Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare

Donald Broom, Andrew Fraser

• Publisher: CAB International
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781780645636
• eBook ISBN: 9781789244717
• Edition: 5
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Veterinary Medicine

Humans have a natural interest in animals; through a long history of domestication, they have become tools, a food source and even friends. Behaviour is a significant indicator of animal health and well-being, and understanding this behaviour is therefore the key to good management. Covering all aspects of animal behaviour and how this relates to welfare for companion animals, farm animals and farmed fish, this book reviews development, socialisation, locomotion, reproduction and more. It takes a comprehensive approach to the subject, including a section of chapters addressing common abnormal behaviours and reviewing some animals, such as rabbits, from both a pet and farm perspective. Now in its fifth edition, Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare includes new chapters detailing the welfare of sheep, goats and exotic pets, and welfare in relation to genetic selection and modification. Animal behaviour and welfare sciences are now core topics for agriculture and veterinary students, with courses and research opportunities in this field growing world-wide. Fully updated and with new photographs, this indispensable textbook provides a student-friendly guide to the major themes of animal behaviour and welfare.

1 Introduction and Concepts

A significant part of our interest in the world around us is focused on non-human animals, not just as resources but also because of our empathy for them and our fascination with what they can do and how they function (Podberscek et al., 2000; Serpell, 2004; D. Fraser, 2008; Broom, 2014b). The farming of animals has played an important part in the development of human civilization. Food, clothing and transport are obtained by man from a wide variety of species. It is thought that humans have had an even longer relationship with wolves, or dogs as we now call one form of the Middle-Eastern grey wolf (Clutton-Brock, 1999; von Holdt et al., 2010). This relationship, and we may speak of wolves domesticating humans just as correctly as humans domesticating wolves (Broom, 2006a), seems likely to have been mutually beneficial to both species, as has other domestication (see Chapter 5). Dogs, cats, other companion animals and many farmed animals have long been treated as companions and viewed with affection by those whose job it was to care for them. Good stockmanship has always involved knowing how to respond to the behaviour of animals when handling them or identifying their problems.

By the start of the 20th century, farm animal use had increased with the expansion of the human population and consumption of animal products. Animals began to be kept in concentrated populations and, prior to 1970, intensive animal husbandry had arrived in the form of close confinement for cattle, pigs and poultry under new husbandry systems. The innovations in management are characterized principally by larger livestock numbers kept together in markedly reduced space. Such conditions have effects on disease transmission and they require considerable physiological and behavioural adaptation by the animals (Broom, 2006a). It was assumed that the animals could adapt to the environmental restrictions, but both adaptation and failure to adjust have come to be recognizable when welfare is assessed. As Mason (2010) explains, animals kept in captivity vary greatly in how well they can adapt and in the extent of poor welfare resulting from the captivity. Knowledge of the behaviour of livestock under intensive husbandry systems is needed to assess these systems of management, just as information about behaviour is needed to manage animals extensively. This knowledge can then be applied in the agriculture industry in order to improve production and welfare. Many animal husbandry problems are not soluble by investigation of nutrition, body physiology or disease control, but require investigations of the behaviour of the animals before progress can be made towards a solution.

The attitude of people to dogs (Serpell, 1995) ranges from viewing the dog as a cause of vicious and unprovoked attacks on children, of pollution of our streets and of serious disease risks, to considering the dog as a family member, an archetype of affectionate fidelity and a source of unconditional love. People who use animals as companions, or for some form of work or entertainment, are aware of the behaviour of the animals. In some cases, the behaviour is not what the people want and is viewed as a problem. In other cases the behaviour is the reason why the animal is useful, whether or not this use results in good welfare in the animal. Behaviour can be an indicator of good or poor welfare in any animal. The term ethology means the observation and detailed description of behaviour with the objective of finding out how biological mechanisms function.

The scientific study of animal behaviour has proceeded very rapidly during the last 50 years. Some of the changes in ideas that have occurred during this development are described by Jensen (2009). There have been substantial recent advances in the precision of behaviour description and the understanding of behaviour organization in relation to physiological and evolutionary processes. Modern techniques in ethology and in experimental psychology mean that we now have a much more extensive knowledge of sensory analysis, motor control, hormonal effects, motivation, body maintenance behaviour in good and difficult conditions, reproductive behaviour and social structure. This knowledge and many other methods of animal welfare assessment are used in animal welfare science and applied to domestic animals.

Sentience and Animal Protection

Animals vary in the extent to which they are aware of themselves (DeGrazia, 1996) and of their interactions with their environment, including their ability to experience pleasurable states such as happiness and aversive states such as pain, fear and grief. This capacity may be referred to as their degree of sentience. The term sentience has generally been used to mean that the individual has the capacity to have feelings (Kirkwood, 2006). This raises the question of what abilities are needed in order to have this capacity. Sentience implies a range of abilities, not just having feelings. A definition is: a sentient being is one that has some ability to evaluate the actions of others in relation to itself and third parties; to remember some of its own actions and their consequences; to assess risks and benefits; to have some feelings; and to have some degree of awareness. This definition, slightly modified after Broom (2006c), and various aspects of sentience are discussed further by Broom (2014b).

Human opinion as to which individuals of our own and other species are sentient has generally changed over time in well-educated societies to encompass first all humans instead of just a subset of humans, and then: certain mammals that were kept as companions; animals that seemed most similar to humans such as monkeys; the larger mammals; all mammals; all warm-blooded animals; then all vertebrates; and now some invertebrates.

The general public has been ready to accept some guidance about evidence for sentience from biologists who have collected information about the abilities and functioning of the animals. Animals that are shown to be complex in their organization, capable of sophisticated learning and aware are generally respected more than those that are not, and such animals are less likely to be treated badly. However, some people view animals solely on the basis of their effects on, or perceived (extrinsic) value to, humans and have little concern for them as individuals.

Ethics

Something is moral if it pertains to right rather than wrong and ethics is the study of moral issues. Humans and other animals, especially social animals, have many biological mechanisms that enable them to behave in a moral way. It is not possible to live successfully in a social group unless the individuals have the ability to avoid harming others (see Fig. 1.1) and perhaps to collaborate. As a consequence, morality has evolved and natural selection has favoured genes that promote abilities such as recognition of individuals and memory of moral and immoral actions (de Waal, 1996; Ridley, 1996; Broom, 2003, 2006). Two other biological mechanisms which may promote moral actions are empathy and compassion (Würbel, 2009). People are more likely to feel empathy with fellow humans and other animals perceived to have a capacity for feelings similar to those of humans. They are likely to show compassion to those whom they perceive to need compassion.

Fig. 1.1 These Longhorn cattle carry dangerous weapons and spend much time close together but they are very careful not to harm one another (photograph D.M. Broom).

Two underlying approaches in thinking about how to behave towards people or other animals are known as deontological and consequentialist. The deontological approach to the organization of human conduct is one in which the structure is a set of duties pertinent to all individuals. Hence, the individual should assess what action duty dictates using rational thought and carry out that action.

Consequentialism in ethics implies that the extent to which an act is morally right is determined solely by the goodness of the act’s consequences. This approach was extended into utilitarianism by J.S. Mill (1843), who argued that the right act or policy is that which will result in the maximum utility, or expected balance of satisfaction minus dissatisfaction, in all the sentient beings affected.

Although many aspects of utilitarianism are helpful when deciding what is morally right, as a general approach it may be viewed as incomplete (Broom, 2003). Acting in such a way that general happiness or general good is promoted will be entirely desirable in some circumstances, but following such a philosophy implies that decisions are taken only on the basis of the average or overall good of collections of individuals. This view does not take account of the fact that humans and other animals interact with and have concerns for individuals. The mechanisms underlying moral codes are based on effects on individuals as well as on collections of individuals. An example of the flaw in the extreme utilitarianism approach is that, following this approach, an individual could be caused extreme pain or other poor welfare, or could be killed if the overall effect on a collection of individuals was good. This individual might be a dangerous criminal or an entirely innocent person, but should they be tortured, caused prolonged misery or killed? Most people would not wish an innocent person to be killed, however great the resulting good, and those who hesitated on the issue might be swayed towards that view if the person were their neighbour, their mother or themselves.

Criticisms of the utilitarian position have been made by many, including Williams (1972) and Midgley (1978). Those who would consider themselves deontological ethicists would maintain that certain rights, rules, principles or obligations take precedence over utility. However, a wholly deontological approach also has flaws. Elements of both deontological and utilitarian approaches are necessary in order to act in a moral way.

It is my view (Broom, 2003, 2006b, 2010, 2014b) that all human behaviour and laws should be based on the obligations of each person to act in an acceptable way towards each other person and to each animal with which we interact. If we use a living animal in a way that gives us some benefit, we have some obligations to that animal. We have some obligations to any individual considered to have an intrinsic value and other obligations whenever we have concern for the individual’s welfare. We should avoid causing poor welfare in the animal except where the action leads to a net benefit to that animal. In some cases, we might cause poor welfare because of a net benefit when we also take account of other animals, including humans, or of the environment.

It is better for strategies for living to be based on our obligations rather than to involve the concept of rights. This is because many so-called rights can result in harm to others. Arguments about the importance of freedom to control one’s life led to the idea that such freedom is a ‘right’ which all should have. Strong proponents of a rights structure for determining what are proper actions regard the stated rights as absolute, so they cannot be mitigated by other circumstances. A key issue here is the establishment of what is a right. There are few so-called rights that would be accepted as valid in all circumstances. The oft-proclaimed right to free speech can cause great harm to certain individuals and hence can be morally wrong, in my view, as can the ‘right’ to drive a car as fast as you wish, or to carry a gun, or to determine the sex of your children. The concept of rights causes many problems. All behaviour and laws should be based on the obligations of each person to act in an acceptable way towards each other person or other sentient individual. Arguments based on obligations are better than any attempts to assert a ‘right’. Laws and other such statements should provide guidelines for the behaviour of each person rather than stating what the individual who is the object of an action can demand.

The ethics aspects of animal behaviour research are discussed by M. Dawkins and Gosling (1992).

Sustainability and Animal welfare

Members of the public now ask whether or not any system for exploiting resources is sustainable (Aland and Madec, 2009). The fact that something is profitable and there is a demand for the product is not now sufficient reason for the continuation of production (Broom, 2010a). 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, consequences of functioning and morality of action (Broom, 2001d, 2014b). An animal usage system might not be sustainable because: (i) it involves so much depletion of a resource that this will become unavailable to the system; (ii) a product of the system accumulates to a degree that prevents the functioning of the system; or (iii) members of the public find an action involved in it unacceptable. Where there is depletion of a resource or accumulation of a product, the level at which this is unacceptable, and hence the point at which the system is unsustainable, is usually considerably lower than that at which the production syst...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Section 1 Introduction to Ideas and Measurement
• Section 2 Fundamental Topics
• Section 3 Organization of Behaviour
• Section 4 Reproductive and Social Behaviour
• Section 5 Early and Parental Behaviour
• Section 6 Welfare Topics
• Section 7 Welfare of Various Animals
• Glossary
• References
• Subject Index
• Author Index
• Back Cover