Zoos are required to maintain a high standard of animal welfare, and this can be assessed using a combination of resource-based and animal-based indices usually divided into behavioural indicators, physiological indicators and clinical/pathological signs. Modern animal welfare assessments should aim to encompass positive affective states and the indicators that are useful in assessing these are discussed. When developing factors to be scored for each species, there is huge variability in the available information about the natural biology for some zoo species and even less information concerning those animals in captivity. Wild baselines are not always the most accurate indicator of what is right for an animal in captivity, which makes the identification of factors to include within species-specific welfare assessment even more challenging. When planning a welfare strategy for any species, it is important that the full range of their biological requirements and needs are considered, but this can be challenging for some zoo species and it is not possible to define a “one size fits all” welfare strategy. The different approaches for welfare assessment are reviewed, including the development of the Animal Welfare Assessment Grid which offers an evidence-based tool for continual welfare assessment, using technology where appropriate, to facilitate decision making and lead to improvements in the animals’ quality of life.

Male animals of many species use conspicuous coloration to attract mates. Among mammals, primates possess the most brilliant secondary sexual coloration. However, whether colour plays a part in primate female mate choice remains unknown. Adult male rhesus macaques undergo a hormonally regulated increased reddening of facial and anogenital skin during their mating season. We experimentally investigated whether red male facial coloration is preferred by simultaneously presenting female rhesus macaques (n = 6) with computer-manipulated pale and red versions of 24 different male faces. The duration and direction of gaze were measured to discern visual preferences. Females exhibited preferences for the red versions of male faces. It is proposed that male coloration might provide a cue to male quality.

Preface: Whenever animals are used in research, minimizing pain and distress and promoting good welfare should be as important an objective as achieving the experimental results. This is important for humanitarian reasons, for good science, for economic reasons and in order to satisfy the broad legal principles in international legislation. It is possible to refine both husbandry and procedures to minimize suffering and improve welfare in a number of ways, and this can be greatly facilitated by ensuring that up-to-date information is readily available. The need to provide such information led the British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation (BVAAWF), the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME), the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) to establish a Joint Working Group on Refinement (JWGR) in the UK. The chair is Professor David Morton and the secretariat is provided by the RSPCA. This report is the ninth in the JWGR series. The RSPCA is opposed to the use of animals in experiments that cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm and together with FRAME has particular concerns about the continued use of non-human primates. The replacement of primate experiments is a primary goal for the RSPCA and FRAME. However, both organizations share with others in the Working Group, the common aim of replacing primate experiments wherever possible, reducing suffering and improving welfare while primate use continues. The reports of the refinement workshops are intended to help achieve these aims. This report produced by the British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation (BVAAWF)/Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME)/Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)/Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) Joint Working Group on Refinement (JWGR) sets out practical guidance on refining the husbandry and care of non-human primates (hereinafter primates) and on minimizing the adverse effects of some common procedures. It provides a valuable resource to help understand the physical, social and behavioural characteristics and needs of individual primates, and is intended to develop and complement the existing literature and legislative guidelines. Topics covered include refinements in housing, husbandry and common procedures such as restraint, identification and sampling, with comprehensive advice on issues such as primate communication, assessing and facilitating primate wellbeing, establishing and maintaining social groups, environmental and nutritional enrichment and animal passports. The most commonly used species are the key focus of this resource, but its information and recommendations are generally applicable to other species, provided that relevant individual species characteristics are taken into account.

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.

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Combining a range of assessment parameters into one usable entity has been identified as an important goal in providing a practical, objective and robust assessment of welfare, particularly in laboratory animals. This paper refines and extends one such previously published method. The proposed Extended Welfare Assessment Grid provides for the incorporation of changes in the state of an animal over time, allowing for predictive, retrospective, scheduled, or event monitoring. It enables the numeric, as well as visual, representation of the animal's welfare, placing this in the context of the careful and realistic justification for experimental use of the animal. This assessment method represents a valuable tool for those tasked with ensuring ethical oversight, as well as for those planning the use, or monitoring, of animals in research. It is particularly applicable to animals used in long-term studies, especially non-human primates. It is believed that this system will draw attention to the temporal component of suffering that is often overlooked in the planning of research schedules and allow an assessment of cumulative suffering imposed by the events that occur.