Animal Well-Being

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 327 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Kathryn A.l. Bayne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Environmental Enrichment of Nonhuman Primates, Dogs and Rabbits Used in Toxicology Studies
    Toxicologic Pathology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Kathryn A.l. Bayne
    Abstract:

    The increasing emphasis on the provision of environmental enrichment to laboratory Animals, vis-à-vis the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NRC 1996), and a potential forthcoming policy from the USDA on the subject, can be difficult to accommodate in a toxicology research environment. A summary will be provided of current requirements and recommendations. Then, strategies for meeting regulatory requirements will be described for non-rodent Animals used in toxicology research. These strategies will address methods of both social enrichment, such as pair or group housing, as well as non-social enrichment, such as cage furniture, food enrichments, and toys. In addition, the value of positive interactions with staff (e.g., through training paradigms or socialization programs) will also be discussed. Apparent in the discussion of these strategies will be an overarching recognition of the necessity to avoid introducing confounding variables into the research project and to avoid compromising Animal health. The roles of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and the attending veterinarian in helping scientists balance Animal Well-Being, the scientific enterprise and the regulatory environment will be described.

Jayson L. Lusk - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The market for Animal welfare
    Agriculture and Human Values, 2011
    Co-Authors: Jayson L. Lusk
    Abstract:

    Animal welfare is emerging as one of the most controversial issues in modern livestock agriculture. Although consumers can buy free range products in niche markets, some have argued that existing markets cannot solve the Animal welfare dilemma because there are individuals who care about Animal Well-Being who do not eat Animal products. This paper proposes a market-based solution to at least partially manage Animal welfare externalities. After discussing the current lack of market incentives to promote farm Animal Well-Being, a potential scheme to quantify and trade units of farm Animal Well-Being is proposed. The potential merits and efficacy of an Animal welfare market are also discussed. Copyright The Author(s) 2011

  • Animal welfare economics
    Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 2011
    Co-Authors: Jayson L. Lusk, F. Bailey Norwood
    Abstract:

    This article highlights some key areas where economics can contribute to the current debate about Animal welfare. Production economics reveals that producers will not maximize Animal welfare, even if Animal Well-Being is highly correlated with output. Welfare economics raises thorny issues about the double-counting of benefits when humans exhibit altruism towards Animals, while public economics uncovers potential market failures and possible solutions. Consumer economics provides a means of determining human and Animal benefits from Animal Well-Being policies in dollar terms. Overall, economists have much to contribute to the Animal welfare debate and the Well-Being of humans and Animals could be improved with more economic analysis on the effects of private and government actions related to Animal welfare.

  • The market for Animal welfare
    Agriculture and Human Values, 2011
    Co-Authors: Jayson L. Lusk
    Abstract:

    Animal welfare is emerging as one of the most controversial issues in modern livestock agriculture. Although consumers can buy free range products in niche markets, some have argued that existing markets cannot solve the Animal welfare dilemma because there are individuals who care about Animal Well-Being who do not eat Animal products. This paper proposes a market-based solution to at least partially manage Animal welfare externalities. After discussing the current lack of market incentives to promote farm Animal Well-Being, a potential scheme to quantify and trade units of farm Animal Well-Being is proposed. The potential merits and efficacy of an Animal welfare market are also discussed.

  • A survey to determine public opinion about the ethics and governance of farm Animal welfare.
    Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2008
    Co-Authors: Jayson L. Lusk, F. Bailey Norwood
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitude of the public toward farm Animal welfare and identify beliefs regarding how decisions about farm Animal welfare should be made. DESIGN: Telephone survey. STUDY POPULATION: A random sample of 1,019 US households. PROCEDURES: US households were contacted by telephone and asked to take part in a survey consisting of 48 items. RESULTS: A majority (437/773 [56.4%]) of respondents believed decisions about farm Animal welfare should be made by experts rather than being based on the views of the public. Such advocates of expert decision making were less likely to believe the government should regulate farm Animal welfare. Most (420/773 [54.3%]) respondents believed decisions about farm Animal welfare should be based on scientific measures of Animal Well-Being, as opposed to moral and ethical considerations. Those individuals who believed farm Animal welfare decisions should be made by experts and be based on scientific measures were the least concerned about farm Animal welfare issues. People who believed Animal welfare decisions should be made by experts and be based on scientific measures were most responsive to information about use of gestation crates for sows. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results should help increase recognition that changing public opinion is not simply a matter of convincing the public to support positions established by veterinarians and Animal scientists. People's views about the role of the democratic process in regulating technologic change are important determinants of whether people accept the changes in Animal agriculture that have occurred during the past century.

Robert J. Woods - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS IN CANIDS: SPONDYLOARTHROPATHY
    Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 2001
    Co-Authors: Bruce M. Rothschild, Christine Rothschild, Robert J. Woods
    Abstract:

    Spondyloarthropathy was observed in 25 (2.8%) of 895 preserved canid museum specimens and was catalogued by species. The associated skeletal alterations in canids are indistinguishable grossly and physiologically from those in humans with spondyloarthropathy of the reactive type. Rate of affliction was independent of captive or wild-caught status or gender. In canids, spondyloarthropathy was much more common than osteoarthritis (0.3%), which predominantly is limited to captive Animals. Animal Well-Being may be enhanced by recognition of the condition and initiation of specific treatment.

  • INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS IN LARGE CATS: AN EXPANDED SPECTRUM OF SPONDYLOARTHROPATHY
    Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 1998
    Co-Authors: Bruce M. Rothschild, Christine Rothschild, Robert J. Woods
    Abstract:

    Spondyloarthropathy was documented for the first time in 14 (3.7%) of 386 large cats, affecting eight species belonging to three genera. The limited distribution of joint erosions, associated with spine and sacroiliac joint pathology, was indistinguishable from that occurring in humans with spondyloarthropathy of the reactive type. This form of inflammatory arthritis is almost twice as common as osteoarthritis (for felids as a whole), and Animal well being may be enhanced by its recognition and by initiation of specific treatment.

F. Bailey Norwood - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Animal welfare economics
    Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 2011
    Co-Authors: Jayson L. Lusk, F. Bailey Norwood
    Abstract:

    This article highlights some key areas where economics can contribute to the current debate about Animal welfare. Production economics reveals that producers will not maximize Animal welfare, even if Animal Well-Being is highly correlated with output. Welfare economics raises thorny issues about the double-counting of benefits when humans exhibit altruism towards Animals, while public economics uncovers potential market failures and possible solutions. Consumer economics provides a means of determining human and Animal benefits from Animal Well-Being policies in dollar terms. Overall, economists have much to contribute to the Animal welfare debate and the Well-Being of humans and Animals could be improved with more economic analysis on the effects of private and government actions related to Animal welfare.

  • A survey to determine public opinion about the ethics and governance of farm Animal welfare.
    Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2008
    Co-Authors: Jayson L. Lusk, F. Bailey Norwood
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitude of the public toward farm Animal welfare and identify beliefs regarding how decisions about farm Animal welfare should be made. DESIGN: Telephone survey. STUDY POPULATION: A random sample of 1,019 US households. PROCEDURES: US households were contacted by telephone and asked to take part in a survey consisting of 48 items. RESULTS: A majority (437/773 [56.4%]) of respondents believed decisions about farm Animal welfare should be made by experts rather than being based on the views of the public. Such advocates of expert decision making were less likely to believe the government should regulate farm Animal welfare. Most (420/773 [54.3%]) respondents believed decisions about farm Animal welfare should be based on scientific measures of Animal Well-Being, as opposed to moral and ethical considerations. Those individuals who believed farm Animal welfare decisions should be made by experts and be based on scientific measures were the least concerned about farm Animal welfare issues. People who believed Animal welfare decisions should be made by experts and be based on scientific measures were most responsive to information about use of gestation crates for sows. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results should help increase recognition that changing public opinion is not simply a matter of convincing the public to support positions established by veterinarians and Animal scientists. People's views about the role of the democratic process in regulating technologic change are important determinants of whether people accept the changes in Animal agriculture that have occurred during the past century.

Nibedita Priyadarshini Jena - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Animal Welfare and Animal Rights: an Examination of some Ethical Problems
    Journal of Academic Ethics, 2017
    Co-Authors: Nibedita Priyadarshini Jena
    Abstract:

    The spectacle of the relentless use and abuse of Animals in various human enterprises led some human beings to formulate Animal welfare policies and to offer philosophical arguments on the basis of which the humane treatment of Animals could be defended rationally. According to the Animal welfare concept, Animals should be provided some comfort and freedom of movement in the period prior to the moment when they are killed. This concept emphasizes the physiological, psychological, and natural aspects of Animal life with the focus on freedom. Ironically, however it is not concerned with the rights of Animals; nor is it interested in their remaining alive. So, Animals are least benefitted by such provisions, which is the major concern for those who defend Animal rights. It seems dubious to demand comfort for a being in life, but not security for its actual life, since rights and freedom are essential for the maintenance of a normal life. This paper aims to (a) critically analyze the Animal welfare system, which prioritizes only freedom; (b) to demonstrate how Animal welfare is incomplete without Animal rights and how they are closely related to each other; and (c) to bridge the gap between Animal welfare and Animal rights. The underlying principle of Animal welfare concept is restricted by its anthropocentric framework with the result that the ethical element is missing. Mere ‘freedom’ is not sufficient for constituting an ideal Animal welfare domain. In order to achieve real Animal Well-Being, it is necessary to consider both the rights as well as the welfare of Animals.