Assessment of an Educational Intervention on the Knowledge and Attitudes of Indian National Veterinarians to Animal Welfare and Euthanasia.

The teaching of animal welfare in Indian veterinary education is limited. Current knowledge and attitudes to animal welfare and euthanasia, and the effect of a targeted educational intervention, were assessed in 84 Indian national and 49 non-Indian veterinarians attending a 2-week training course run by the Worldwide Veterinary Service in Tamil Nadu. A pre-intervention questionnaire, comprising knowledge and attitude questions on animal welfare and ethical issues, was completed. Fifteen students were then retained as a control group. The intervention group was exposed to a predesigned lecture and case studies (day 6). At the end of the course (day 12), another identical questionnaire was completed. Initially, there was no difference in knowledge of the control or intervention groups of Indian participants. Overall knowledge scores were lower in Indian participants compared with non-Indian participants (p < 0.05). Both groups' scores increased after the course (p < 0.05), with the Indian participants improving the most. Indian participants' attitudes were supportive of animal welfare and euthanasia prior to the intervention. Improvements in scores, with some reaching significance (p < 0.05), were observed post-intervention. Non-Indian participants' attitudes were more supportive of animal welfare and euthanasia with strongly agree/strongly disagree chosen more frequently than Indian responses. Both groups' self-assessment of their understanding of these topics improved post-intervention (p < 0.01). No prominent differences were found in questionnaire responses in the control cohort. This study shows that a targeted educational intervention impacts on Indian veterinarians' knowledge and attitudes toward animal welfare and euthanasia, and is relevant to organizations aiming to improve animal welfare standards in India.

Metabolic derangements and reduced survival of bile-extracted Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus).

BACKGROUND: Across China and Southeast Asia, an estimated 17,000 bears are currently farmed for bile, primarily for traditional medicines. Depending on country, bile is extracted daily via transabdominal gallbladder fistulas, indwelling catheters, or needle aspiration. Despite claims that bears do not develop adverse effects from bile extraction, health issues identified in bears removed from bile farms include bile-extraction site infections, abdominal hernias, peritonitis, cholecystitis, hepatic neoplasia, cardiac disease, skeletal abnormalities, and abnormal behaviors. We present a comprehensive assessment of the effects of bile farming by comparing serum biochemical and hematological values of bears from farms that were bile-extracted (BE) and bears from farms not bile-extracted (FNE) with bears from non-farm captive (ZOO) and free-range (FR) environments. We hypothesized BE bears would have significant laboratory abnormalities compared to all non-extracted bear groups. We also hypothesized BE bears would have reduced long-term survival compared to FNE bears despite removal from farms. RESULTS: BE bears exhibited the highest values and greatest variation (on a population level) in laboratory parameters compared to all non-extracted bear groups particularly for alanine transaminase, gamma glutamyltransferase (GGT), total bilirubin (TBIL), alkaline phosphatase (ALKP), blood urea nitrogen, creatinine (CREA), and total white blood cell count. Significant differences were detected between bear groups when accounting for season, sex, and/or age. BE bears exhibited greater mean serum GGT compared to all non-extracted bear groups, and the odds of having elevated TBIL were 7.3 times greater for BE bears, consistent with hepatobiliary disease. Biochemical parameter elevations in BE bears persisted up to 14 years post-rescue, consistent with long-term effects of bile-extraction. BE bears that arrived with elevated CREA and ALKP had median survival times of 1 and 4 years respectively, and regardless of laboratory abnormalities, BE bears had significantly shorter survival times compared to FNE bears. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide strong evidence that bile extraction practices not only represent a temporary constraint for bears' welfare, but confer distinct long-term adverse health consequences. Routine laboratory panels may be insensitive to detect the extent of underlying illness in BE bears as these bears have significantly reduced survival regardless of biochemical assessment compared to FNE bears.

Prioritization of Farm Animal Welfare Issues Using Expert Consensus.

Prioritization of animal welfare issues can help identify which areas most require research funding and raise awareness of best practices. A modified Delphi method was used to obtain expert opinion on the highest priority welfare issues for UK farmed livestock. Fifty-eight UK-based experts were recruited onto the study, with a minimum of 3 years experience of working with either cattle, pigs, poultry, or small ruminants (12-16 experts per group). Experts were chosen to represent a broad range of opinions. Two rounds of surveys were conducted online using Online Survey, and the final round was an in-person workshop with 21 experts. In the first survey, experts were provided with a comprehensive list of species-specific welfare issues derived from the literature. Participants were asked to score each welfare issue, for (i) severity, (ii) duration, and (iii) prevalence on a 6-point Likert scale. The results of the first survey were reviewed and the welfare issues which scored a neutral-to-high response (scores 3-6) were carried forward. In round 2, participants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the rankings that were made from the results of round 1. The final stage of the process was a workshop, which consisted of a combination of group exercises and discussions, to reach the final consensus. Welfare priority lists were divided into two categories: severity/duration, and prevalence, to identify the priority welfare issues affecting individual animals and the population, respectively. Across all farmed species common concerns were inadequate or inappropriate nutrition, inability of stockpeople to recognize or treat welfare issues (such as pain or behavioral problems), lameness, chronic or endemic health issues, euthanasia and mortality and morbidity of neonates. Specific concerns related to behavioral restriction and damaging or abnormal behavior in pigs, poultry and dairy animals, inadequate housing for pigs and poultry, consequences of breeding decisions in pigs and poultry, and lack of access to veterinary care in sheep and beef. This Delphi process resulted in consensus on the most significant welfare challenges faced by UK livestock species and can help to guide future research and education priority decisions.