Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Animal welfare (sometimes termed ''well-being'') is about feelings -states such as ''suffering'' or ''contentment'' that we can infer but cannot measure directly. Welfare indices have been developed from two main sources: studies of suffering humans, and of research animals deliberately subjected to challenges known to affect emotional state. We briefly review the resulting indices here, and discuss how well they are understood for elephants, since objective welfare assessment should play a central role in evidence-based elephant management. We cover behavioral and cognitive responses (approach/avoidance; intention, redirected and displacement activities; vigilance/startle; warning signals; cognitive biases, apathy and depression-like changes; stereotypic behavior); physiological responses (sympathetic responses; corticosteroid output -often assayed noninvasively via urine, feces or even hair; other aspects of HPA function, e.g. adrenal hypertrophy); and the potential negative effects of prolonged stress on reproduction (e.g. reduced gametogenesis; low libido; elevated still-birth rates; poor maternal care) and health (e.g. poor wound-healing; enhanced disease rates; shortened lifespans). The best validated, most used welfare indices for elephants are corticosteroid outputs and stereotypic behavior. Indices suggested as valid, partially validated, and/or validated but not yet applied within zoos include: measures of preference/avoidance; displacement movements; vocal/postural signals of affective (emotional) state; startle/vigilance; apathy; salivary and urinary epinephrine; female acyclity; infant mortality rates; skin/foot infections; cardio-vascular disease; and premature adult death. Potentially useful indices that have not yet attracted any validation work in elephants include: operant responding and place preference tests; intention and vacuum movements; fear/ stress pheromone release; cognitive biases; heart rate, pupil dilation and blood pressure; corticosteroid assay from hair, especially tail-hairs (to access endocrine events up to a year ago); adrenal hypertrophy; male infertility; prolactinemia; and immunological changes. Zoo Biol 29:237-255,
Animal welfare (sometimes termed ''well-being'') is about feelings -states such as ''suffering'' or ''contentment'' that we can infer but cannot measure directly. Welfare indices have been developed from two main sources: studies of suffering humans, and of research animals deliberately subjected to challenges known to affect emotional state. We briefly review the resulting indices here, and discuss how well they are understood for elephants, since objective welfare assessment should play a central role in evidence-based elephant management. We cover behavioral and cognitive responses (approach/avoidance; intention, redirected and displacement activities; vigilance/startle; warning signals; cognitive biases, apathy and depression-like changes; stereotypic behavior); physiological responses (sympathetic responses; corticosteroid output -often assayed noninvasively via urine, feces or even hair; other aspects of HPA function, e.g. adrenal hypertrophy); and the potential negative effects of prolonged stress on reproduction (e.g. reduced gametogenesis; low libido; elevated still-birth rates; poor maternal care) and health (e.g. poor wound-healing; enhanced disease rates; shortened lifespans). The best validated, most used welfare indices for elephants are corticosteroid outputs and stereotypic behavior. Indices suggested as valid, partially validated, and/or validated but not yet applied within zoos include: measures of preference/avoidance; displacement movements; vocal/postural signals of affective (emotional) state; startle/vigilance; apathy; salivary and urinary epinephrine; female acyclity; infant mortality rates; skin/foot infections; cardio-vascular disease; and premature adult death. Potentially useful indices that have not yet attracted any validation work in elephants include: operant responding and place preference tests; intention and vacuum movements; fear/ stress pheromone release; cognitive biases; heart rate, pupil dilation and blood pressure; corticosteroid assay from hair, especially tail-hairs (to access endocrine events up to a year ago); adrenal hypertrophy; male infertility; prolactinemia; and immunological changes. Zoo Biol 29:237-255,
Enrichment aims to improve captive animals' welfare by enhancing their environments. Two of the struggles associated with measuring welfare are identifying when animals' needs are being met or surpassed and identifying how individual differences play a role in these outcomes. Using a group of related Guyanese squirrel monkeys, we studied changes in five welfare indicators under different environmental conditions. Manipulating food presentation, walkways, and toys, we created five enrichment levels ranging from just above USDA standards to considerably more complex than the animals' normal housing. At the end of each level, a novelty test was performed in which an unfamiliar woman entered the enclosure and offered food. Changes in behavior as a function of enrichment condition were analyzed using a repeated-measures MANOVA. Compared to baseline, less enrichment consistently increased negative welfare indicators (abnormal behavior, aggression, and negative responses to the novelty test), while more enrichment sometimes decreased these indicators. Positive welfare indicators were less consistently related to enrichment, but positive response to the novelty test did increase somewhat in the most enriched condition. Across conditions, rank correlations revealed that individuals had highly consistent individual differences in positive responses to novelty and somewhat consistent individual differences in rates of aggression. The goal of the enrichment and the species, sex, and individual animals to be enriched should be considered when selecting a welfare indicator, and facilities measuring animal welfare should study changes in the behavior of specific individuals to control for individual differences.
11Olfaction plays a crucial role in mouse communication, providing information about genetic identity, 12 physiological status of conspecifics and alerting mice to potential predators. Scents of animal origin can 13 trigger physiological and behavioural responses that could that could affect experimental responses and 14 impact positively or negatively on mouse welfare. Additionally, differing olfactory profiles could help 15 explain variation in results between laboratories. A survey was sent to animal research units in the UK to 16 investigate potential transfer of scents of animal origin during routine husbandry procedures, and 17 responses were obtained from animal care workers and researchers using mice in 51 institutions. The 18 results reveal great diversity between animal units regarding the relevant husbandry routines covered. 19Most (94%) reported housing non-breeding male and female mice in the same room, with 79% reporting 20 that hands were not washed and gloves not changed between handling male and female mice. The most 21 2 commonly reported species housed in the same facility as mice was the rat (91%) and 41% of 22 respondents were aware that scents from rats could affect mice. Changing gloves between handling 23 mice and other species was reported by 79% of respondents. . Depending on the aspect considered, 24 between 18 and 33% of respondents believed human and non-human animal odours would strongly 25 affect mouse physiology, behaviour or standardisation, while approximately 32-54% believed these 26 effects would be weak. This indicates uncertainty regarding the significance of these factors. 27 Understanding and controlling these practices could reduce unwanted variability in experimental results 28 and maximise welfare. (1) and for males on females synchronisation of oestrus (7) or increased activity levels, (3). 138The most common (49%) caging system was a combination of barrier cages (including IVCs, same facility as mice with rats being the most common (41) followed by ferrets (9), primates (6), cats (5) 150 and dogs (3) (Figure 2 shower before entering the animal unit (2). Cats and dogs were the most common (74%) species kept as 166 companion animals. Other predatory species kept as pets were rats (16%) and ferrets (9%). 167Once again, respondents perceived mouse behaviour as being most strongly affected by scents 168 9 of other species (33%) or staff (20%). In contrast, the weakest effects were reported on health and 169 physiology (38% and 54% respectively). Interestingly, non-human odours were generally considered as 170 having less of an effect than other animal odours (Table 1). 171 Discussion 172The results of the survey have revealed that a variety of routine husbandry procedures could allow
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.