Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-31T23:17:01.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Laboratory animal, pet animal, farm animal, wild animal: which gets the best deal?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

S Wolfensohn*
Affiliation:
Oxford University Veterinary Services, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK
P Honess
Affiliation:
Oxford University Veterinary Services, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK
*
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A veterinary surgeon wishing to practice in the UK promises, on admission to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, that their “constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of the animals committed to [their] care” (RCVS 2006 Guide to Professional Conduct). Yet a constant dilemma is that the veterinary surgeon deals with the animal's welfare differently depending on the category into which the particular animal fits at a particular time — even though its ability to suffer is the same whatever the circumstance. A laboratory animal is considered by many to suffer the most insults to welfare, yet its welfare is protected by a plethora of regulations, ethical reviews, best-practice guidelines and vociferous public opinion. While any decision on its treatment will take into account the scientific outcome, the judgement will have been considered by many and the outcome already decided. The companion animal may be much loved by its owner but its veterinary treatment will be affected by the psychological state of that owner and his/her ability to pay; the animal's treatment becomes a ‘family management’ issue. In veterinary treatment of a farm animal, the benchmark for ‘acceptable’ suffering can be quite different; lower levels of welfare may be tolerated over considerable periods. When a wild animal is presented for treatment, the welfare of the individual may not be best served by anything other than euthanasia, yet treatment is often enthusiastically attempted. We explore this inconsistency of approach to animal welfare, using examples, and we attempt to rationalise and raise awareness of the inconsistencies. We propose the use of a welfare illustrator grid to increase cross-sector objectivity and improve harmonisation of approach across the sectors.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Badgers Trust 2006 Consultation on Bovine TB and Badgers. www.badger.org.uk/tb/Badger%20Trust%20TB%20Consultation%20Response.pdf (accessed January 2007)Google Scholar
BBC News 2006 Bird disaster hits Estonia coast. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733418.stm (accessed January 2007)Google Scholar
Clarkson, MJ, Downham, DY, Faull, WB, Hughes, JW, Manson, FJ, Merritt, JB, Murray, RD, Russell, WB, Sutherst, JE and Ward, WR 1996 Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. The Veterinary Record 138: 563567CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eurobarometer 2005 Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer, Report 229/Wave 63.2 — TNS Opinion & Social. European Commission. www.ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en.pdf (accessed December 2006)Google Scholar
FAWC 2005 Report on the Welfare Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2006 Report on Welfare Labelling. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Harding, EJ, Paul, ES and Mendl, M 2004 Animal behaviour: cognitive bias and affective state. Nature 427: 312CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartley, P, Lloyd, M and Burton, N 2004 Obstacles to the refinement of scientific procedures using living animals. Poster Abstract. Animal Welfare 13 (Suppl): S242Google Scholar
Hedges, J, Blowey, RW, Packington, AJ, O'Callaghan, CJ and Green, LE 2001 A longitudinal field trial of the effect of biotin on lameness in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 19691975Google ScholarPubMed
Home Office 1998 The Ethical Review Process. The Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Home Office 2000 Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Honess, PE, Marin, C, Brown, AP and Wolfensohn, SE 2005 Assessment of stress in non-human primates: application of the neutrophil activation test. Animal Welfare 14: 291295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Preliminary investigations into the use of expert opinion to compare the overall welfare of dairy cattle farms in different farm assurance schemes. Animal Welfare 12: 565569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, DB and Griffiths, PHM 1985 Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and an hypothesis for assessment. Veterinary Record 116: 431436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RCVS 2006 Guide to Professional Conduct. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons: London, UK. http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=89642 (accessed January 2007)Google Scholar
Russell, WMS and Burch, RL 1959 (reprinted 1992) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Sharp, BE 1996 Post-release survival of oiled, cleaned seabirds in North America. Ibis 138: 222228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Independent 2002 Animal rights row over plan to shoot infected seals. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article140751.ece (accessed January 2007)Google Scholar
UFAW 2006 Annual Report 2005–2006. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205217CrossRefGoogle Scholar