains' model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ Inc. (San Diego, USA )
                2167-8359
                28 March 2024
                2024
                : 12
                : e17149
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong , Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
                [2 ]Centre for Animal Health and Welfare, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong , Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
                [3 ]Large Animal Medicine and Surgery Department, School of Veterinary Medicine, St. George’s University , True Blue, St. George’s, Grenada, West Indies
                [4 ]Department of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg , Gothenburg, Sweden
                [5 ]Department of Infectious Diseases and Public Health, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong , Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2747-6319
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5465-8578
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5770-4568
                Article
                17149
                10.7717/peerj.17149
                10981888
                38560452
                75c37db4-be65-4df5-8a2f-0fad4f8c6b60
                © 2024 Bukhari et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.

                History
                : 9 August 2023
                : 1 March 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: City University of Hong Kong
                This project was funded by the City University of Hong Kong. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Animal Behavior
                Aquaculture, Fisheries and Fish Science
                Zoology

                animal welfare,animal behavior,buffalo welfare,camel welfare,climate change,donkey welfare,lumpfish welfare,mule welfare,neglected livestock

                Comments

                Comment on this article