Recognising & assessing positive welfare: developing positive indicators for use in welfare assessment

The use of positive welfare indicators: a proactive approach. Welfare assessment methods have developed greatly over recent decades with regards to both behavioural and physiological indicators. However, whether welfare is being assessed on the basis of biological function, affective state or ‘naturalness’, the emphases have remained heavily on identifying those key indicators of poor welfare or welfare concerns that require more immediate action, often via legislative change. The reactive approach in identifying welfare concerns has been the underpinning force behind legislative changes to mould animal management systems into more acceptable arrangements but as consumer interest in food sourcing grows, it is becoming increasingly apparent that acceptable is no longer enough and positive welfare indicators offer a future avenue for developing improved, ‘higher welfare’ systems in a more proactive manner [1]. The benefits of employing positive welfare indicators as assessment tools offer potential avenues of development for all animal sectors, not just within agriculture. Positive welfare indicators can fall into 3 categories: indications of contentment / pleasure, luxury behaviours, and behaviours that support ability to cope with challenge. Indications of contentment / pleasure. Good welfare is not just an absence of negative experiences but also an ability to experience positive affective states. The ability of non-human animals to experience emotions in the same manner as humans remains a controversial topic, however, recent advances in neuroscience have been used to evidence the existence of positive affective states in animals with regards to behaviours such as positive anticipation [2]. Luxury behaviours. Luxury behaviours are often deemed to be key positive welfare indicators due to them being the first behaviours to be lost during challenging situations. As such, any occurrences have been assigned the ‘good welfare’ indicator label – if the animal is performing these behaviours then the situation must be of a sufficient welfare level to enable them to. These luxury behaviours have often been considered separate from those ‘fundamental’ behavioural needs [3] so commonly used to determine minimum requirements in welfare legislation. There is, however, a risk that by focusing on the more urgent ‘demand’ behaviours, a situation may never be achieved that is high enough for the luxury behaviours to occur. As the luxury behaviours may be indicative of less transparent long-term rewards, their absence could still result in negative or less favourable consequences for the animal involved. The identification of key luxury behaviours for different species could therefore become essential tools in the assessment of good rather than acceptable welfare, and behaviours such as play, allogrooming and certain vocalisations could become increasingly important [4-7]. In the absence of clear indicator luxury behaviours, it may be enough to assess behavioural diversity as a measure of welfare (e.g. using the Shannon-Weaver diversity index) by identifying those systems where a greater spread across the behavioural repertoire is encouraged, a method increasingly employed in zoo collections (McCormick & Melfi, unpublished) [8]. The use of behavioural diversity as an assessment tool can also help to eliminate the risk of over-recording luxury behaviours that are acting as self-rewarding mechanisms in stressful situations. Behaviours that support the ability to cope with challenge. It may not be enough to simply identify the presence of behaviours indicative of positive emotions, but focus may also be required on identifying the existence of systems that allow animals to cope. Management systems do not need to be absent of any potential stressors – in fact this could be argued to result in a lack of stimulation – but should enable animals to cope with these acute events in a way that prevents a chronic stress situation from occurring. As such, the study and assessment of positive indicators of welfare should also include those behaviours / situations that allow coping. Studies in rats have identified that negative affective states are associated with faster startle responses and reduced anticipatory behaviours [1, 9] but investigations into the situations that link positive affective states to coping are limited. Previous social studies in domestic cattle have focused on the negative perspectives, i.e. dominance and aggression, but no work had been conducted on the potential positive benefits of social bonding. A large, dynamically managed, dairy cattle herd was studied to establish the existence of preferred partners according to proximity scorings. During these initial stages, it was established that heifers (52%, n=34) were significantly more likely to have one or more preferred partners compared to cows (32%, n=12) (X2 = 8.210, df=1, p=0.004) with relation to the probability of being associated with a particular individual – although it was suggested that this could have indicated that experience of repeated regroupings in cows had caused a dissolution of previously formed bonds. Following stage 1, commercial regrouping practices continued to affect the possible existence of preferred partnerships. During stage 2, six focal animals, previously identified as having a preferred partners (PP) that they were still housed alongside were separated off from the rest of the group for 30 minutes in a holding pen, either with their preferred partner or with a random individual from within the group. Three separation conditions were studied: 1. Focal animal (A) separated with their PP (B); 2. Focal animal (A) separated with a random individual (C) whilst B is released back to the home group; 3. Animal B separated with a random individual C whilst focal animal A is released back into the group. The heart rates of focal animal A during stage 1 and stage 2, and animal B during stage 3, were monitored using a Polar (Protrainer 5 Equine RS800) heart rate monitor, adapted for use in cattle, at 15 sec intervals. All protocols were approved by a Moulton College ethical committee. Heart rates differed significantly between stages (P=0.001) with focal animals (A) having lower heart rates when separated with their preferred partner (80.2 BPM) compared to being separated with a random individual (82.6 BPM). Interestingly, the partners’ heart rates when with a random individual (79.9 BPM) were lower than the focals’ in either situation. Although the actual difference in heart rates was small, the distinction was clear and this opens up further areas requiring research with regards to threshold levels beyond which chronic stress becomes physiologically damaging. There is also potential that the presence of any familiar cow could provide some degree of support but that the distinction lay within the level of familiarity. From these results it can be suggested that some individuals seem to benefit from having their preferred partner present during a potentially stressful situation. It could also be suggested that some individuals are more sensitive to stressful situations compared to others. When developing / assessing dairy management systems, those that support the formation of social bonding and subsequently manage animals in a way that these bonds can be maintained may in turn provide a higher welfare system by improving the coping ability of individuals. Conclusions Much emphasis has been placed on identifying indicators of poor welfare but the effective assessment of good welfare is an area gaining momentum both within academia and industry [10]. A wide range of behavioural methods exist that can be utilised as good welfare indicators in all animal management systems but the subtle nature of these indicators requires rigorous validation and development to create systems that can easily be employed by users on site. References 1. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Oppermann Moe R, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, Winckler C, Forkman B, Dimitrov I, Langbein J, Bakken M, Veissier I, Aubert A. (2007) Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & Behaviour 92: 375–397 2. Spruijt BM, van den Bos R, Pijlman FT. (2001) A concept of welfare based on reward evaluating mechanisms in the brain: anticipatory behavior as an indicator for the state of reward systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72:145–71. 3. Jensen P, Toates FM. (1993) Who needs “behavioral needs”? Motivational aspects of the needs of animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37:161–81

Rabbit relinquishment to two UK rescue centres and beyond

Rabbits are a popular pet in the UK with an estimated one million being kept. Concern has been raised about the standards of care afforded to pet rabbits and a 2012 survey suggested that 67,000 rabbits are handed over to rescue centres each year, possibly due to owners losing interest. To determine reasons for rabbit relinquishment a survey was conducted of two UK rescue centres that take rabbits. For a one year period (2013) the centres reported information about the rabbits individual characterises (gender, age, neutered status, colour) and reasons that were given for relinquishing the rabbit. As rescue centres are not the only method used to relinquish rabbits, a public, online survey collected data from 1250 participants to determine how common it was for pets to be relinquished and what methods of relinquishment were used, (i.e. rescue centres, adverts, friends, family and colleagues etc.). A small sample of participants (n=20) were invited to answer further questions on their experiences in giving up rabbits specifically. Results show that rescue centres are not the most commonly used method to relinquish rabbits (or other pets) and common factors affecting relinquishment to rescue centres are different to reasons given by respondents to an anonymous online survey. Risk factors for pet rabbit relinquishment are also presented

Why and how should we assess pet rabbit personality?

Domestic rabbits have received relatively little attention for personality and temperament research to date, despite being a popular pet in the UK. The field of animal personality research is still in its infancy and there is much discussion around appropriate methods of assessing personality, due in part to the many reasons for exploring this phenomenon, for example, for cross species comparisons or assessing an animal’s suitability for a particular role or job. Domestic rabbits make an interesting candidate for personality studies due to their domestication being predominantly influenced by a desire for morphological or physical traits, rather than for behavioural characteristics, as with domestic dogs. Additionally, rabbits appear to be relinquished by their owners in high numbers and a recent survey suggested that one reason for this was difficultly in bonding a newly acquired rabbit to a current pet. Personality studies may help to raise owner awareness of a rabbit’s individual characteristics, which may support the formation of a human-animal bond which may reduce relinquishment, and support owners to select a suitable rabbit when acquiring a companion for a currently owned rabbit. In addition to making a case for personality assessments being needed at the point of acquiring pet rabbits, the presentation will review companion animal personality studies and describe methods currently being developed for the assessment of personality and temperament in pet rabbits

A survey of common rabbit handling methods and reasons for their use

Rabbits are both popular pets commonly seen within veterinary practices, and frequently used in laboratories in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. However, to date there is minimal research that has investigated why and how people handle rabbits and why they choose to use such methods. In addition, few studies have considered the sources individuals use to learn about rabbit handling and their reasons to not use specific handling methods

A review of handling methods of rabbits within pet, laboratory and veterinary contexts

Rabbits are considered to be the third most frequently kept pet in the UK as well as being utilised for medical and veterinary research. Despite this, little research has been conducted on rabbit handling methods. A literature review was conducted that focused directly on proposed handling methods of rabbits within different contexts. This included books where specific handling sections could be identified which were produced for pet owners, veterinary staff and laboratory staff. A range of textbooks were selected between the years [2000–2015] that were available on both Google books and Amazon. To identify the recommended handling methods and evaluate information available the following was recorded; number of handling and restraint methods described, justification for suggested methods, identification of inappropriate handling methods and relevant details, word count, use of images and any recommended equipment and its use (e.g. towel to avoid kicking or reduce stress). In total 20 books were reviewed, ten pet rabbit, seven veterinary animal/rabbit and three laboratory animal/rabbit books. Results indicate that recommended handling methods differ between contexts and that there is some confusion about the use of some methods, such as scruffing and ‘Tonic Immobility’, which have been noted to potentially be stressful. Some methods, such as picking a rabbit up by the ears, were consistently considered inappropriate. The authors describe research currently being undertaken and highlight the need for further research such as investigating handling methods and associated educational material provided by rescue centres and pet shops before, during and after the point of purchase/rehoming