The aim of this study was to conduct a series of paper-based exercises in order to assess the negative (adverse) welfare impacts, if any, of common interventions on domestic horses across a broad range of different contexts of equine care and training. An international panel (with professional expertise in psychology, equitation science, veterinary science, education, welfare, equestrian coaching, advocacy, and community engagement; n = 16) met over a four-day period to define and assess these interventions, using an adaptation of the domain-based assessment model. The interventions were considered within 14 contexts: C1 Weaning; C2 Diet; C3 Housing; C4 Foundation training; C5 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly medical); C6 Ill-health and veterinary interventions (chiefly surgical); C7 Elective procedures; C8 Care procedures; C9 Restraint for management procedures; C10 Road transport; C11 Activity—competition; C12 Activity—work; C13 Activity—breeding females; and C14 Activity—breeding males. Scores on a 1–10 scale for Domain 5 (the mental domain) gathered during the workshop were compared with overall impact scores on a 1–10 scale assigned by the same panellists individually before the workshop. The most severe (median and interquartile range, IQR) impacts within each context were identified during the workshop as: C1 abrupt, individual weaning (10 IQR 1); C2 feeding 100% low-energy concentrate (8 IQR 2.5); C3 indoor tie stalls with no social contact (9 IQR 1.5); C4 both (i) dropping horse with ropes (9 IQR 0.5) and forced flexion (9 IQR 0.5); C5 long-term curative medical treatments (8 IQR 3); C6 major deep intracavity surgery (8.5 IQR 1); C7 castration without veterinary supervision (10 IQR 1); C8 both (i) tongue ties (8 IQR 2.5) and (ii) restrictive nosebands (8 IQR 2.5); C9 ear twitch (8 IQR 1); C10 both (i) individual transport (7.00 IQR 1.5) and group transport with unfamiliar companions (7 IQR 1.5); C11 both (i) jumps racing (8 IQR 2.5) and Western performance (8 IQR 1.5); C12 carriage and haulage work (6 IQR 1.5); C13 wet nurse during transition between foals (7.5 IQR 3.75); and C14 teaser horse (7 IQR 8). Associations between pre-workshop and workshop scores were high, but some rankings changed after workshop participation, particularly relating to breeding practices. Domain 1 had the weakest association with Domain 5. The current article discusses the use of the domain-based model in equine welfare assessment, and offers a series of assumptions within each context that future users of the same approach may make when assessing animal welfare under the categories reported here. It also discusses some limitations in the framework that was used to apply the model.

This article introduces the online One Welfare learning and teaching portal (OWP) and describes its development, use, importance and relevance to animal welfare and ethics (AWE) stakeholders. As animal welfare issues increase in importance, veterinarians must be trained to lead the science that underpins AWE discourses. The OWP is a collection of resources designed to engage and challenge veterinary science students as they become advocates for animals. It was developed collaboratively by all eight veterinary schools in Australia and New Zealand, and funded by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Surveys to investigate the attitudes of students and educators to AWE issues in six context-specific themes based on the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS) (companion animals; animals used in research and teaching; livestock/production animals; animals used for sport, recreation or display; animals in the wild and aquatic animals) were administered through all participating schools. Students assigned more importance to Day One competence in knowledge of welfare concepts than did educators for the following groups: production animals, companion animals, animals in the wild, aquatic animals, animals used in research and teaching, and animals used for sport, recreation or display (all p < 0.01). Agreement between educators and students was closer regarding the importance of Day One competence for euthanasia for all six context-specific themes (p < 0.01–0.03). Students assigned more importance than educators to social, economic and cultural drivers of welfare outcomes in production animals (p < 0.01); slaughter and preslaughter inspections in production animals (p < 0.01); animal abuse and hoarding in companion animals (p < 0.01); shelter medicine in companion animals (p < 0.01); disaster preparedness in wildlife animals (p < 0.01); pain and distress caused by fishing in aquatic animals (p < 0.01); conscientious objection related to animals held for research and teaching (p < 0.01); behaviour, selection and training of animals used for sport, recreation and display (p = 0.046) and educating the public around sporting animal welfare (p < 0.01). Agreement between educators and students was closer for strategies to address painful husbandryprocedures in production animals (p = 0.03); behaviour and training of companion animals (p = 0.03); veterinarians’ duties to wild animals in wildlife (p = 0.02); the 3Rs in animals held for research and teaching (p = 0.03) and ownership responsibility in sporting animals (p = 0.01). This report discusses the reasons for differences among students and educators as they approach these issues. The portal is expected to gather more content as veterinary schools in other countries use its resources and users submit scenarios and discussion topics that reflect local needs.

The need for undergraduate teaching of Animal Welfare and Ethics (AWE) in Australian and New Zealand veterinary courses reflects increasing community concerns and expectations about AWE; global pressures regarding food security and sustainability; the demands of veterinary accreditation; and fears that, unless students encounter AWE as part of their formal education, as veterinarians they will be relatively unaware of the discipline of animal welfare science. To address this need we are developing online resources to ensure Australian and New Zealand veterinary graduates have the knowledge, and the research, communication and critical reasoning skills, to fulfill the AWE role demanded of them by contemporary society. To prioritize development of these resources we assembled leaders in the field of AWE education from the eight veterinary schools in Australia and New Zealand and used modified deliberative polling. This paper describes the role of the poll in developing the first shared online curriculum resource for veterinary undergraduate learning and teaching in AWE in Australia and New Zealand. The learning and teaching strategies that ranked highest in the exercise were: scenario-based learning; a quality of animal life assessment tool; the so-called ‘Human Continuum’ discussion platform; and a negotiated curriculum.

The current study was designed to explore the importance that veterinary science educators in Australian and New Zealand universities assign to animal welfare and ethics (AWE) topics as Day One/Initial Competences for new graduates. An online questionnaire was deployed in parallel with an equivalent study of veterinary science students at these educators' schools. Responses were received from 142 educators (51% females n=72 and 49% males n=70), representing an overall participation rate of 25%. Questions were clustered according to seven areas of veterinary employment: general practice, production animals, companion animals, wild animals, aquatic animals, animals kept for scientific purposes, and animals used in sport and recreation. The most highly rated topics for each of these clusters were: professional ethics in general practice, euthanasia in companion animals, strategies to address painful husbandry procedures in production animals, veterinarians' duties to wild animals in animals in the wild, aquatic animal health and welfare issues in aquatic animals; competence in the 3Rs (replacement, refinement and reduction) in animals kept for scientific purposes, and responsibilities of ownership in sport and recreation. Female educators rated many of the topics as significantly more important than did their male counterparts. Educators teaching one or more ethics-related subjects were less likely to rate neutering and euthanasia as important as those not teaching these subjects. The educators' focus on practical issues clashes with a perceived need for veterinarians to actively embrace animal ethics. Overall, the perspectives of these educators should be carefully considered as they are likely to influence student attitudes.

Veterinarians are in a strong position of social influence on animal-related issues. Hence, veterinary schools have an opportunity to raise animal health and welfare standards by improving veterinary students’ animal welfare and ethics (AWE) education, including that related to animals used for scientific purposes. A survey of 818 students in the early, mid, and senior stages of their courses at all eight veterinary schools across Australia and New Zealand was undertaken on their first day of practice (or Day One Competences) to explore how veterinary students viewed the importance of their competence in the management of welfare and ethical decision-making relating to animals kept for scientific purposes. From highest to lowest, the rankings they assigned were: Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) Procedures or Requirements; 3Rs (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction); Humane Endpoints; Euthanasia; “What Is a Research Animal?”; and Conscientious Objections. Female students rated Conscientious Objections, Humane Endpoints, and Euthanasia significantly higher than male students did across the three stages of study. The score patterns for these three variates showed a trend for the male students to be more likely to score these topics as extremely important as they advanced through the course, but female students’ scores tended to decline slightly or stay relatively stable. No gender differences emerged for the three variates: 3Rs (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction); AEC Procedures or Requirements; and “What Is a Research Animal?”. This study demonstrates that understandings of the regulatory and normative frameworks are considered most important in animal welfare and ethics competence in veterinary students. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to investigate what importance veterinary students place on their competence regarding animals kept for scientific purposes.

The merits of students exchanging views through the so-called human continuum exercise (HCE) are well established. The current article describes the creation of the virtual human continuum (VHC), an online platform that facilitates the same teaching exercise. It also reports feedback on the VHC from veterinary science students (n = 38). First-year Doctor of Veterinary Medicine students at the University of Sydney, Australia, trialed the platform and provided feedback. Most students agreed or strongly agreed that the VHC offered: a non-threatening environment for discussing emotive and challenging issues; and an opportunity to see how other people form ideas. It also made them think about how to express their ideas and make arguments; and left them feeling more comfortable about expressing their views using it than they would discussing ideas face-to-face (98%, 84%, 79% and 76%, respectively). All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the VHC encouraged them to consider other opinions. These data suggest that the transition of the HCE to an online platform facilitates dialogue on difficult ethical issues in a supportive environment.