Donald M Broom
Donald M. Broom Emeritus Professor of Animal Welfare, Cambridge University, Department of Veterinary Medicine. In his Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology, he has developed concepts and methods of scientific assessment of animal welfare and studied: cognitive abilities of animals, the welfare of farmed and other animals in relation to housing and transport, behaviour problems of pets, sustainable livestock production, attitudes to animals and ethics of animal usage. He has published over 360 refereed papers, lectured on animal welfare in 45 countries and served on UK (FAWC and APC) and Council of Europe committees. He has been Chairman or Vice Chairman of EU Scientific Committees on Animal Welfare 1990 – 2009 and a member of the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare until June 2012. He chaired the O.I.E. group on Welfare of Animals during Land Transport. Amongst his twelve books are Stress and Animal Welfare (Broom and Johnson 1993, Springer), Coping with Challenge : Welfare in Animals including Humans (Broom ed. 2001, Berlin: Dahlem University Press, The Evolution of Morality and Religion (2003, Cambridge University Press), Sentience and Animal Welfare, 2014 CABI, Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 5th edition, (Broom and Fraser 2015, CABI) and Tourism and Animal Welfare (Carr and Broom 2018, CABI).
less
Uploads
Motivation and behaviour development by Donald M Broom
Environmental enrichment modifies causal factors and reduces the occurrence of stereotypies, providing evidence that stereotypies are an indicator of poor welfare. However, stereotypy occurrence and
consequences change over time. Furthermore, there are complex direct and epigenetic effects when mother mammals that are kept in negative conditions do or do not show stereotypies. It is proposed that, when trying to deal with challenging situations, stereotypies might initially help animals to cope.
After further time in the conditions, the performance of the stereotypy may impair brain function and change brain connections, neurophysiology and eventually neuroanatomy. It is possible that reported neuroanatomical changes are an effect of the stereotypy rather than a cause.
Social behaviour, brain funct, behaviour general by Donald M Broom
Environmental enrichment modifies causal factors and reduces the occurrence of stereotypies, providing evidence that stereotypies are an indicator of poor welfare. However, stereotypy occurrence and
consequences change over time. Furthermore, there are complex direct and epigenetic effects when mother mammals that are kept in negative conditions do or do not show stereotypies. It is proposed that, when trying to deal with challenging situations, stereotypies might initially help animals to cope.
After further time in the conditions, the performance of the stereotypy may impair brain function and change brain connections, neurophysiology and eventually neuroanatomy. It is possible that reported neuroanatomical changes are an effect of the stereotypy rather than a cause.
One welfare, one health, one stress, humans and other animals,
Adaptation, regulation, sentience and brain control,
Limits to adaptation,
Stress and welfare: history and usage of concepts,
Assessing welfare: short-term responses,
Assessing welfare: long-term responses,
Preference studies and welfare,
Ethics: considering world issues,
Stress and welfare in the world.
Broiler chickens must be genetically selected for stronger legs and slower growth. Stocking density must be limited and methods of enriching the environment in adequately illuminated conditions should be used.
• Ethical questions include the welfare of animals and other sustainability issues.
• Whether or not nonhuman animals are thought of as being moral agents, they can be the subject of moral actions and so have moral value.
• Some of the qualities required to show moral behavior are also aspects of sentience.
• The concept of sentience has close parallels with those of psyche and soul.
• Contrary to the teachings of some religions, humans are animals, are similar to other animals and are not “special” in the sense of being more important.
• Modern doctrinal religions are a development of having a sophisticated moral code and are a structure to support it.
• All modern doctrinal religions have a moral code with a list of things to do or not do as a central aspect.
• Widespread empathy can be the basis for the concept of a spirit linking all sentient beings.
• We all have obligations, and we should describe the obligations of the actor rather than the rights of the actor. Arguments based on rights or on freedoms to act have sometimes been useful but can cause problems.
• Arguments that religion is a bad thing and that God is a delusion (Dawkins 2008) involve a misunderstanding of how natural selection has acted and are damaging to human societies.
In general, our laws prohibit treatment of animals that causes pain or other poor welfare. However, there are exceptions in laws for reasons of tradition, financial cost, gastronomic preference, convenience in management or breeding, or avoidance of other problems. Some activities that harm animals are considered to be “sport”. For example the bull pierced by numerous lances in the corrida, the deer chased by dogs and by humans on horseback, or the dog or cock forced to fight. These “sports” have entirely negative effects for the animal. Another example is the animal killed during shechita or halal slaughter without prior stunning. The justifications for this are: tradition, edict from an interpretation of a holy book, and the mistaken belief that blood in a carcass is in some way unclean.
Evidence from welfare assessment studies shows that: cutting the throat without prior stunning causes up to two minutes of extreme pain. Castration, disbudding, or beak-trimming, without anaesthetic or analgesic causes pain for many hours, and often leads to more prolonged pain because of neuroma formation. Tail removal prevents normal defence against flies in cattle and social signalling in pigs and dogs. Tail-biting by pigs and injurious behaviour by hens can be prevented by giving the animals manipulable materials and more space. This costs more but the painful procedures can be avoided. Foie-gras production necessitates confined rearing conditions, aversive force-feeding and failure of the detoxifying function of the liver so that death would result soon after the normal killing time. Caponising is a major operation that is painful and the wounds take some days to cease to cause pain. In all these cases, the main beneficiary is human and the cost is borne by the animal.
the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation
was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in
some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains,
Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical
positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that
extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal
welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly.
Broilers: Firstly, that genetic selection of broilers should change so that serious welfare problems associated with leg disorders and ascites are substantially reduced. It was considered that this would necessitate selection for slower growth. Secondly, that stocking density should be limited to 30 kg per square m. in well-controlled environments and to lower stocking densities in less well-controlled environments. Environmental enrichment and measures to stimulate locomotion should be encouraged.
welfare, where it is currently lacking, above and beyond minimum legislation and guidelines. Our review of the
current literature shows that recently there have been positive forward strides in marine mammal welfare assessment, but fundamental research is still required to validate positive and negative indicators of welfare in
marine mammals. Across all marine mammals, more research is required on the dimensions and complexity of pools and land areas necessary for optimal welfare, and the impact of staff absence for most of the 24-h day, as standard working hours are usually between 0900 and 1700. Behavioural Processes, 156, 16-36. doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.09.011
the welfare may be only slightly affected before the animal dies, or it may be very poor indeed.
A conclusion from the rather widespread poor welfare in zoos is, firstly that the welfare of some animals is too poor in zoos to justify keeping them and secondly, that zoos should keep other animals only when the negative aspect of rather poor welfare is adequately counterbalanced by the positive value of zoos. In my opinion, the major value of zoos is in education. People who experience animals in zoos, especially in good conditions, are more likely to care about animals including their conservation. The major impact of zoos on conservation is via education. The direct impact of zoos on conservation in the wild is negligible for most species. In only a few species has the wild population been affected by zoo breeding. Breeding is better done in specialist places with no public access. A further positive aspect of zoos is that they have therapeutic benefits for people who feel better because of contact with the animals.
reproductive failure, both indicative of quite severe welfare problems, is not sufficiently
documented. Some housing and management practices are less detrimental than others,
nonetheless, the evidence suggests that the welfare of farmed foxes is poor.
based on scientific information has been developed and shows that the best beef production systems are much more sustainable than the worst.
In future, consumers choosing efficient usage of world resources and avoiding causing harms will change food production. Likely changes include: increased plant food consumption; avoidance of some plant production methods; increased use of animals consuming leaves; greater use of plants producing high protein leaves; more mixed herb, shrub, and tree systems; less feeding of grain to farmed animals; more use of human food waste to feed farmed animals after treatment to avoid disease; more use of herbivorous fish, insects and mammals; and more cell-cultured meat.
Some actions that improve animal welfare may also have positive environmental effects and each aspect can be measured. If straw from cereal production is burned, carbon dioxide is released but if it is used as bedding or for manipulation welfare is improved and the greenhouse gas effect is reduced. Taking wild animals to keep as pets leads to poor welfare and wild populations are reduced. Stray dogs have a negative impact on the populations and welfare of some wild animals and dog welfare is often poor because of disease and malnutrition so humanely killing the dogs can prevent poor welfare and benefit conservation. The land-sparing argument, encouraging intensive animal production so more land is available for nature reserves, would favour feedlots for beef production but the welfare of the cattle in feedlots is often poor and water usage is high. However, semi-intensive silvopastoral systems are also very efficient. The presence of shrubs and trees greatly increases biodiversity, reduces greenhouse gas production per unit of production, reduces conserved water usage and improves welfare.
Conserving land for hunting wild animals increases biodiversity but the hunting usually causes poor welfare. Where endangered species cannot adapt well to captive conditions, captive breeding might preserve the species but the welfare of the animals is poor. When a system is being evaluated, each of the many components of sustainability should be measured precisely: welfare, biodiversity, worker satisfaction, water use, greenhouse gas production and harmful accumulation of pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus. Decision-making may involve developing units for comparison of each positive and negative consequence or considering any negative that is so great that no counter-balancing would ever be acceptable to the public.
Animal welfare is a component of sustainability and good quality of product. The welfare of an individual is its state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment. Animal welfare has been developing rapidly as a scientific discipline. Three-level plant production, including pasture and nitrogen-fixing shrubs and trees with edible leaves are an example of a silvopastoral system. The production of leaves and other material that can be eaten by the animals is much greater than can be achieved by pasture-only systems. Tree leaves are of great value during dry periods when pasture is not productive. Results in tropical and sub-tropical areas show that in semi-intensive three-level silvopastoral systems, production of cattle and other animals can be better, soil structure and water-holding capacity much improved, biodiversity and predators of disease-causing animals much increased and animal disease reduced. The increase in food, water, habitat choice, shade, and quality of social interactions, and the reduction in disease, result in substantial improvements in animal welfare. Industry should be proactive and rapidly change policies relating to animal welfare and other aspects of sustainability.
Concepts referring to humans and other animals
Regulation and sentience
EU legislation and other policies affecting animal welfare
Scientific information used in formulation of laws
The World Trade Organisation dispute about trade in seal products
Actions on animal welfare by other world organisations
suggest that impacts on wild populations would be greatly reduced through boosting yields on existing farmland so as to spare
remaining natural habitats. High-yield farming raises other concerns because expressed per unit area it can generate high
levels of externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient losses. However, such metrics underestimate the overall
impacts of lower-yield systems. Here we develop a framework that instead compares externality and land costs per unit production.
We apply this framework to diverse data sets that describe the externalities of four major farm sectors and reveal that,
rather than involving trade-offs, the externality and land costs of alternative production systems can covary positively: per unit
production, land-efficient systems often produce lower externalities. For greenhouse gas emissions, these associations become
more strongly positive once forgone sequestration is included. Our conclusions are limited: remarkably few studies report
externalities alongside yields; many important externalities and farming systems are inadequately measured; and realizing the
environmental benefits of high-yield systems typically requires additional measures to limit farmland expansion. Nevertheless,
our results suggest that trade-offs among key cost metrics are not as ubiquitous as sometimes perceived.
Rev. Bras. Zootec., 46, 683-688. doi.org/10.1590/S1806-92902017000800009
should be taken into account at an early stage in any biotechnology research.
2. One of the possible consequences of the use of GM products or GM animals is on
animal welfare. Many different systems for coping with the environment should be
considered when assessing welfare. These systems interact, and health is an important
part of welfare in such assessments.
3. A checklist for animal welfare should take account of current scientific knowledge
about assessing animal welfare and should be further developed for general cage-side
use in the case of GM animals.
4. When sold, every GM product for use with animals should have details of properly
tested effects on animal welfare.
Sena Brunel, H.S., Dallago, B.S.L., Bezerra de Almeida, A.M., Zorzan de Assis, A., Calzada, R.J.B., Brasileiro de Alvarenga, A.B., Menezes, A.M., Barbosa, J.P., Lopes, P.R., González, F.H.D., McManus C., Broom, D.M. and Bernal, F.E.M.
cephalopods and crustaceans, have the capacity for nociception and pain, and that their welfare should be taken
into consideration. Some sceptics, rejecting the precautionary principle, have denied that any study
demonstrates pain or other aspects of sentience in fish. This target article discusses some of the scientific
shortcomings of these critiques through a detailed analysis of a study exploring nociception and analgesia in larval zebrafish.
Sneddon, L.U., Lopez-Luna, J., Wolfenden, D.C.C., Leach, M.C., Valentim, A.M. Steenbergen, P.J., Bardine, N., Currie, A.D., Broom, D.M. and Brown, C.
of their lifecycle. We have reviewed methods used for producing salmon for food with the aim of identifying and drawing attention
to factors likely to affect farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) welfare. In addition to water conditions and high stocking density at
sea, other issues are important for fish welfare. Handling and transport of salmon between fresh- and seawater phases and before
slaughter can have severe negative effects and research should continue to seek improved methods. Stocking densities in fresh- or
seawater have substantial effects on the welfare of salmon and a reduction in densities should be considered in order to reduce fin
damage in particular. Currently used feeding systems result in starvation for some fish and fin damage for others, hence new systems
should be developed. Some on-demand feeding systems improve welfare. All farmed fish should be stunned prior to slaughter, not
left to die of asphyxia. Carbon dioxide and electrical stunning methods do not always stun salmon humanely. The widely used methods
of percussive stunning, manual or automatic, must be precise to effectively stun large numbers of fish. Welfare outcome indicators,
such as fin damage, morbidity and mortality rate, should be used in standards and laws relating to salmon welfare.
Santurtun, E., Broom, D.M. and Phillips, C.J.C. 2018
which animals are sentient, which animals have feelings such as pain and which animals
should be protected. 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 risk, to have some feelings and to have some degree of awareness. These abilities can be taken
into account when evaluating welfare. There is evidence from some species of fish, cephalopods and
decapod crustaceans of substantial perceptual ability, pain and adrenal systems, emotional
responses, long- and short-term memory, complex cognition, individual differences, deception, tool
use, and social learning. The case for protecting these animals would appear to be substantial. A
range of causes of poor welfare in farmed aquatic animals is summarised.reverence than an inanimate object because living organisms are qualitatively different from inanimate objects in complexity, potential and aesthetic quality. This can affect decisions about whether to kill the organism and whether to conserve such organisms. As a consequence of their ability to respond and behave, we consider that we have more obligations to an animal than to a microorganism or plant. We feel concerned about their welfare, especially in the case of the more complex animals (Broom 2003). Which kinds of animal deserve such consideration? Concern for animal welfare is increasing rapidly and is a significant factor affecting whether or not animal products are bought. If a product is perceived to have adverse effects on human health, animal welfare or the environment, sales can slump dramatically (Bennett 1994). The more valuable the product, the richer the consumers and the more likely they are to decide not to buy a product on grounds such as the poor welfare of fish (Broom 1994). The fish-farming industry cannot afford to ignore fish welfare when bad publicity about it could affect sales greatly (Broom 1999). Our knowledge of the functioning of the brain and nervous system and of animal welfare has advanced rapidly in recent years (Broom & Johnson 2000, Broom & Zanella 2004). New knowledge has tended to show that the abilities and functioning of non-human animals are more complex than had previously been assumed, so it is my opinion that some re-appraisal of the threshold levels for protection is needed. Proposals for change have been made by the EFSA Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (2005). ABSTRACT: It is of scientific and practical interest to consider the levels of cognitive ability in animals , which animals are sentient, which animals have feelings such as pain and which animals should be protected. 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 risk, to have some feelings and to have some degree of awareness. These abilities can be taken into account when evaluating welfare. There is evidence from some species of fish, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans of substantial perceptual ability, pain and adrenal systems, emotional responses, long-and short-term memory, complex cognition, individual differences, deception, tool use, and social learning. The case for protecting these animals would appear to be substantial. A range of causes of poor welfare in farmed aquatic animals is summarised.
accurate comparisons with data gathered previously. Additionally, the ability to gauge an animal’s awareness and its response(s) to various visual optotypes in its macro-environment will enable us to design livestock housing, handling and transport facilities that promote animal welfare.
‘Tales from the front line’ is the section of the book that provides the reader with the views and experiences of animal welfare organisations, individual leaders, tourism industry organisations and operators, and academic experts. These case studies and opinion pieces will encourage the reader to consider their own position regarding animals in tourism and their welfare.
The concept of welfare is of key importance in our lives and in that of other animals. Hence the concept and its history are explained and the rapid developments in animal welfare science chronicled. How the methodology is being related to legislation and codes of practice is discussed. Animal welfare is a part of the sustainability of systems in which we use or have an effect on animals. The increase in the power of consumers in dictating to retail companies, production companies and governments is emphasised. Other matters discussed include the welfare of whales, animal welfare and the World Trade Organisation action on seal products, welfare aspects of the use of genetically modified and cloned animals and ethical decisions about human sentience and animal protection.