Search

Dog caregiver reporting on the spectrum of fearful-aggressive behaviours often describes 'unpredictable' or 'exaggerated' responses to a situation/animal/person. A possible explanation for these behavioural responses considers that the dog is reacting to triggered memories for which the dog has a negative association. For many dogs undergoing veterinary behavioural treatment or rehabilitation through a canine rescue organisation, the assessing clinician relies on "proxy" reporting of the history/background by a caregiver (dog owner, foster carer, or shelter personnel). Detailed information on the event or circumstances resulting in this negative association may be limited or absent altogether. Consideration of a trauma-informed care (TIC) approach, currently applied in a wide range of human psychology and social care fields, may be helpful in guiding the clinical approach taken. The literature relating to adverse early experience (AEE) and trauma-informed care (TIC) in puppies/dogs compared to children/adults was evaluated to identify common themes and conclusions identified across both species. In the absence of known/identifiable trauma, behavioural assessment and management should consider that a 'problem' dog may behave as it does, as the result of previous trauma. The dog can then be viewed through a lens of empathy and understanding, often lacking for dogs presenting with impulsive, reactive, or aggressive behaviours. Assessment must avoid re-traumatising the animal through exposure to triggering stimuli and, treatment options should include counselling of caregivers on the impact of adverse early experiences, consideration of the window of tolerance, and TIC behavioural modification techniques.

The use of formal canine quality of life (QOL) assessment tools in veterinary practice has been recommended. An online survey investigated awareness, use and barriers to use of these tools in the UK. An anonymous 24-question survey was advertised through veterinary groups and social media. Ninety veterinary surgeons and twenty veterinary nurses responded. Thirty-two respondents (29.1%) were aware of the existence of formal canine QOL assessment tools. Of the three tools listed, current use was less than four per cent. No statistically significant influence of respondent age, role (veterinary surgeon or nurse) or possession of additional qualifications was found on the awareness of QOL tools ( p > 0.05). Over half of respondents (55.5%) would 'certainly' or 'probably' be willing to use a QOL assessment tool. The main barrier to use was lack of time. Other barriers included a perceived resistance from owners. Although current use and awareness of canine QOL assessment tools in UK veterinary practice is low, veterinary professionals appear willing to use the tools within their daily practice. This discrepancy implies that QOL assessment tools are not well disseminated to veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice and that various barriers inhibit their use.

Few veterinary professionals use formal quality of life (QOL) assessment tools despite their recommendation from veterinary governing bodies to enable holistic welfare assessments and target welfare improvement strategies. Perceived barriers include resistance from owners, and this study aimed to elucidate understanding of dog owner engagement with conversations and tools relating to QOL. An online survey that investigated owner experience, comfort, and opinions about vet-client discussions on topics connected to canine health and well-being, including QOL, was completed by 410 owners. Almost all owners (95.8%) were reportedly comfortable discussing QOL, yet only 32% reported their vets had addressed it. A high proportion of owners (70.8%) expressed interest in assessment tools, but only 4.4% had experienced one, none of which were QOL tools per se. Semi-structured interviews of a sub-set of four owners provided a more in-depth examination of their experience of a health and well-being assessment tool. Thematic analysis generated three themes: 'Use of assessment tools supports client-vet relationship and empowers owners', 'Owners want to talk about holistic dog care', and 'Owner feelings on the wider application of assessment tools'. Overall, our findings suggest that owners want to broaden the veterinary consultation conversation to discuss QOL and are interested in using tools, and therefore veterinary perceptions of owner-related barriers to tool application appear unfounded. Indeed, tool uptake appears to improve the vet-client relationship and boost owner confidence.

On-farm welfare assessment tends to focus on minimising negative welfare, but providing positive welfare is important in order to give animals a good life. This study developed a positive welfare framework for dairy cows based on the existing scientific literature which has focused on developing positive welfare indicators, and trialled a participatory approach with farmers; refining the framework based on their recommendations, followed by a vet pilot phase on farm. The results revealed that farmers and scientists agree on what constitutes "a good life" for dairy cattle. Farmers value positive welfare because they value their cows' quality of life, and want to be proud of their work, improve their own wellbeing as well as receive business benefits. For each good life resource, the proportion of farmers going above and beyond legislation ranged from 27 to 84%. Furthermore, barriers to achieving positive welfare opportunities, including monetary and time costs, were not apparently insurmountable if implementation costs were remunerated (by the government). However, the intrinsic value in providing such opportunities also incentivises farmers. Overall, most farmers appeared to support positive welfare assessment, with the largest proportion (50%) supporting its use within existing farm assurance schemes, or to justify national and global marketing claims. Collaborating with farmers to co-create policy is crucial to showcase and quantify the UK's high welfare standards, and to maximise engagement, relevance and uptake of animal welfare policy, to ensure continuous improvement and leadership in the quality of lives for farm animals.

There is increasing recognition that farm animal welfare standards should ensure positive welfare, as well as prevent negative welfare. Resources that are valued by an animal and that provide opportunities to engage in motivated behaviours can elicit positive physical and emotional states and therefore positive welfare and a "good life" for farmed animals. Evaluation of resource provision is considered the best way of assessing positive welfare at present, in the absence of validated and practical animal-based measures. Previous research has outlined a framework of three tiers of increasingly positive welfare (Welfare +, Welfare ++, Welfare +++) containing resources that incrementally increase the opportunities for a good life over and above the requirements of UK law and code of practice. Based on this blueprint, "Good Life Frameworks" were developed for beef cattle, broiler chickens and pigs, containing resources that increase good life opportunities according to the scientific literature and expert consultation. We describe the initial development of these frameworks, including a piloting exercise with the UK farm assurance industry, to further refine the frameworks according to auditor and farmer feedback, and test the frameworks as a method of on-farm assessment and assurance of a "good life" for farm animals.

Background: During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many veterinary practices around the world have shifted to a low or no-contact consultation model to ensure the safety of their team members and clients, and comply with public health orders, while continuing to provide veterinary care., Methods: We performed reflexive thematic analysis on a subset of data collected using a mixed-methods survey of veterinary team members globally., Results: There were 540 valid responses available for analysis. Low and no-contact euthanasia we raised as a common and/or stressful ethical challenge for 22.8% of respondents. We identified five key themes: no-contact euthanasia as a unique ethical challenge; balancing veterinary team safety with the emotional needs of clients; low and no-contact protocols may cause or exacerbate fear, anxiety and distress in veterinary patients; physical distancing was more challenging during euthanasia consultations; and biosecurity measures complicated communication around euthanasia and end-of-life decision making., Recommendations: In light of concerns highlighted by respondents, we recommend the development of a toolkit of protocols that will assist veterinary team members in performing low-contact euthanasia in a range of circumstances, in alignment with their values and professional ethical codes. Professional bodies may be involved in developing, updating and disseminating this information, and ensuring a continuous supply chain of PPE.

Advanced veterinary care (AVC) of companion animals may yield improved clinical outcomes, improved animal welfare, improved satisfaction of veterinary clients, improved satisfaction of veterinary team members, and increased practice profitability. However, it also raises ethical challenges. Yet, what counts as AVC is difficult to pinpoint due to continuing advancements. We discuss some of the challenges in defining advanced veterinary care (AVC), particularly in relation to a standard of care (SOC). We then review key ethical challenges associated with AVC that have been identified in the veterinary ethics literature, including poor quality of life, dysthanasia and caregiver burden, financial cost and accessibility of veterinary care, conflicts of interest, and the absence of ethical review for some patients undergoing AVC. We suggest some strategies to address these concerns, including prospective ethical review utilising ethical frameworks and decision-making tools, the setting of humane end points, the role of regulatory bodies in limiting acceptable procedures, and the normalisation of quality-of-life scoring. We also suggest a role for retrospective ethical review in the form of ethics rounds and clinical auditing. Our discussion reenforces the need for a spectrum of veterinary care for companion animals.

In March 2020, the World Health Organisation called for countries to take urgent and aggressive action against a global pandemic caused by COVID-19. Restrictions were introduced in many countries to reduce transmission of COVID-19 and ultimately deaths. Such restrictions have been colloquially referred to as "lockdown". Anecdotal evidence of the beneficial practices that facilitated safe veterinary treatment and equine care had been reported together with an increase in the use of electronic communication and information technologies during the first "lockdown". Thus, the aim of this qualitative study was to capture any beneficial changes to racehorse veterinary care that were implemented during the first "lockdown" period in the UK that lasted from 23 March to 12 May 2020. Ten equine veterinary surgeons who primarily treat racehorses and 10 racehorse trainers were interviewed either by telephone or by videoconferencing. After using thematic analysis from a critical realist social constructionist perspective, four themes were identified. These were, firstly, according to our participants, the trainer-vet relationship is predicated upon a good working relationship, secondly, there had been little or no change in the vet-trainer relationship during the first "lockdown" period. Thirdly, when COVID-19 restrictions were in force, more remote consultations took place using images or videos as well as telephone consults, viewed favourably by both trainers and vets, and finally, intermittent connectivity and poor-quality images and videos limited their effectiveness. In order to fully benefit from the positive changes employed by some vets and trainers in their working relationships, we recommend that rural connectivity is prioritised.

Existing animal welfare standards for legislation and food certification programmes are primarily designed to avoid harms to the livestock, with minimal consideration given to their behavioural freedoms. Recent research has shown, however, that animal welfare should not only be evaluated by the absence of negative states but also by the presence of "good life" or positive experiences enjoyed by animals. The objective of the present study is to investigate the scientific validity and on-farm cost implications of utilising potential input-based measures of positive welfare as part of evaluation criteria for farm assurance schemes. Building upon the Farm Animal Welfare Council's concept of good life opportunities, an assessment was undertaken on 49 noncaged laying hen farms across the UK by measuring on-farm resources to facilitate positive experiences alongside commonly measured metrics for welfare outcomes. The financial cost of providing these resources on each enterprise was also estimated using a farm-scale costing tool. The results suggested that 63% of resource needs that facilitate the behaviour opportunities of laying hens are already being provided by these producers, far above legal and commercial requirements. This practice attracts no reward mechanism or direct financial benefit under the current market structure. Additional provision of opportunities was positively associated with behavioural outcomes, but only limited impact was observed on health and productivity measures. Economic modelling indicated that significant room exists to further improve welfare scores on these farms, on average by 97%, without incurring additional costs. Together we argue that these results can be seen as evidence of market failure since producers are providing positive welfare value to society that is not being currently recognised. It is therefore contended that measuring and rewarding the supply of good life opportunities could be a novel policy instrument to create an effective marketplace that appropriately recognises high welfare production.

India has the largest population of dairy cattle in the world at over 48 million animals, yet there has been little formal assessment of their welfare reported. Through observations of dairy cows on 38 farms in Kerala, India, we aimed to investigate the welfare of these animals and the practicality of animal-based assessments within common farming systems. Substantial welfare challenges were identified. All cows were close-tied (less than 1 m length) via a halter that pierced the nasal septum when housed, which was for the entire day (50% of farms) or part thereof. When outside access was available, it was also usually restricted by close-tying, longline tether, or hobbling. Ad libitum water was only available on 22% of farms and food access was also restricted (mean of 4.3 h/day). Future work should focus on encouraging dairy farmers in India to improve the welfare of their dairy cattle by: ceasing to tie and tether cattle (or at least providing tied and tethered cattle with exercise opportunities); providing unlimited access to drinking water and a readier supply of food (especially quality green forage/fodder); cleaning housing more frequently; providing strategies to prevent heat stress; breeding cattle suited to environmental conditions and with increased resistance to heat stress; and carrying out welfare assessments more regularly using a validated protocol and rectifying the causes of poor welfare. Such changes could substantially improve the welfare of tens of millions of cattle.

The number of broilers slaughtered globally is increasing. Ensuring acceptable welfare conditions for birds at the time of slaughter is paramount in meeting legislative and retailer specifications, and in producing high quality meat. There is knowledge that welfare training programs for members of the farming and red meat slaughter industry can improve animal welfare measures and product quality, however there is little evidence of the effects of welfare training in poultry processing plants. In our study, a comprehensive welfare training program was introduced to a Costa Rican and a British commercial broiler primary processing plant, both of which slaughter birds by way of neck cut post electrical water bath stunning. The effects of this program on some welfare and product quality measures were investigated, both immediately and six months post training. The welfare measures that showed significant improvements post training included; flapping at shackling, pre-stun shocks, stun parameters and effective neck cut. Product quality measures including broken wings and red pygostyles also improved, however the positive effect of training was not seen in all quality measures. Welfare training does have the potential to improve broiler welfare and product quality at slaughter, and these data could help the development and targeting of future welfare training courses and encourage the uptake of welfare training in the poultry slaughter industry.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the key challenges to racehorse welfare as perceived by racing industry stakeholders. The paper draws upon statements and transcripts from 10 focus group discussions with 42 participants who were taking part in a larger study investigating stakeholders' perceptions of racehorse welfare, which participants recognised as maintaining the physical and mental well-being of a performance animal. Analysis of the 68 statements participants identified as challenges produced nine themes. Among these, 26% (18 statements) of the challenges were health related, whilst 41% (28 statements) focused on the effect staff shortages were having on the racing industry. Staff shortages were perceived as affecting standards of racehorse care and the opportunity to develop a human-horse relationship. Poor employee relations due to a lack of recognition, communication and respect were perceived as having a detrimental effect on employee attitudes, behaviour and staff retention which, in turn, can have a sequential effect on the welfare and health of horses in training. Although the number of challenges produced is small (68), they emphasise the perceptions of stakeholders closely associated with the racing industry.

The purpose of the study was to explore the perceptions held by British racing industry stakeholders of factors influencing racehorse welfare. Ten focus groups were held across the UK with a total of 42 stakeholders from a range of roles within racehorse care including trainers, stable staff and veterinarians. Participants took part in three exercises. Firstly, to describe the scenarios of a 'best life' and the minimum welfare standards a horse in training could be living under. Secondly, to identify the main challenges for racehorse welfare and thirdly, to recall any innovative or uncommon practices to improve welfare they had witnessed. Using thematic analysis, eight themes emerged from the first exercise. Two strands, factors that contribute to maintaining health and the horse-human relationship ran through all eight themes. Across all themes horses living the 'best life' were perceived as being treated as individuals rather than being part of a 'one size fits all' life when kept under minimum welfare standards. Health was both perceived as the main challenge to welfare as well as one open to innovative practices such as improved veterinary treatments. Data obtained, informed by the knowledge and expertise of experienced stakeholders, combined with practical animal welfare science will be used to develop the first British racehorse welfare assessment protocol.

Ethically challenging situations are common in veterinary practice, and they may be a source of moral stress, which may in turn impact the welfare of veterinarians. Despite recognition of the importance of ethical reasoning, some veterinary students may struggle to apply theoretical ethical frameworks. Fraser developed a “practical” ethic consisting of four principles that can be applied to ethically challenging situations. We apply Fraser’s “practical” ethic to three cases that veterinarians may encounter: animal hoarding, animal neglect, and treatment of wildlife. We argue that Fraser’s “practical” ethic is consistent with a One Welfare framework, and may have increasing currency for veterinarians in the light of the World Animal Health Organisation’s Global Animal Welfare Strategy. Both Fraser’s “practical” ethic and a One Welfare framework require veterinarians to consider the impacts of animal ethics decisions on a broader scale than most other ethical frameworks have prepared them for. We discuss the strengths and limitations of Fraser’s “practical” ethic when applied in veterinary contexts and recommend additional support and training to enable veterinarians to effectively apply these frameworks in real-world settings.