Glucocorticoids in relation to behavior, morphology, and physiology as proxy indicators for the assessment of animal welfare. A systematic mapping review.

Translating theoretical concepts of animal welfare into quantitative assessment protocols is an ongoing challenge. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are frequently used as physiological measure in welfare assessment. The interpretation of levels of GCs and especially their relation to welfare, however, is not as straightforward, questioning the informative power of GCs. The aim of this systematic mapping review was therefore to provide an overview of the relevant literature to identify global patterns in studies using GCs as proxy for the assessment of welfare of vertebrate species. Following a systematic protocol and a-priory inclusion criteria, 509 studies with 517 experiments were selected for data extraction. The outcome of the experiments was categorized based on whether the intervention significantly affected levels of GCs, and whether these effects were accompanied by changes in behavior, morphology and physiology. Additional information, such as animal species, type of intervention, experimental set up and sample type used for GC determination was extracted, as well. Given the broad scope and large variation in included experiments, meta-analyses were not performed, but outcomes are presented to encourage further, in-depth analyses of the data set. The interventions did not consistently lead to changes in GCs with respect to the original authors hypothesis. Changes in GCs were not consistently paralleled by changes in additional assessment parameter on behavior, morphology and physiology. The minority of experiment quantified GCs in less invasive sample matrices compared to blood. Interventions showed a large variability, and species such as fish were underrepresented, especially in the assessment of behavior. The inconclusive effects on GCs and additional assessment parameter urges for further validation of techniques and welfare proxies. Several conceptual and technical challenges need to be met to create standardized and robust welfare assessment protocols and to determine the role of GCs herein.

Importance of Basic Research on the Causes of Feather Pecking in Relation to Welfare.

Feather pecking is a prominent issue in the commercial egg industry, associated with economic losses and welfare problems. A non-systematic literature search suggests that studies on feather pecking are predominantly concerned with applied research goals. That is to say, they aim to solve or diminish the effects of this problematic behavior by orienting towards practical approaches. The strong emphasis on this research approach has skewed our knowledge of the causes of feather pecking in relation to welfare. While the need for such research is high, there is an equivalent need for basic research that has not received corresponding effort. Also, current research predominantly focuses on the negative effects on the birds being pecked, whereas too little attention is given to the possible welfare problems of the peckers. We argue that more basic research is needed for obtaining comprehensive science-based knowledge of behavioral needs and abilities of hens, in particular with respect to behavioral problems that threaten their welfare.

Mutilating Procedures, Management Practices, and Housing Conditions That May Affect the Welfare of Farm Animals: Implications for Welfare Research.

A number of mutilating procedures, such as dehorning in cattle and goats and beak trimming in laying hens, are common in farm animal husbandry systems in an attempt to prevent or solve problems, such as injuries from horns or feather pecking. These procedures and other practices, such as early maternal separation, overcrowding, and barren housing conditions, raise concerns about animal welfare. Efforts to ensure or improve animal welfare involve adapting the animal to its environment, i.e., by selective breeding (e.g., by selecting "robust" animals) adapting the environment to the animal (e.g., by developing social housing systems in which aggressive encounters are reduced to a minimum), or both. We propose adapting the environment to the animals by improving management practices and housing conditions, and by abandoning mutilating procedures. This approach requires the active involvement of all stakeholders: veterinarians and animal scientists, the industrial farming sector, the food processing and supply chain, and consumers of animal-derived products. Although scientific evidence about the welfare effects of current practices in farming such as mutilating procedures, management practices, and housing conditions is steadily growing, the gain in knowledge needs a boost through more scientific research. Considering the huge number of animals whose welfare is affected, all possible effort must be made to improve their welfare as quickly as possible in order to ban welfare-compromising procedures and practices as soon as possible.