Dairy calves are typically fed restricted amounts of milk. Although feed restrictions are predicted to result in negative affective states, the relative aversiveness of ‘hunger’ remains largely unexplored in this species. Here, we investigated whether the conditioned place preference paradigm can be used to explore how calves feel when experiencing different levels of satiation. This paradigm provides insight into what animals remember from past experiences, the assumption being that individuals will prefer places associated with more pleasant or less unpleasant experiences. Sixteen Holstein calves were either fed a restricted (3 L per meal totalling 6 L per day) or ‘enhanced’ milk allowance (ad libitum up to 6 L per meal totalling up to 12 L per day) in their home-pen. Calves were then placed in a conditioning pen for 4 h immediately after being fed their morning meal to allow them to develop an association between the pen and their state of post-prandial satiation. Calves were conditioned across four days with their satiation state alternating between days to allow them to develop an association between pen and satiation levels. On the 5th day, calves were individually allowed to roam freely between the two pens for 30 min. We expected that calves would prefer the pen where they previously experienced higher levels of satiation, but our results show no to limited effects of treatment. However, some methodological issues (colour and side bias) prevent us from drawing strong conclusions. We discuss reasons for these issues and potential solutions to avoid these in future studies.

Human empathy towards non-human animals (Animal Empathy; AE) has shown a strong gender bias, with women demonstrating higher levels than men. This study aimed to investigate the influence of animal experiences on AE in a male-only sample. It was hypothesised that there would be different levels of AE between men with experiences caring for pets, men with experience in animal agriculture, and men with limited animal experiences. Ninety-one Australian men (18yrs+) completed an online survey evaluating their level of AE using the Animal Empathy Scale (AES). Additionally, they were asked what in their experience they think has influenced their beliefs about how animals think and feel. As expected, AE levels differed significantly between groups, with those in the pet ownership experience group demonstrating higher AE levels than the other two groups. All three groups displayed high endorsement for direct interactions with animals in adulthood as being most influential in shaping their beliefs about how animals think and feel. However, our quantitative results support the idea that not all experiences are worth the same, with the responsibility and sacrifice involved in pet caring appearing to be most influential to the development of AE. These findings have implications for the importance of human-animal interactions in understanding animal sentience and the development of AE in males.

Major advancements in ecology and biodiversity conservation have been made thanks to methods for marking and individually tracking animals. Marking animals is both widely used and controversial due to the potential consequences for animal welfare, which are often incompletely evaluated prior to implementation. Two outstanding knowledge gaps concerning the welfare consequences of individual marking are their short-term behavioural impacts and the relative impacts from marking versus the handling of animals while carrying out procedures. We addressed these knowledge gaps through an experimental study of alpine newts (Ichthyosaura alpestris) in which we varied handling and marking procedures. Examining individual responses to handling, toe clipping and visible implant elastomer (VIE) injection over 21 days showed that handling and marking elicited increased newt activity and hesitancy to feed compared to animals that did not get handled or marked. These effects were apparent even when animals were handled only (not marked), and marking did not further increase the magnitude of responses. Increases in newt activity and feeding hesitancy were transient; they were not observed in the weeks following handling and marking. While previous studies emphasise the welfare impacts of marking procedures themselves, these findings highlight that handling alone can elicit behavioural changes with possible costs to welfare. Yet, the transient nature of behavioural responses suggests that immediate costs of handling may be subsequently compensated for in the short term.

Drawing upon data from a study examining experiences of accessing support for pets from the UK animal welfare charity Blue Cross, this paper illuminates reasons why people might not seek support when they need it. This applies to those who are struggling financially and are eligible for, but do not take, free/reduced cost veterinary care, or are having other problems (e.g. the animal’s disruptive behaviour or ill health, struggling to care for the pet due to changing circumstances or health problems, or coping with pet loss). Twenty Blue Cross service users (15 female, five male, age 29–67) took part in individual online interviews using a semi-guided narrative approach, where they were encouraged to share their experiences of reaching out. They were also asked to reflect upon why others may not do the same, and if they had any recommendations for organisations to help them reach these people. Findings echo other studies that highlight a fear of being judged, disclosure and stigma. Guilt, shame, lack of awareness, financial concerns, and wanting to manage independently, all play important roles. These factors have implications for the way support services are advertised and delivered to ensure animals receive the care needed. We describe these reflections and recommendations and identify three broader ideological narratives underpinning participants’ stories: ‘giving back’; ‘equity’, and ‘sacrifice’. These reveal how wider societal attitudes and values shape identities and behaviours. It is vital that support on offer is reframed to explicitly counteract these influences to ensure optimal animal and human welfare.

Tail docking is a husbandry practice widely incorporated in sheep farms around the world. It is an irreversible mutilation that impairs animal welfare, both immediately and in the longer term. The defence of tail docking as a practice is centred around the perception that doing so contributes to the promotion of local hygiene, allowing the use of the wool, facilitating reproductive management and reducing the chances of myiasis, a disease caused by the invasion of blowfly larvae in the tissues of warm-blooded animals. However, current understanding of farm animal welfare questions the need to maintain practices such as tail docking. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of tail docking on the incidence of Cochliomyia hominivorax myiasis in sheep in an experimental flock in Brazil during a six-year retrospective cohort study. Relative risk, odds ratio and incidence rate ratio were the association measures adopted. A total of 4,318 data-points were collected and supplied the analytical model. Tail docking did not decrease the risk and, on the contrary, was found to increase the chances of sheep being affected by myiasis. The results support the hypothesis that tail docking is not a protective factor against the occurrence of myiasis and further fuel calls for a rethink of tail docking being deployed as a blanket measure in the prevention of myiasis in sheep.

Animals under human care are exposed to a potentially large range of both familiar and unfamiliar humans. Human-animal interactions vary across settings, and individuals, with the nature of the interaction being affected by a suite of different intrinsic and extrinsic factors. These interactions can be described as positive, negative or neutral. Across some industries, there has been a move towards the development of technologies to support or replace human interactions with animals. Whilst this has many benefits, there can also be challenges associated with increased technology use. A day-long Animal Welfare Research Network workshop was hosted at Harper Adams University, UK, with the aim of bringing together stakeholders and researchers (n = 38) from the companion, farm and zoo animal fields, to discuss benefits, challenges and limitations of human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions for animals under human care and create a list of future research priorities. The workshop consisted of four talks from experts within these areas, followed by break-out room discussions. This work is the outcome of that workshop. The key recommendations are that approaches to advancing the scientific discipline of machine-animal interactions in animals under human care should focus on: (1) interdisciplinary collaboration; (2) development of validated methods; (3) incorporation of an animal-centred perspective; (4) a focus on promotion of positive animal welfare states (not just avoidance of negative states); and (5) an exploration of ways that machines can support a reduction in the exposure of animals to negative human-animal interactions to reduce negative, and increase positive, experiences for animals.

Human evaluation of animal emotional expressivity can inform animal welfare. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) has been applied to domesticated and some non-domesticated animals, but its use in primates is limited despite their emotional expressivity. We aimed to develop and apply a QBA for bonobos (Pan paniscus) through two consecutive studies. We applied Free Choice Profiling (FCP) and the Fixed List methodology, respectively, in Study 1 and 2, and invited students and bonobo experts to rate video clips of zoo-living bonobos of different sexes and age classes, and before and after moving to a new enclosure. In Study 1, students described dimension 1 as ranging from ‘quiet/calm’ to ‘angry/active’ and dimension 2 from ‘sad/anxious’ to ‘happy/loving’. Experts described dimension 1 ranging from ‘quiet/relaxed’ to ‘nervous/alert’ and dimension 2 from ‘nervous/bored’ to ‘playful/happy’. Using a fixed list of descriptors, informed by findings from Study 1, students in Study 2 described dimension 1 as ranging from ‘quiet/calm’ to ‘agitated/frustrated’, and dimension 2 from ‘sad/stressed’ to ‘happy/positively engaged’. Experts described dimension 1 as ranging from ‘quiet/calm’ to ‘active/excited’, and dimension 2 from ‘sad/bored’ to ‘happy/positively engaged’. Students scored adults as more ‘calm/quiet’ and experts scored subadults as more ‘happy/positively engaged’. Additionally, experts in Study 2 rated bonobos as more ‘active/excited’ in their new enclosure. Reliability was moderate to good for the dimensions. Additionally, animal-directed empathy of observers influenced QBA scores. This is the first time, FCP has been successfully used as a method to study primate emotional expressivity. Our findings show the promise of employing QBA in primate studies and in industry, with validation of additional metrics to enable its use for welfare-monitoring purposes.