DOCSLIB.ORG

Animal Pain Identifying, Understanding and Minimising Pain in Farm Animals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animal Pain Identifying, Understanding and Minimising Pain in Farm Animals Animal pain Identifying, understanding and minimising pain in farm animals Expertise scientifique collective (ESCo) INRA INRA Expert scientific assessment (ESCo) Summary of the expert report October 2009 SCIENTIFIC COORDINATOR Pierre Le Neindre, Senior research scientist, INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research) EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Claire Sabbagh, Multidisciplinary Scientific Assessment Unit (Unité Expertise Scientifique Collective), INRA DOCUMENT DESIGN AND EDITORIAL COORDINATION Helen CHIAPELLO and Claire SABBAGH, with contributions by Isabelle SAVINI CONTACTS Pierre LE NEINDRE [email protected] Claire SABBAGH [email protected] The multidisciplinary scientific assessment report, on which this summary is based, was written by the scientific experts without prior condition of approval by either the commissioning body or INRA. It is available online at the INRA site. This summary has been approved by the authors of the report. The list of authors and contributors appears on the inside back cover. This document should be referenced in the following manner: Pierre Le Neindre, Raphaël Guatteo, Daniel Guémené, Jean-Luc Guichet, Karine Latouche, Christine Leterrier, Olivier Levionnois, Pierre Mormède, Armelle Prunier, Alain Serrie, Jacques Servière (editors), 2009. AnimalPain: identifying, understanding and minimising pain in farm animals. Multidisciplinary scientific assessment, Summary of the expert report, INRA (France), 98 pages This document is a summary of study 09-03 funded by the French Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, under program 215, action 22. Responsibility for the contents of the report rests solely with the authors. Expertise scientifique collective (ESCo) INRA INRA Expert scientific assessment (ESCo) Animal pain Identifying, understanding and minimising pain in farm animals Summary of the expert report Octobre 2009 Contents Foreword................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 1. The Question of animal pain: the issues for debate...................................................................................................... 7 1.1. The role of animals in traditional societies ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.2. The development of the modern view of animal pain ...................................................................................................... 8 1.3. The current debate on animal pain .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.4. Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 2. Pain: definitions, concepts and mechanisms in humans and farm animals .............................................................. 23 2.1. A growing scientific interest.............................................................................................................................................. 23 2.2. Gradual widening of the scope of studies on pain in humans.......................................................................................... 23 2.3. Pain: mechanisms and structures involved...................................................................................................................... 27 2.4. Transposing the concept of pain from humans to animals............................................................................................... 32 2.5. Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................... 40 3. How should pain in farm animals be assessed? ........................................................................................................... 42 3.1. Measures based on tissue damage................................................................................................................................. 43 3.2. Physiological responses .................................................................................................................................................. 44 3.3. Behavioural responses .................................................................................................................................................... 47 3.4. Criteria related to livestock productivity ........................................................................................................................... 49 3.5. Multi-parametric scales for assessing pain...................................................................................................................... 30 3.6. Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................... 53 4 Sources of known and/or potential pain in farm animals .............................................................................................. 54 4.1. Background to the different types of animal production and their regulation ................................................................... 54 4.2. Sources of known and potential pain associated with the practice and conduct of farming ............................................ 58 4.3. Sources of known or potential pain associated with mutilations...................................................................................... 60 4.4. Known or potential sources of pain associated with genetic selection ............................................................................ 66 4.5. Known or potential sources of pain associated with slaughtering.................................................................................... 67 4.6. Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................... 71 5. Means of reducing pain in farm animals ........................................................................................................................ 73 5.1. General approach for reducing pain on farms ................................................................................................................. 73 5.2. Alternative means for preventing or reducing pain in farm animals ................................................................................. 75 5.3. "Soothe": Pharmacological treatment of pain .................................................................................................................. 82 5.4. Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................... 86 General conclusions............................................................................................................................................................. 87 Research Priorities.................................................................................................................................................................. 89 Appendix: Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 91 Authors and editors of the multidisciplinary expertise 2 Expertise scientifique collective "Douleurs animales" Foreword In modern society there is a growing awareness that animals may suffer pain. Pain in animals is perceived in a wide variety of contexts ranging from animal testing and experimentation, through mistreatment of pets and performing animals, such as in the circus, to the husbandry and treatment of farm animals destined for human consumption. This awareness has given rise to a rather difficult dialogue between animal rights activists who are against any animal exploitation, those who advocate improved living conditions for animals and the economic stakeholders who highlight the financial constraints that face them in their sector of activity. There is thus a strain between the growing demand in the world for animal products and the social acceptability of the treatment of farm animals under modern farming systems. Over the second half of the 20th century, the capacity to supply markets was based largely on a concept of livestock farming which did not place animal pain at the forefront of its concerns. It was within this context that in 2008, at the initiative of the President of the French Republic, the Rencontres Animal-Société Animal-Society forum was held with the aim of providing a statement of the issues raised in the various domains of the relationship between man and animals. These meetings, which brought together members of the trade, scientists, politicians, government authorities and associations, progressively highlighted the need to come to agreement on the primary cause for debate: defining what constitutes pain and suffering in animals and what knowledge is available to clarify this issue? Hence the action plan emanating from
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Fish Do Not Feel Pain
    Key, Brian (2016) Why fish do not eelf pain. Animal Sentience 3(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1011 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Call for Commentary: Animal Sentience publishes Open Peer Commentary on all accepted target articles. Target articles are peer-reviewed. Commentaries are editorially reviewed. There are submitted commentaries as well as invited commentaries. Commentaries appear as soon as they have been revised and accepted. Target article authors may respond to their commentaries individually or in a joint response to multiple commentaries. Instructions: http://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/guidelines.html Why fish do not feel pain Brian Key Biomedical Sciences University of Queensland Australia Abstract: Only humans can report feeling pain. In contrast, pain in animals is typically inferred on the basis of nonverbal behaviour. Unfortunately, these behavioural data can be problematic when the reliability and validity of the behavioural tests are questionable. The thesis proposed here is based on the bioengineering principle that structure determines function. Basic functional homologies can be mapped to structural homologies across a broad spectrum of vertebrate species. For example, olfaction depends on olfactory glomeruli in the olfactory bulbs of the forebrain, visual orientation responses depend on the laminated optic tectum in the midbrain, and locomotion depends on pattern generators in the spinal cord throughout vertebrate phylogeny, from fish to humans. Here I delineate the region of the human brain that is directly responsible for feeling painful stimuli.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Behaviour, Animal Welfare and the Scientific Study of Affect
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 5-2009 Animal Behaviour, Animal Welfare and the Scientific Study of Affect David Fraser University of British Columbia Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/emotio Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Comparative Psychology Commons, and the Other Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Fraser, D. (2009). Animal behaviour, animal welfare and the scientific study of affect. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 118(3), 108-117. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Behaviour, Animal Welfare and the Scientific Study of Affect David Fraser University of British Columbia KEYWORDS animal behaviour, animal welfare, affect, emotion, qualitative research ABSTRACT Many questions about animal welfare involve the affective states of animals (pain, fear, distress) and people look to science to clarify these issues as a basis for practices, policies and standards. However, the science of the mid twentieth century tended to be silent on matters of animal affect for both philosophical and methodological reasons. Philosophically, under the influence of Positivism many scientists considered that the affective states of animals fall outside the scope of science. Certain methodological features of the research also favoured explanations that did not involve affect. The features included the tendency to rely on abstract, quantitative measures rather than description, to use controlled experiments more than naturalistic observation, and to focus on measures of central tendency (means, medians) rather than individual differences.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Welfare and the Paradox of Animal Consciousness
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Animal Welfare and the Paradox of Animal Consciousness Marian Dawkins1 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 1Corresponding author: e-mail address: [email protected] Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Animal Consciousness: The Heart of the Paradox 2 2.1 Behaviorism Applies to Other People Too 5 3. Human Emotions and Animals Emotions 7 3.1 Physiological Indicators of Emotion 7 3.2 Behavioral Components of Emotion 8 3.2.1 Vacuum Behavior 10 3.2.2 Rebound 10 3.2.3 “Abnormal” Behavior 10 3.2.4 The Animal’s Point of View 11 3.2.5 Cognitive Bias 15 3.2.6 Expressions of the Emotions 15 3.3 The Third Component of Emotion: Consciousness 16 4. Definitions of Animal Welfare 24 5. Conclusions 26 References 27 1. INTRODUCTION Consciousness has always been both central to and a stumbling block for animal welfare. On the one hand, the belief that nonhuman animals suffer and feel pain is what draws many people to want to study animal welfare in the first place. Animal welfare is seen as fundamentally different from plant “welfare” or the welfare of works of art precisely because of the widely held belief that animals have feelings and experience emotions in ways that plants or inanimate objectsdhowever valuableddo not (Midgley, 1983; Regan, 1984; Rollin, 1989; Singer, 1975). On the other hand, consciousness is also the most elusive and difficult to study of any biological phenomenon (Blackmore, 2012; Koch, 2004). Even with our own human consciousness, we are still baffled as to how Advances in the Study of Behavior, Volume 47 ISSN 0065-3454 © 2014 Elsevier Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Aspects of Emotions in Fish
    Behavioural Processes 100 (2013) 153–159 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Behavioural Processes jou rnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/behavproc Functional aspects of emotions in fish ∗ Silje Kittilsen Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Norway a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: There is an ongoing scientific discussion on whether fish have emotions, and if so how they experience Received 19 March 2013 them? The discussion has incorporated important areas such as brain anatomy and function, physiological Received in revised form and behavioural responses, and the cognitive abilities that fish possess. Little attention has however, been 10 September 2013 directed towards what functional aspects emotions ought to have in fish. If fish have emotions – why? Accepted 11 September 2013 The elucidation of this question and an assessment of the scientific evidences of emotions in fish in an evolutionary and functional framework would represent a valuable contribution in the discussion on Keywords: whether fish are emotional creatures. Here parts of the vast amount of literature from both biology and Emotions Behaviour psychology relating to the scientific field of emotions, animal emotion, and the functional aspects that Cognition emotions fulfil in the lives of humans and animals are reviewed. Subsequently, by viewing fish behaviour, Psychology physiology and cognitive abilities in the light of this functional framework it is possible to infer what Fish functions emotions may serve in fish. This approach may contribute to the vital running discussion on Evolution the subject of emotions in fish. In fact, if it can be substantiated that emotions are likely to serve a function in fish similar to that of other higher vertebrate species, the notion that fish do have emotions will be strengthened.
    [Show full text]
  • Observation of Behavior, Inference of Function, and the Study of Learning
    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1994, 1 (1), 73-88 Observation of behavior, inference of function, and the study of learning WILLIAM TIMBERLAKE and FRANCISCO J. SILVA Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Before the present century, the primary means of studying animals was observation of the form and effects of their behavior combined with presumption of their intent. In the present century, ethologists continued to emphasize observation of form and replaced presumption of intent with the study of proximate function and evolution. In contrast, most learning psychologists mini­ mized both observation of form and presumption of intent by defining behavior in terms of sim­ ple environmental effects and establishing intent by deprivation operations, We discuss advan­ tages of the use of observation in the study of learning, examine arguments that it is unnecessary, irrelevant, and unscientific, and consider some practical considerations in using observation. We conclude that observation of the form of behavior and concern with its ecological function should be an important part of the arsenal of techniques used to study learning. Observation has been the dominant method of study­ imals (Warden, 1927), anthropomorphically viewing the ing the behavior of animals since the beginning of re­ latter as partially disguised people enmeshed in a web of corded history (Warden, 1927). Observation provided the human goals, social relations, and rules (Aesop, approx­ underpinnings of the writings of systematists such as imately 620 B.C.; Selous, 1908). Other observers adhered Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and Darwin (1859), story tellers to a more animal-centered description and inference of such as Seton (1913) and Kipling (1894), collectors of function (Craig, 1918; Huxley, 1914).
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Evaluation of Animal Emotions: Brief History and Recent New Zealand Contributions
    Scientific evaluation of animal emotions: Brief history and recent New Zealand contributions Beausoleil, N.J., Stratton, R.B., Guesgen, M.J., Sutherland, M.A., Johnson, C.B. Abstract The idea of animals having emotions was once rejected as being anthropomorphic and unscientific. However, with society’s changing views and advances in scientific knowledge and technology, the idea of animal emotions is becoming more accepted. Emotions are subjective internal experiences that can’t be measured directly. Animal welfare scientists must infer emotions by measuring the behavioural, physiological and neurobiological components of emotional experience. In this paper, we describe innovative ways in which these indicators have been used by New Zealand scientists to facilitate a more holistic understanding of the emotions and welfare of animals. Introduction From a scientific perspective, emotion is defined as an innate response to an event or situation (internal or external) that comprises behavioural, physiological, subjective (the feeling) and cognitive (subsequent decision-making) components.1 Emotions are the result of complex processing, by the nervous system, of sensory information gathered from within and outside the animal’s body. The capture and processing of this sensory information are influenced by the biology of the animal species, as well as by individual factors such as the animal’s genetic predispositions, life stage, sex, previous experience, learning and memory.2 The emotion or emotions resulting from these processes of mental evaluation are thus uniquely personal to the individual, but can be broadly characterized by their valence (pleasant or unpleasant) and the degree of arousal generated.3 While the behavioural, physiological and, in some cases, cognitive components of an emotional response can be scientifically evaluated using observable indicators, the subjective component cannot.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculation and Use of Selectivity Coefficients of Feeding: Zooplankton Grazing *
    Ecological Modelling, 7 (1979) 135--149 135 © Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands CALCULATION AND USE OF SELECTIVITY COEFFICIENTS OF FEEDING: ZOOPLANKTON GRAZING * HENRY A. VANDERPLOEG and DONALD SCAVIA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Research Laboratories, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104 (U.S.A.) (Received 8 June 1978; revised 27 September 1978) ABSTRACT Vanderploeg, H.A. and Scavia, D., 1979. Calculation and use of selectivity coefficients of feeding: zooplankton grazing. Ecol. Modelling, 7: 135--149. A straightforward method of calculating selectivity coefficients (Wii) of predation from raw data, mortality rates of prey, filtering rates, feeding rates and electivity indices is derived. Results from a comparison of selectivity coefficients for the copepod Diaptomus oregonensis grazing under a number of experimental conditions suggest that Wij's for size- selective feeding are invariant, a conclusion also supported by the leaky-sieve model. Recommendations are made on how to use Wij's in linear and nonlinear feeding constructs for zooplankton and other animals. INTRODUCTION Many recent aquatic ecosystem models have been designed to simulate seasonal succession of phytoplankton and zooplankton. In order to accom- plish this, the models have included several phytoplankton and zooplankton groups (Bloomfield et al., 1973; Park et al., 1974; Canale et al., 1976; Scavia et al., 1976a and b; Bierman, 1976). A main factor controlling successional change in both phytoplankton and zooplankton is zooplankton selective feeding (cf. Porter, 1977). Many field and laboratory studies have been carried out to quantify the selection process; however, the forms in which the data are reported are not immediately applicable to models.
    [Show full text]
  • Damages for Pain and Suffering
    DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING MARCUS L. PLANT* THE SHAPE OF THE LAw GENERALLY It does not require any lengthy exposition to set forth the basic principles relating to the recovery of damages for pain and suffering in personal injury actions in tort. Such damages are a recognized element of the successful plaintiff's award.1 The pain and suffering for which recovery may be had includes that incidental to the injury itself and also 2 such as may be attributable to subsequent surgical or medical treatment. It is not essential that plaintiff specifically allege that he endured pain and suffering as a result of the injuries specified in the pleading, if his injuries stated are of such nature that pain and suffering would normally be a consequence of them.' It would be a rare case, however, in which plaintiff's counsel failed to allege pain and suffering and claim damages therefor. Difficult pleading problems do not seem to be involved. The recovery for pain and suffering is a peculiarly personal element of plaintiff's damages. For this reason it was held in the older cases, in which the husband recovered much of the damages for injury to his wife, that the injured married woman could recover for her own pain and suffering.4 Similarly a minor is permitted to recover for his pain 5 and suffering. No particular amount of pain and suffering or term of duration is required as a basis for recovery. It is only necessary that the sufferer be conscious.6 Accordingly, recovery for pain and suffering is not usually permitted in cases involving instantaneous death." Aside from this, how- ever,.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Evolutionary Approach to Pain Perception in Fishes
    Brown, Culum (2016) Comparative evolutionary approach to pain perception in fishes. Animal Sentience 3(5) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1029 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.011: Brown Commentary on Key on Fish Pain Comparative evolutionary approach to pain perception in fishes Commentary on Key on Fish Pain Culum Brown Biological Sciences Macquarie University Abstract: Arguments against the fact that fish feel pain repeatedly appear even in the face of growing evidence that they do. The standards used to judge pain perception keep moving as the hurdles are repeatedly cleared by novel research findings. There is undoubtedly a vested commercial interest in proving that fish do not feel pain, so the topic has a half-life well past its due date. Key (2016) reiterates previous perspectives on this topic characterised by a black-or-white view that is based on the proposed role of the human cortex in pain perception. I argue that this is incongruent with our understanding of evolutionary processes. Keywords: pain, fishes, behaviour, physiology, nociception Culum Brown [email protected] studies the behavioural ecology of fishes with a special interest in learning and memory. He is Associate Professor of vertebrate evolution at Macquarie University, Co-Editor of the volume Fish Cognition and Behavior, and Editor for Animal Behaviour of the Journal of Fish Biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Myths About the Joint Commission Pain Standards
    T H S Y M Common myths about The Joint Commission pain standards Myth No. 1: The Joint Commission endorses pain as a vital sign. The Joint Commission never endorsed pain as a vital sign. Joint Commission standards never stated that pain needs to be treated like a vital sign. The roots of this misconception go back to 1990 (more than a decade before Joint Commission pain standards were released), when pain experts called for pain to be “made visible.” Some organizations tried to achieve this by making pain a vital sign. The only time the standards referenced the fifth vital sign was when examples were provided of how some organizations were assessing patient pain. In 2002, The Joint Commission addressed the problems of the fifth vital sign concept by describing the unintended consequences of this approach to pain management, and described how organizations subsequently modified their processes. Myth No. 2: The Joint Commission requires pain assessment for all patients. The original pain standards, which were applicable to all accreditation programs, stated “Pain is assessed in all patients.” This requirement was eliminated in 2009 from all programs except Behavioral Health Care. It was The Joint Commission thought that these patients were less able to bring up the fact that they were in pain and, therefore, required a more pain standards aggressive approach. The current Behavioral Health Care standard states, “The organization screens all patients • The hospital educates for physical pain.” The current standard for the hospital and other programs states, “The organization assesses and all licensed independent practitioners on assessing manages the patient’s pain.” This allows organizations to set their own policies regarding which patients should and managing pain.
    [Show full text]
  • Grazing and Browsing Behavior, Grazing Management, Forage Evaluation and Goat Performance: Strategies to Enhance Meat Goat Production in North Carolina
    1 Grazing and Browsing Behavior, Grazing Management, Forage Evaluation and Goat Performance: Strategies to Enhance Meat Goat Production in North Carolina Jean-Marie Luginbuhl, Professor, J. Paul Mueller, Professor and Interim Dean of International Programs, James. T. Green, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Douglas S. Chamblee, Professor Emeritus, and Heather M. Glennon, Meat Goat Program Research Technician and PhD candidate College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University Campus Box 7620, Raleigh NC 27695 ABSTRACT the use of high quality forage and browse and the Goats (Capra hircus hircus) offer an opportunity strategic use of expensive concentrate feeds. This can to more effectively convert pasture nutrients to be achieved by developing a year-round forage animal products as milk, meat and fiber which are program allowing for as much grazing as possible currently marketable and in demand by a growing throughout the year. segment of the US population. With the introduction of the Boer breed and the upgrading of meat-type Some people still believe that goats eat and do goats with Boer genetics, research focusing on well on low quality feed. Attempting to manage and forage evaluation, feeding strategies and the feed goats with such a belief will not lead to development of economical grazing systems was successful meat goat production. On pasture or urgently needed to meet the needs of this emerging rangeland, maximum goat gains or reproduction can industry. The first part of this paper focuses on the be attained by combining access to large quantities of quality forage that allow for selective feeding. description of grazing/browsing behavior of goats and grazing management, and grazing strategies such Goat Brazing/Browsing Behavior as control and strip grazing, differences between Goats are very active foragers, able to cover a control and continuous grazing, forward creep wide area in search of scarce plant materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Do “Prey Species” Hide Their Pain? Implications for Ethical Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
    Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 2 (2020) 216–236 brill.com/jaae Do “Prey Species” Hide Their Pain? Implications for Ethical Care and Use of Laboratory Animals Larry Carbone Independent scholar; 351 Buena Vista Ave #703E, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA [email protected] Abstract Accurate pain evaluation is essential for ethical review of laboratory animal use. Warnings that “prey species hide their pain,” encourage careful accurate pain assess- ment. In this article, I review relevant literature on prey species’ pain manifestation through the lens of the applied ethics of animal welfare oversight. If dogs are the spe- cies whose pain is most reliably diagnosed, I argue that it is not their diet as predator or prey but rather because dogs and humans can develop trusting relationships and because people invest time and effort in canine pain diagnosis. Pain diagnosis for all animals may improve when humans foster a trusting relationship with animals and invest time into multimodal pain evaluations. Where this is not practical, as with large cohorts of laboratory mice, committees must regard with skepticism assurances that animals “appear” pain-free on experiments, requiring thorough literature searches and sophisticated pain assessments during pilot work. Keywords laboratory animal ‒ pain ‒ animal welfare ‒ ethics ‒ animal behavior 1 Introduction As a veterinarian with an interest in laboratory animal pain management, I have read articles and reviewed manuscripts on how to diagnose a mouse in pain. The challenge, some authors warn, is that mice and other “prey species” © LARRY CARBONE, 2020 | doi:10.1163/25889567-bja10001 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded license.
    [Show full text]