Considering animals’ feelings: Précis of \u3cem\u3eSentience and animal welfare\u3c/em\u3e (Broom 2014)

The concept of sentience concerns the capacity to have feelings. There is evidence for sophisticated cognitive concepts and for both positive and negative feelings in a wide range of nonhuman animals. All vertebrates, including fish, as well as some molluscs and decapod crustaceans have pain systems. Most people today consider that their moral obligations extend to many animal species. Moral decisions about abortion, euthanasia, and the various ways we protect animals should take into account the research findings about sentience. In addition, all animal life should be respected and studies of the welfare of even the simplest invertebrate animals should be taken into consideration when we interact with these animals

Brain complexity, sentience and welfare

Neither sentience nor moral standing is confined to animals with large or human-like brains. Invertebrates deserve moral consideration. Definition of terms clarifies the relationship between sentience and welfare. All animals have welfare but humans give more protection to sentient animals. Humans should be less human-centred

The necessity of human attitude change and methods of avoiding pandemics

Humans share their biology with other animals and in each of their actions should consider the consequences for all life. A series of measures can be taken by governments and individuals that would minimise inter-specific transfer of pathogens from wildlife and reduce the development of antimicrobial resistance

Dobrobit životinja u odnosu na dobrobit ljudi i održivost - pregledni rad

What should we change in the future? As a consequence of the one health, one welfare and one biology concepts, for most of our decisions we should be less human-centred if we want our species and other species to survive. Humans are less special than many people think. People consider that we have moral obligations to the animals that we use and to the sustainability of systems. A system or procedure is sustainable if it is acceptable now and if its expected future effects are acceptable, in particular in relation to resource availability, the consequences of functioning and morality of action. Consumers may refuse to buy unacceptable products and pressurise retail companies and governments to ensure that they are not sold. Poor welfare of people, poor welfare of other animals, genetic modification, or harmfulenvironmental effects may make systems unsustainable. Most of the public now think of farm and companion animals as sentient beings and have concerns about their welfare. There are many components of sustainability and all should be evaluated and scored. Examples of attempts to do this are life cycle analysis and evaluation of externalities for agricultural or other products. Some topics considered include: straw use; which animals to keep as pets; stray dogs; free-roaming cats; feedlots; silvopastoral systems; free-range cattle; preserving land for hunting; land-sparing or landsharing;zoos and conservation; and cell-culture of meat.Što bismo trebali promijeniti u budućnosti? S obzirom na jedno zdravlje, jednu dobrobit i jedan biološki koncept, u većini naših odluka trebali bismo biti manje orijentirani na ljude želimo li da i naša vrsta i druge vrste opstanu. Ljudi su manje posebni nego što to mnogi misle. Smatra se da imamo moralne obveze prema životinjama koje nam koriste i u održivosti sustava. Sustav i postupci održivi su ako su prihvatljivi u ovom trenutku i ako se očekuje da će njihovi rezultati biti prihvatljivi, posebno u pogledu raspoloživosti resursa, posljedica sadašnjeg funkcioniranja i moralnosti postupanja. Potrošači mogu odbiti kupnju neprihvatljivih proizvoda i činiti pritisak na maloprodajne tvrtke i vladu da osiguraju da se oni ne prodaju. Nedostatna dobrobit ljudi i životinja, genetička modifikacija i štetni učinci za okoliš, sustave mogu učiniti neodrživim. Javnost danas farmske životinje i kućne ljubimce većinom smatra svjesnim bićima i brine o njihovoj dobrobiti. Mnogo je komponenti održivosti i sve ih treba procijeniti i vrednovati. Primjeri takvih pokušaja jesu analiza životnih ciklusa i procjena vanjskih učinaka na poljoprivredne i druge proizvode. Neke od tema koje se razmatraju jesu upotreba slame, koje životinje držati kao kućne ljubimce, psi lutalice, slobodnoživuće mačke, tovilišta, silvopastoralni sustavi, slobodni uzgoj goveda, očuvanje lovnog zemljišta, pošteda zemljišta ili njegovo dijeljenje, zoološki vrtovi i očuvanje te stanične kulture mesa

Fish brains and behaviour indicate capacity for feeling pain

Abstract: Studies of behaviour are of major importance in understanding human pain and pain in other animals such as fish. Almost all of the characteristics of the mammalian pain system are also described for fish. Emotions, feelings and learning from these are controlled in the fish brain in areas anatomically different but functionally very similar to those in mammals. The evidence of pain and fear system function in fish is so similar to that in humans and other mammals that it is logical to conclude that fish feel fear and pain. Fish are sentient beings

Sentience and animal welfare: New thoughts and controversies

Sentience involves having some degree of awareness but awareness of self is not as complex as some people believe. Fully functioning vertebrate animals, and some invertebrates, are sentient but neither humans nor non-humans are sentient early in development or if brain-damaged. Feelings are valuable adaptive mechanisms and an important part of welfare but are not all of welfare so the term welfare refers to all animals, not just to sentient animals. We have much to learn about what non-human animals want from us, the functioning of the more complex aspects of their brains and of our brains and how we should treat animals of each species. Animal welfare science will continue to play a major part in determining how we fulfill our obligations to the animals with which we interact

A method for assessing sustainability, with beef production as an example.

A comprehensive approach to decisions about the use of land and other world resources, taking full account of biological and other scientific information, is crucial for good decisions to be made now and in future. The sustainability of systems for producing food and other products is sometimes assessed using too narrow a range of component factors. A production system might be unsustainable because of adverse effects on a wide range of aspects of human welfare, animal welfare, or the environment. All factors should be included in sustainability evaluation, otherwise products or actions might be avoided without adequate consideration of key factors or of the diversity of production systems. A scoring method that is based on scientific information and potentially of general relevance is presented here, using beef production as a example with a review of each of its sustainability components. This includes an overall combined score and specific factors that make the system unacceptable for some consumers. The results show that, in this example, the sustainability of the best systems is very much better than that of the worst systems. By taking account of scores for a wide range of components of sustainability in comparing beef-production systems, better quality policies about beef use can be formulated than when statements referring only to one system are considered. The least sustainable beef-production systems are extensive grazing that causes land degradation and the use of feedlots or indoor housing with grain feeding. Semi-intensive silvopastoral systems are the most sustainable beef-production systems, and well-managed pasture-fed beef from areas where crop production is uneconomic is also sustainable. This simple, scientifically based scoring system could be modified to use positive as well as negative scores and is of value for policy makers, researchers, producers, organisations aiming to improve sustainability, and the general public

Human Relationships with Domestic and Other Animals: One Health, One Welfare, One Biology

Excessive human population growth, uncontrolled use of natural resources, including deforestation, mining, wasteful systems, biodiversity reduction by agriculture, and damaging climate change affect the existence of all animals, including humans. This discussion is now urgent and people are rethinking their links with the animals we use for clothing, food, work, companionship, entertainment, and research. The concepts of one health, one welfare, and one biology are discussed as a background to driving global change. Nothing should be exploited without considering the ethics of the action and the consequences. This review concerns domesticated animals, including those used for human consumption of meat, eggs, and milk; horses kept for work; and dogs kept for company. Animal welfare includes health, emotional state, and comfort while moving and resting, and is affected by possibilities to show behavior and relationships with others of the same species or with humans. We show some examples of the relations between humans and domesticated animals in the environmental context, including zoonotic diseases, and consider the consequences and the new paradigms resulting from current awareness

The Sustainability of Keeping Birds as Pets: Should Any Be Kept?

We describe a wide range of unethical and unsustainable practices inherent to the trading and keeping of pet birds. At present, biodiversity and wild bird populations are being greatly harmed and many individual birds have poor welfare. Wild-caught birds should not be sold to the public as pets, or to breeding establishments for several reasons, including because 75-90% of wild-caught birds die before the point of sale and taking birds from the wild has negative effects on biodiversity. The housing provided for pet birds should meet the needs of birds of that species and allow good welfare, for example there should be no small cages but aviaries with space for each bird to exercise adequately, and social birds should be kept in social groups. At present, inadequate housing of many pet birds results in stereotypies and other indicators of poor welfare in birds. Owners should have knowledge of how to provide good nutrition and minimize the risk of disease. Unless these changes are made, keeping birds as pets should not be permitted. New laws are needed to prohibit taking birds from the wild and ensure captive pet birds in conditions that do meet their needs

Human Relationships with Domestic and Other Animals: One Health, One Welfare, One Biology.

Excessive human population growth, uncontrolled use of natural resources, including deforestation, mining, wasteful systems, biodiversity reduction by agriculture, and damaging climate change affect the existence of all animals, including humans. This discussion is now urgent and people are rethinking their links with the animals we use for clothing, food, work, companionship, entertainment, and research. The concepts of one health, one welfare, and one biology are discussed as a background to driving global change. Nothing should be exploited without considering the ethics of the action and the consequences. This review concerns domesticated animals, including those used for human consumption of meat, eggs, and milk; horses kept for work; and dogs kept for company. Animal welfare includes health, emotional state, and comfort while moving and resting, and is affected by possibilities to show behavior and relationships with others of the same species or with humans. We show some examples of the relations between humans and domesticated animals in the environmental context, including zoonotic diseases, and consider the consequences and the new paradigms resulting from current awareness