19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Editorial: Animal Welfare - Volume II: Using Bio-sensing Devices to Assess Farm Animal Welfare

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Animal welfare has become an essential element of modern animal production. First and foremost, animal welfare is grounded on ethical concerns that derive from the fact that farm animals are sentient beings (i.e., they are able to suffer and experience emotions; Le Neindre et al., 2017). Societal concern over the welfare of farm animals has increased recently and a growing number of consumers in many countries now demand that farm animals are reared, transported, and slaughtered as humanely as possible. Improving animal welfare may have additional benefits. For example, since many welfare problems can detrimentally affect production (via impaired appetite, growth, immune responses and reproduction), improving farm animal welfare can have positive effects on the quantity and quality of the final marketed product (Ashley, 2007). Improving animal welfare is also one of the strategies that may contribute to reducing the use of antimicrobials in farm animals (EMA and EFSA, 2017), which will likely benefit human health in the long-term. Developing and validating science-based tools to objectively assess the welfare of farm animals is necessary to identify problems and monitor progress when strategies are being implemented to enhance and assure welfare. Assessment protocols to improve welfare in farm animals are also needed for certification schemes, which have become widespread in many countries. Although several protocols have been developed to assess the welfare of farm animals (e.g., Botreau et al., 2007), these have several limitations. For example, most current methods to assess welfare can identify existing issues but fail to anticipate future welfare problems and hence are not helpful to implement preventative measures. Also, existing protocols are typically based on focal assessments and only provide information for short periods of time. However, the welfare status of animals evolves over time as a dynamic interaction between the animal and its environment, and current assessment protocols do not enable a life-long evaluation of animal welfare. Finally, most of the existing welfare assessment tools are intended to monitor welfare at a group level and limited attention is given to individual animals. This Research Topic includes six studies -one on cattle and five on farmed fish- that show the potential of using biosensors to overcome the limitations of existing animal welfare assessment protocols. In the study on cattle welfare, Palacios et al. use implantable bio-loggers to measure the effect of high grazing density on the circadian rhythms of temperature, heart rate, and activity. This Research Topic provides an example of how individual, continuous measurements can provide information on how animals cope with their environment, and the results suggested that a high stocking density may exacerbate the competition for valuable resources. Three of the farmed fish studies focused on quantifying swimming activity. Arechavala-Lopez et al. placed gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) in swim tunnels to investigate whether observed swimming performance and body movements could be assessed as a welfare index using transmitters measuring acceleration. While these devices did not capture all aspects of seabream activity, they showed promise as an efficient tool for detecting behavioral changes during production. Georgopoulou et al. studied European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in a recirculation aquaculture facility. The movement was recorded using video footage and computer vision methods to extract measures of swimming speed and direction, as well as surface attraction. Their results implied that this method was suitable for detecting both speed and direction, and that these parameters could be useful in monitoring behavioral states in seabass. Stockwell et al. studied large-scale spatial movements, such as distance to the cage center and depth, movement speeds and turning angles in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) using 3D-tracking. This method seemed suitable for monitoring farmed fish, and interestingly the main indicators were susceptible to changes due to both environmental events (e.g., changes in stratification) and cage management practices (e.g., feeding). The other two Research Topics measured heart rate, providing a direct physiological focus, and were both conducted with Atlantic salmon in sea-cages. Warren-Myers et al. set out to explore the utility of heart rate as a parameter for long-term monitoring of fish welfare. Heart rate was found to be a reliable indicator in salmon, as it exhibited variations that were clearly linked to seasonal/diurnal variations and stress-induced elevations during crowding. Gamperl et al. sought to investigate how summer conditions of warm and potentially hypoxic water affected farmed salmon, and used devices that measured heart rate, depth and activity to cover both physiological and behavioral aspects of their responses. These biosensing devices proved useful for monitoring the conditions and states of farmed salmon and revealed that while the data was not significantly impacted by long exposure to high temperatures and moderate hypoxia, it seems that high temperatures in combination with biotic factors may be the most substantial climate-change related challenge in salmon aquaculture. In conclusion, this Research Topic provides a snapshot of how bio-sensing devices are used as research tools for studying farmed animals by observing parameters such as position, acceleration, and heart rate. The articles therein also imply how devices that are commercially available today can be used for individual based welfare monitoring in animal production, potentially leading to future industrial applications. Author Contributions All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication. Conflict of Interest AF was employed by Fundación Oceanografic de la Comunidad Valenciana, Kolmården Wildlife Park, and Global Diving Research SL. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Publisher's Note All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Fish welfare: Current issues in aquaculture

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            EMA and EFSA Joint Scientific Opinion on measures to reduce the need to use antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry in the European Union, and the resulting impacts on food safety ( RONAFA )

            Abstract EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food‐producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non‐prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on‐farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase out most preventive use of antimicrobials and to reduce and refine metaphylaxis by applying recognised alternative measures.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare

              Welfare is multidimensional, comprising good health, comfort, expression of behaviour, and so on. Its overall assessment therefore requires a multicriteria evaluation. The set of criteria shall be exhaustive (no missing item), minimal (only necessary items), agreed by stakeholders, and legible (a limited number of criteria). Furthermore, the interpretation from one criterion shall not depend on that from another. We propose a set of 12 subcriteria grouped into four criteria: feeding, housing, health and optimised emotional states. This work will assist in developing measures to be used on-farm to form a European standard for overall assessment of animal welfare.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Physiol
                Front Physiol
                Front. Physiol.
                Frontiers in Physiology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-042X
                11 February 2022
                2022
                : 13
                : 848955
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Hawai'i Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa , Honolulu, HI, United States
                [2] 2Fundación Oceanografic de la Comunidad Valenciana , Valencia, Spain
                [3] 3Kolmården Wildlife Park , Kolmården, Sweden
                [4] 4Global Diving Research SL , Valencia, Spain
                [5] 5Department of Engineering Cybernetics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology , Trondheim, Norway
                [6] 6School of Veterinary Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona , Barcelona, Spain
                Author notes

                Edited and reviewed by: John D. Imig, Medical College of Wisconsin, United States

                *Correspondence: Xavier Manteca xavier.manteca@ 123456uab.cat

                This article was submitted to Physio-logging, a section of the journal Frontiers in Physiology

                Article
                10.3389/fphys.2022.848955
                8874209
                ebee7bbc-d120-424a-a543-4ed08095cc30
                Copyright © 2022 Brijs, Fahlman, Fore and Manteca.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 05 January 2022
                : 18 January 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 4, Pages: 2, Words: 1398
                Categories
                Physiology
                Editorial

                Anatomy & Physiology
                animal welfare,bio-logging,sensors,precision livestock farming,fish,aquaculture,cattle

                Comments

                Comment on this article