1999 RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar
Scientific evidence and
improvements in animal welfare: are we ignoring the obvious?
|
Tuesday
23 February 1999
National Convention Centre, Canberra
Summaries of talks
Scientific
evidence and improvements in animal welfare: RSPCA
perspective and overview
Dr
Bidda Jones
RSPCA Australia, PO Box E369, Kingston, ACT 2604,
Australia
The
purpose of this paper is to examine the role of scientific
evidence in advancing, or holding back, improvements in
animal welfare.
From
the RSPCA’s perspective, while scientific evidence is of
great importance in influencing animal welfare, it must be
considered alongside other factors which include cultural,
traditional, legal, economic, political, practical,
ethical and moral influences. These factors can have a
direct influence on animal welfare or act indirectly, by
affecting other factors, such as economic influences
affecting political decisions or the direction of
scientific research. Examples of the influence on animal
welfare of each of these factors are discussed.
The
animal welfare policies of the RSPCA are influenced by
many of these same factors. All RSPCA policies have an
underlying ethical stance that we should prevent cruelty
and promote kindness to animals. This view is motivated by
sympathy and compassion for animals and emphasises humane
treatment and prevention of animal suffering, and is
summed up in the RSPCA Australia Animals’ Charter which
begins with the words: "RSPCA Australia believes
that Man must treat animals humanely".
The
RSPCA sees the major role of scientific evidence in
advancing animal welfare as a tool to help us define how
we can "treat animals humanely": a tool
which helps us to determine whether a change in the way we
treat animals increases or decreases their wellbeing; a
tool that can be used to persuade others that change is
necessary.
The
use of scientific evidence in progressing improvements in
animal welfare is discussed using three practical examples
relating to current issues. The first example describes a
situation where an advance in animal welfare through the
use of scientific evidence is frustrated by political
opposition producing counter evidence. The second example
describes a situation where calls for further research are
used as a means of frustrating progress. The final example
illustrates a situation where science has taken many years
to quantify an animal welfare problem that seems obvious
in common sense terms.
These
examples illustrate the different ways in which science
can both positively and negatively influence animal
welfare. The question remains, how can we make science a
more useful tool in progressing the welfare of animals?
How
do you measure animal welfare?
Professor
Paul Hemsworth
Animal Welfare Centre, University of Melbourne and
Agriculture Victoria, Victorian Institute of Animal
Science, Werribee, Victoria, 3030, Australia
The
welfare of farm, companion and laboratory animals
generates considerable national and intense international
interest. General public perceptions, particularly
misconceptions, of animal welfare issues have the
potential to markedly affect society’s access to and use
of these animals. Because both moral views and biological
facts influence an individual’s opinion of an animal
welfare issue, it is important that the general public,
interest groups and politicians are provided with factual
information on these welfare issues. Therefore, scientific
evidence on how animals respond to a particular housing or
husbandry practice can provide part of the answer as to
whether society should sanction a particular activity. For
many of these housing and husbandry practices, there is
currently little definitive data on their welfare
implications and thus considerable debate surrounds the
welfare consequences of many of these housing and
husbandry practices.
While
definitions of welfare vary, a common definition of
welfare within scientific circles is:
"The
welfare of an individual is its state as regards its
attempts to cope with its environment" (Broom
1986).
In
this definition, the "state as regards attempts to
cope" refers to both how much has to be done by the
animal in order to cope with the environment and the
extent to which the animal’s coping attempts are
succeeding. Attempts to cope include the functioning of
body repair systems, immunological defences, physiological
stress response and a variety of behavioural responses.
Therefore,
using such a definition, many scientists have studies
risks to animal welfare at the two biological levels:
-
firstly,
by measuring the behavioural and physiological stress
responses of the animal to the environment, and
-
secondly,
measuring the consequent biological cost to, or
reduces biological fitness for, the animal.
Such
an approach in measuring risks to welfare involves both an
assessment in terms of the magnitude of these biological
(behavioural and physiological) responses and also the
consequences of these responses on the animal’s ability
to grow, reproduce and remain healthy. Thus this approach
utilises well-accepted biological concept of stress,
adaptation and biological fitness.
This
preferred approach to welfare assessment and its strengths
and weaknesses will be discussed in this presentation.
Furthermore, other approaches, such as preference and
motivational testing, will also be considered.
Research
animals: do small changes benefit the animals?
Dr
Alana Mitchell
Animal Welfare Liaison Officer, NHMRC, PO Box 46,
Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
Background
reading today's talk has revealed that the published
accounts of the benefits to research animals of various
changes in their captive environment actually raise more
questions than they provide answers.
However,
the question "Do small changes benefit the
animals?" is a good point at which to focus thoughts
on the matter.
Aspiring
to render the environment of a caged animal as
comfortable, interesting, natural and secure as possible
is a noble pursuit, in keeping with community values and
awareness of animal welfare. The trouble is, no widely
accepted definition of "environmental
enrichment" exists, let alone a consensus about how
to gauge the inherent well-being of a research animal and
how it is influenced by environmental change.
Improvement
for the animal could relate to biological measures, such
as increased reproductive success, or to behavioural
indicators, like the time spent on apparently diverting
activities. Some hold that any attempt at environmental
enrichment should seek to encourage natural behaviours,
while others may find that toys can make the animals in
their care happy.
One
study on the welfare of caged mice attempted to establish
what resources were important to the mice themselves, by
placing traverses of shallow water as "tolls"
between the test situation and the mice. It seems
reasonable to assume that if mice will subject themselves
repeatedly to the water hazard, then they must deem the
offering on the other side to be important. Is it possible
that mice come to enjoy paddling through shallow water?
Anecdotally,
it seems that small changes can and do improve the lot of
research animals. Many observant animal technicians know
the benefits of placing cardboard tubes as bolt holes or
shredded paper as nesting material in rodent cages. Would
anybody doubt the benefits of exercise yards for dogs or
access to outside enclosures for non-human primates?
But
where is the hard scientific data to pinpoint the mean and
standard error of such benefits. Until a system is devised
which allows aspects of health and welfare to be
quantified for caged animals, it is important to rely on
our own instincts and observations and not be stifled by
the complexity of the problem, nor the lack of statistical
proof of an outcome.
Livestock
transport: should codes of practice be based on scientific
evidence?
Amanda
Paul
Animal Welfare Unit, NSW Agriculture, Locked Bag 21,
Orange, NSW 2800, Australia
The
use of scientific evidence in formulating Codes of
Practice would ensure that the Codes are based on sound
principles and would provide a basis for resolution of
disputes regarding clauses in the Codes.
However,
the use of scientific evidence is limited by a number of
factors, including:
-
the extensive consultation and necessity for compromise
inherent in the writing process;
- the need to take account of public perceptions;
- the degree to which animal welfare may be compromised
before scientifically measurable changes occur;
- the availability of scientific data relevant to the
species and type of animal, as well as the enterprise in
question;
- the applicability of the data to real-life conditions.
Nevertheless,
after taking the above factors into account, scientific
evidence should be incorporated into codes wherever
possible.
Animal
welfare and the livestock export trade
Tony
Brightling
PO Box 116, Parkville, Victoria. 3052, Australia
The
livestock export trade is dominated by a small number of
companies that have millions of dollars invested in the
industry - in ships, feedlots, feedmills etc., in
Australia and overseas. The exporters are acutely
conscious of on-going animal welfare criticism and the
threat it poses to their industry, and are very keen to
move from defensive ‘backs-to-the-wall’ justification
of the live exports to a more positive relationship with
Government and the community. As a result a cultural
change is occurring, with the leading exporters genuinely
committed to improving animal welfare standards and
implementing best practice management.
A
quality assurance program that is auditable, transparent
and has broad community support is seen as the way
forward. This is a big ask given adverse publicity about
the trade in recent years, but progress is being made. A
Livestock Export Accreditation Program (LEAP) is being
developed by LiveCorp in conjunction with AQIS and a range
of primary industry and community stakeholders.
LEAP
accreditation is based around compliance with the
Australian Livestock Export Standards. The Standards
describe minimum management requirements, based on
practical stock husbandry and scientific research. The
Standards can and are being changed to incorporate new
research findings as they come to hand.
The
hands-on stock work in the industry is done by a group of
stock buyers, feedlot and assembly depot managers, stock
persons, ship’s officers and veterinarians with a wealth
of experience handling large numbers of stock. With few
exceptions they have a strong sense of professionalism and
real commitment to the animals in their care. Best
practice stock handling is the norm.
The
technology gap of greatest concern is vessel design. Live
export research to date has focused on animal husbandry -
causes of death, mortality risk factors, nutritional
requirements etc. By contrast, there has been almost no
work on heat and moisture exchange in the animal house on
livestock vessels.
Once
constructed, it is very difficult and enormously expensive
to make major design changes to the environmental control
systems on a livestock vessel. The costs involved are a
barrier to acknowledging the need for change, let alone
investigating and implementing improvements. Livestock
vessel designs have altered dramatically over the years,
from animal houses above deck on converted oil tankers in
the 1970s and 80s to fully enclosed custom built vessels
and converted car carriers in the 1990s. Environmental
control systems on these vessels have not always kept
pace.
Animal
welfare at sea is very dependent on environmental
conditions in the animal house. If we have ignored the
obvious, it is the need for a better fundamental
understanding of ventilation and heat and moisture
exchange technology on livestock vessels.
Living
with wildlife - a management challenge for the new
millenium
Peter
R. Brown
School of Ecology & Environment, Deakin University,
Rusden Campus, Clayton, Victoria,. 3168, Australia
Historically
little or no attention has been paid to the management of
urban wildlife in Australia. This is somewhat surprising
given that the vast majority of Australians live in major
urban centres, with more than 85% of the population living
in our capital cities and major regional centres. Eighty
seven percent of the population of Victoria live in urban
centres, with over 71% of the total population living in
Greater Melbourne. These high levels of urbanisation are
predicted to continue into the 21st Century.
Interactions
between people and wildlife in urban environments continue
to increase as human populations grow and expand into
natural bushland on the urban fringe, and as wildlife
begin to exploit new habitats provided by urbanisation.
Many of these interactions are positive and are welcomed
by people, and may provide an important base for support
of wildlife conservation activities in general. Activities
such as planting trees to attract butterflies and birds,
the erection of nest boxes for birds and possums, the
provision of food for wildlife, and the rescue and
rehabilitation of sick, injured or orphaned wildlife are
typical of the activities of people who actively encourage
positive wildlife interactions.
Unfortunately,
not all people and wildlife interactions result in
positive outcomes. Some result in conflict between humans
and wildlife, others result in conflict between groups of
people with differing expectations of their interactions
with wildlife. A real dilemma facing urban wildlife
managers is how to manage inappropriate responses (both
positive and negative) by people to wildlife. Two
potentially inappropriate responses which may result in
serious animal welfare problems, release of rehabilitated
wildlife and inappropriate feeding of wildlife, will be
discussed in the light of recent research results.
Educating
veterinarians: recent changes in teaching animal welfare
in veterinary schools
Professor
Ivan W Caple
University of Melbourne, Faculty of Veterinary Science,
Werribee, Victoria 3030, Australia
The
veterinary science course requires at least five years of
tertiary study, and a lifetime of learning. In February
1999, the Australian and New Zealand Veterinary Council (ANZVC),
a forum that includes all veterinary organisations
re-affirmed that: "The mission of the veterinary
profession is to enhance the welfare of all animals by the
provision of high quality veterinary services". This
mission statement would suggest that the approach to
teaching in the Veterinary Schools should be centred on
the welfare of animals, no matter what they are used for
in the community. There are approximately 8,500 registered
veterinarians in Australia and New Zealand, and about 1650
students enrolled at five Veterinary Schools. Seventy
percent of the students enrolled are women, and from 10 to
20% of all students indicate that they are vegetarians.
The students selected represent about one in ten
applicants, and they come from a wide variety of
backgrounds and experience with animals.
In
most veterinary courses animal welfare teaching commences
in first year with subjects including the study of animal
behaviour, and practical animal handling, restraint and
management. There is discussion and debate on the
community expectations of veterinarians, and the roles of
Laws, Ethics and Morals in managing an orderly society
including animals. The roles and expectations of
veterinarians in administering legislation, codes,
assisting industry self-regulation, quality assurance
programs and achieving best practice outcomes, are also
addressed. During term, students spend over 50% of their
time in practical classes. During vacations they are
required to work in animal shelters, on farms and in other
animal production enterprises, and with veterinarians.
Veterinary
teaching involves the use of live animals for learning
handling and restraint, clinical examination and surgery,
and cadavers and abattoir specimens for dissection and
autopsy. All procedures on animals used in teaching have
to be approved by an institutional Animal Experimentation
and Ethics Review Committee, with recording and reporting
of animal usage according to State Legislation. In the
early years of the course, the use of computer-simulated
models and interactive multimedia have progressively
replaced some animals in teaching anatomy, physiology,
pharmacology, microbiology and biochemistry. This change
has been fostered by developments in digital technology,
as well as the requirement for implementation of the three
R’s - reduction, refinement, and replacement - of
animals in teaching and research. Most veterinary schools
operate hospitals, emergency centres and ambulatory
clinics where students in the final years work with
registered veterinarians.
The
RSPCA has been involved in educating veterinarians for a
very long time. Many students have worked as volunteers in
animal shelters before entering the course, and as animal
rescue ambulance drivers at weekends and nights while at
University. In 1998, first year veterinary students at
Melbourne undertook formal practical classes at the RSPCA
Centre at Burwood where they were instructed in the
practical procedures for managing unwanted animals in the
community - including euthanasia, rehabilitation, and
selection of suitable animals for adoption. During
compulsory vacation work students also gain an
understanding of the work of the RSPCA Inspectors, and
obtain an appreciation of the complexity of the issues
involved in managing unwanted domestic animals and injured
wildlife in society.
Learning
the skills to deal with conflict and differing opinions
takes time and practice. Veterinary teaching is changing
so students can confront some of the ethical and
scientific issues involving the use of animals in society.
Veterinarians occasionally must act as "police"
on behalf of pet animals, laboratory animals, farm
animals, animals held by welfare societies, shelters,
zoos, and circuses, and animals kept in the wild. Students
are exposed to community attitudes regarding the usage of
animals through discussion and debate following
presentations from organisations including the National
Farmers Federation, the Australian Professional Rodeo
Association, Animals Australia, and the RSPCA. This helps
them develop an informed and balanced approach when
putting the welfare of animals above all else.
This project is supported by the Commonwealth
Government through a grant-in-aid administered by the
Department of Finance and Administration |
