Spatial distance and reactivity traits alter the positive perception of brushing by ewes.

Gentle handling seems to elicit positive states in sheep. The study investigated whether spatial distance alters sheep responses to brushing and whether spatial distance is influenced by reactivity. Twenty Romane ewes were assessed in three sessions: in Sessions 1 and 3, one grid separated the test animal from pen mates, with no distance between them, and in Session 2 two grids separated the test animal from pen mates by a distance of about 1.7 m. Ewes had been genetically selected for low (R-) or high (R+) behavioural reactivity to social isolation. Body postures, head orientation, ear postures, closed and half-closed eyes, tail wagging and feeding behaviour, in addition to heart rate (HR) and HR variability, as the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD), standard deviation of all normal-to-normal (NN) intervals (SDNN), RMSSD/SDNN ratio and ratio between low-frequency (LF) and high-frequency (HF) powers (LF/HF) were assessed. Data were analysed using generalized linear models and linear mixed models. Session, genetic line and phase (pre-, brushing and post-brushing) were considered fixed effects. Increased distance in Session 2 might not have influenced ewes' responses. Fewer changes in ear postures were noted in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01), suggesting that ewes were more relaxed in Session 3. The RMSSD/SDNN ratio was higher mainly during brushing in Sessions 1 and 3 (P<0.05), indicating that ewes were more relaxed during brushing, and at no distance between pen mates. However, spatial distance influenced R- and R+ ewes' responses; R+ ewes performed more asymmetric ear postures in Session 2 than 1 and 3 (P<0.01), and in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01), indicating that spatial distance had a negative effect on R+ ewes. Low reactive ewes spent less time on horizontal ear postures in Session 2 than 1 and 3 (P<0.01), and R+ ewes spent more time on horizontal postures in Session 1 than 3 (P<0.01). Curiously, R- ewes spent more time eating and ruminating in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01), and in Session 2 than 1 and 3 (P<0.01), whereas R+ ewes ate and ruminated more in Session 1 than 3 (P<0.05). Higher HR was found among R- ewes in Session 2 than 1 and 3, and in Session 3 than 1 (P<0.01). High reactive ewes showed higher HR in Session 1 than 3 (P<0.01). The findings suggest that the social context might influence sheep responses to gentle handling, and the effects depend on their reactivity traits.

Percepção de equipes laboratoriais quanto a questões de bem-estar animal / Perception of laboratory staff regarding animal welfare issues

As equipes laboratoriais controlam diversas características do ambiente dos animais utilizados em pesquisas. Portanto, suas atitudes têm grande influência no bem-estar animal (BEA) e nos resultados obtidos. Buscou-se verificar o conhecimento e a percepção dessas equipes em relação a questões de BEA. Os dados foram coletados por meio de um questionário online composto por 22 questões abertas e 23 fechadas. As respostas são referentes a 62 participantes de diversas instituições de pesquisa brasileiras. Dezesseis (25,8%) não receberam treinamento para exercer suas funções, e 11 (18,0%) realizavam ou coordenavam procedimentos com potencial para causar dor ou morte. O principal fator limitante relatado para o uso de animais em pesquisas foi referente a questões éticas (38; 63,3%). Todos declararam conhecer o significado do termo BEA; porém, a maioria dos conceitos expressos foi de forma parcial (32; 64,0%). Tais resultados podem estar relacionados ao caráter optativo ou à indisponibilidade do ensino de BEA na maioria dos cursos de graduação no Brasil. Os animais vertebrados foram percebidos pelos respondentes como portadores de alto grau de senciência. Espécies em contato social e afetivo com os seres humanos foram vistas como mais sencientes que outros grupos. O número de respondentes interessados em um projeto de enriquecimento ambiental (34; 69,4%) sugere preocupação com o BEA. Os resultados apresentados podem subsidiar a localização de pontos críticos de BEA em laboratórios brasileiros e indicam possibilidades para melhoria no conhecimento científico de questões centrais relativas ao BEA.

Laboratory staff controls a series of environmental parameters affecting animals used in research. Therefore, staff attitudes influence both animal welfare (AW) and research results. This study aimed to verify the knowledge and perception of staff members on AW. Data were collected through a 22 open-question and 23 multiple-choice question online survey. 62 respondents from Brazilian institutions answered the survey. Sixteen (25.8%) participants did not receive training for their functions, from which 11 (18.0%) performed or coordinated procedures that may induce pain or death. The main limiting factor for the use of animals in research was ethical issues (38, 63.3%). All participants reported to know the meaning of AW, but most of the concepts given were partial (32, 64.0%). These results may be related to the unavailable or optional teaching of AW in most undergraduate courses in Brazil. Vertebrates were perceived by respondents as highly sentient. Species with a social and affective bond with human beings were seen as more sentient than other groups. There was interest in an environmental enrichment project (34, 69.4%) suggesting concern with AW. These results can collaborate in the identification of critical issues in AW in Brazilian laboratories and indicate opportunities to improve scientific knowledge of key issues related to AW.