New Zealand's inclusive science-based system for setting animal welfare standards

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329 www.elsevier.com/locate/applanim

New Zealand’s inclusive science-based system for setting animal welfare standards David J. Mellor a,b,*, Angus Campbell David Bayvel c a

Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North, New Zealand b Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North, New Zealand c Animal Welfare Group, Biosecurity New Zealand, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, PO Box 2526, Wellington, New Zealand Available online 20 February 2008

Abstract Inclusiveness and science were, and are, essential contributors to the development and operation of New Zealand’s current system for managing animal welfare at a national level. The involvement of individuals and groups with diverse interests, having aligned, complementary or opposing views, is considered to be a most important part of this process. Participants include animal behaviour, production, welfare and wildlife scientists, animal welfare advocates, educators, ethicists, veterinarians, primary industry stakeholders, regulators, lay people and others. The outcome, after 25 years of activity, has been an integrated and comprehensive animal welfare management infrastructure. Legislative and regulatory initiatives established a national advisory committee and related animal ethics committee system for managing the scientific use of animals, as well as a similar national advisory committee for dealing with welfare matters relevant to all other animal uses in New Zealand. The responsible use of animals in science is critically evaluated by a cooperative Australian and New Zealand council, and, within New Zealand, two animal welfare consultative and liaison groups with diverse membership, one including politicians, have enhanced communication about wider animal-related matters. Building on substantial prior experience in animal-based sciences, marked increases in research, scholarly and educational activities in animal behaviour, health and welfare sciences were fostered through the establishment of dedicated research groups and centres, leadership positions and tertiary-level courses, supported by institutional, governmental, industry-related and other funding. The quality, depth and breadth of the research and scholarship so generated, and extensive mutually beneficial interactions internationally have provided, and provide a

* Corresponding author at: Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, IFNHH, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Tel.: +64 6 350 4807; fax: +64 6 350 5657. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.J. Mellor). 0168-1591/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.010

314

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

secure foundation for formulating animal welfare policies and framing credible animal welfare standards that are applied nationally. # 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Animal behaviour; Animal welfare; Codes; Policy; Science; Standards; New Zealand

1. Introduction Inclusiveness and science have been, and remain, essential features underpinning the development and operation of New Zealand’s current system for managing animal welfare at a national level (Mellor and Bayvel, 2004). These have been supported by the adoption of a credible practical strategy for progressing positive animal welfare developments, namely, a demonstrable commitment to incremental improvement towards defined and reachable higher standards. This strategy allows some immediate progress, the scheduling of further improvements in the future, sustained stakeholder involvement in the process and time for more complex issues to be analysed and resolved (Mellor and Stafford, 2001). The contrasting approach, often advocated by more extreme animal rights groups, of demanding immediate compliance with what at the time are unreachably high standards has the opposite effects (Mellor and Stafford, 2001). Our New Zealand experience of the management of incremental animal welfare change during the last 25 years is therefore used here to highlight the key roles played by inclusive participation and science in New Zealand’s system for setting national animal welfare standards. 2. Regulatory, institutional and other major animal welfare developments These developments, summarised in Table 1, occurred mainly during the last 25 years. They were instigated by a number of forward-looking individuals who recognised the value of having animal welfare well managed and regulated at a national level and who displayed the resolve to see that vision realised. Encouraging the participation of individuals and groups with diverse interests, who had aligned complementary or opposing views, was considered to be a most important part of the process. The current animal welfare regulatory system in New Zealand has its roots in the Animals Protection Act 1960, which took a traditionally reactive and punitive approach of focusing primarily on neglect, ill-treatment and cruelty. Subsequent developments reflected major changes in our knowledge about animals, largely due to scientific investigation and marked changes in our views about what are acceptable and unacceptable ways of using animals for human purposes (Table 2; Mellor et al., 1998; Fraser, 2003; Mellor and Bayvel, 2004). By the early 1990s, our duty to care for animals proactively, and not merely to avoid neglect, ill-treatment and cruelty, was being emphasised strongly and became an important feature of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Primary regulatory responsibility for animal welfare in New Zealand rests with one Ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), and one government minister, the Minister of Agriculture, who is advised by two independent advisory committees and Ministry officials. The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) deals with the scientific use of animals and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) deals with welfare-related matters relevant to all other animal uses in New Zealand.

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

315

Table 1 Regulatory, institutional and other major animal welfare developments in New Zealand (updated from Mellor and Bayvel, 2004) Major event or development

Date

Relevance to animal welfare

Animals Protection Act

1960

Regulation of research, teaching and testing discussed

Early 1980s

National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC)

1983 and 1987

Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) a

1989

Animal Welfare Science Research Group established in Veterinary Science Faculty at Massey University

1990

Animal Behaviour and Welfare Research Centre (ABWRC) established at AgResearch (Hamilton)

1991

Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) established by extension of the previous Australian Council (ACCART)

1993

Chair in Animal Welfare Science established in the Veterinary Science Faculty at Massey University

1994

Animal Behaviour and Welfare Consultative Committee (ABWCC) established

1994

Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre (AWSBC) established at Massey University

1998

Animal Welfare Act

1999

Mainly concerned with defining, identifying and punishing acts of neglect, ill-treatment and cruelty. Traditionally reactive and punitive in character A code of ethical conduct and Animal Ethics Committee system developed by scientists and others via a Royal Society of New Zealand, university and research institute initiative Established by Animals Protection Act amendments, NAEAC to advise the Minister of Agriculture on all matters related to the management of research, teaching and testing in NZ Established by an Animals Protection Act amendment, AWAC to advise the Minster of Agriculture on all animal welfare matters apart from those handled by NAEAC and to prepare voluntary animal welfare codes Drew together animal behaviour, husbandry, physiology and veterinary scientists providing an impetus to the faculty’s then burgeoning Animal Welfare Science Research and educational activities As the first discrete NZ physical Centre, it attracted high quality animal behaviour scientists, strengthening NZ ethological research and providing strong behavioural perspectives to animal welfare assessments As a sub-committee of the Royal Society of New Zealand, this trans-Tasman Council promotes excellence in the care of the animals used in science, seeks to maximise the benefits of such use, and promotes informed and responsible discussion and debate on the issues raised by such animal use The first in the southern hemisphere, the initial funding of this Chair by AGMARDT indicated a growing recognition within livestock industries of the strategic significance of animal welfare for NZ’s continuing export success b A national animal welfare liaison group which meets twice each year: includes representatives of animal welfare organisations, the national veterinary association, animal welfare scientists and other researchers, educators, primary industry groups, companion animal groups, zoos, research funding authorities, regulators, various ministries, and others The AWSBC reflects the University’s strong commitment to Animal Welfare Science research and education, and to its nationally and internationally recognised contributions at the science–bioethics interface Takes a proactive approach, requiring among other things, that the physical, health and behavioural needs of animals be met; that the codes of Ethical Conduct and Animal Ethics Committee system, together with NAEAC, continue; and that codes of welfare containing minimum standards that have legal force and recommendations for best practice be developed by NAWAC

316

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

Table 1 (Continued ) Major event or development

Date

Relevance to animal welfare

All-Party Animal Welfare Liaison Group

2001– 2006

Bioethics Council (Toi te Taiao) established

2002

Creation of a Personal Chair of Veterinary Ethology in the Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences at Massey University Chair of Animal Welfare established in the School of Natural Science at UNITEC Institute of Technology

2003

A group, that met annually, set up to enable Members of Parliament from all political parties to discuss unfamiliar new animal welfare developments arising from the Animal Welfare Act 1999, with representatives of ANZCCART, NZ Federated Farmers, the NZ Veterinary Association and the Royal (NZ) Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Recommended by the Royal Commission on genetic modification, and reporting to the Minister of the Environment, its purposes are to enhance understanding of the cultural, ethical and spiritual aspects of biotechnology in NZ and to ensure that the use of biotechnology has regard for New Zealanders’ values The incumbent provides practical, clinical and ethological perspectives that enhance animal welfare research and education

New Zealand Three Rs Programme established in the Animal Welfare Science Bioethics Centre at Massey University

2006

2005

Recognising increasing interest in animal health and welfare education, this appointment provides leadership in UNITEC’s tertiary qualifications and research activities in this area A joint venture between Massey University and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, this programme builds on long-standing NZ Three Rs contributions, especially in teaching, low-invasive animal-based methods, and alternatives to animal-based marine biotoxin assays. It is designed to stimulate further Three Rs developments nationally

a

Originally the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), the Animal Welfare Act 1999 renamed it the National committee (NAWAC). b Agricultural and Marketing Research and Development Trust.

Table 2 Some major areas of past animal behavioural, health and welfare sciences research in New Zealand Area of research (approximate duration)

Selected references

Animal health (50 years): veterinary epidemiology; plant poisoning; trace element deficiencies; bacterial, fungal and viral disease aetiology, prevention and control; disorders and management of reproduction; metabolic diseases; neurological disorders; dental disease; gut disorders; genetic diseases—cattle, sheep, goats, deer, pigs, horses, hens, dogs, other companion animals

Jolly (2002, 2003), Jolly et al. (2004)

Livestock husbandry, nutrition and production (50 years): supplementary feeding; mineral and trace element requirements; feeding on pasture; reproductive management on pasture; novel forages—cattle, sheep, goats, deer, camelids, horses

Drew and Fennessy (1980), Grace (1983), Nicol (1987), Fielden and Smith (1998), Barry et al. (2002), Hoskin and Gee (2004)

Animal behaviour and handling (30 years): practical measures; species-specific behavioural features; reactions to handling and management systems; awareness and promotion of good welfare—cattle, sheep, goats, deer, horses, pigs, hens, dogs

Kilgour and Dalton (1984), Hemsworth et al. (1995), Fisher and Matthews (2001), Pollard and Wilson (2002), Stafford (2005)

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329 Table 2 (Continued ) Area of research (approximate duration)

Selected references

Behavioural assessment and welfare (15 years): fundamental studies and principles; preference and motivational testing; behaviour-physiology links—sheep, pigs, poultry

Matthews and Ladewig (1994), Lester et al. (1996), Matthews (1998), Mellor et al. (2000), Sorensen et al. (2001), Beausoleil et al. (2005)

Livestock slaughter (25 years): preslaughter handling; neck and thoracic sticking; onset of insensibility; percussive and electrical stunning—cattle, sheep, deer, pigs, chickens

Blackmore (1979); Blackmore and Newhook (1981), Devine et al. (1986), Bager et al. (1992), Blackmore et al. (1993), Cook et al. (1991)

Welfare of the fetus and newborn (5 years): effects of slaughter and blood collection (ruminant fetuses); postnatal onset of awareness (lambs); welfare impacts of neonatal mortality (lambs, kids, bovine calves, deer calves, foals, piglets)

Mellor (2003); Mellor and Gregory (2003); Mellor and Stafford (2004), Mellor et al. (2005), Mellor and Diesch (2006)

Dairy cow behaviour and welfare (25 years): feeding preferences; nutrition and lameness; productivity and behavioural responses to humans; surface type and lying behaviour; responses to cold; behavioural priorities

Arave et al. (1983), Breuer et al. (2000), Fisher et al. (2003), Munksgaard et al. (2005)

Newborn and bobby calf welfare (15 years): pathophysiological causes of mortality after birth; tolerance by calves of permitted feed restriction and transport, and bobby calf status on arrival at meatworks; hand rearing

Bremner et al. (1992), Todd et al. (2000), Stafford et al. (2001, 2005), Diesch et al. (2004)

Lambing management and mortality (40 years): litter size effects on ewe-lamb behaviour; shelter, lamb survival and productivity; extensive production systems; out-of-season lambing; non-intervention or intervention at lambing; farmer views on lambing strategies; pregnancy nutrition, shearing and lamb survival

Pollard (1992), Fisher and Mellor (2002), Mellor and Stafford (2004), Kenyon et al. (2003)

Painful husbandry procedures (25 years): stress physiology; behavioural and physiological assessments of pain and distress; alleviation of pain caused by dehorning or disbudding (calves), castration and/or tail docking (calves, lambs) and velvet antler removal (deer)

Lester et al. (1991), Mellor and Stafford (2000), Stafford and Mellor (2005a,b), Wilson and Stafford (2002)

Long-distance sea transport of live sheep (20 years): behaviour, inanition, feeding, health surveillance and management

Black (1989, 1990), Black et al. (1994), Waghorn et al. (1995)

Livestock land transport (15 years): distance; vehicle movement; stationary periods; temperature-humidity; driver skill—sheep, cows, deer

Fisher et al. (1999, 2002, 2005)

Humane control of vertebrate pests (25 years): traps (possums, mustelids, rodents, cats); relative negative impacts of different poisons (possums, rodents, mustelids); alleviations strategies for poisons (possums, mustelids)

Warburton (1982), Warburton and Hall (1995), Gregory et al. (1998), Warburton and Orchard (1996), O’Connor and Matthews (1999), Littin et al. (2004)

Humane identification marking of wildlife (5 years): temporary, semi-permanent and permanent marks; advantages, disadvantages, safeguards, acceptability—NZ amphibians, reptiles and marine mammals (cetaceans, pinnipeds)

Beausoleil et al. (2004), Mellor et al. (2004)

317

318

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

2.1. Use of animals in science During the 1980s, the New Zealand system for regulating research, teaching and testing involving animals was developed on the initiative of animal-based scientists, their institutions (universities, research institutes) and the Royal Society of New Zealand, with additional participation from animal welfare advocates, Ministry officials, the national veterinary association and others (Elliott, 1998). Legally mandated under 1983 and 1987 amendments of the Animals Protection Act 1960, and now under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the system includes institutional animal ethics committees and codes of ethical conduct which are formally approved by NAEAC. The system has been designed to encourage animal-based scientists as individuals, and their institutions, to explicitly take ethical responsibility for their actions rather than to negotiate a centrally regulated, bureaucratic ‘‘obstacle course’’ while giving minimal thought to the ethical implications of their proposed actions involving animals (Schofield and Mellor, 1998). Support in such ethical evaluations is provided nationally by the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART), established in New Zealand in 1993, which, through its conferences (Table 3), advisory publications and other activities, explores widely the different dimensions of the humane, responsible and ethical use of animals in science. The work of ANZCCART therefore complements and enhances the policy and regulatory oversight role of NAEAC. ANZCCART has a recognised place in New Zealand’s system for managing the scientific use of animals (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2005) and has attracted international attention and respect.

Table 3 ANZCCART conferences 1990 to presenta,b Year

Title

1990 1992 1993 1994 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 1999

Animal pain: ethical and scientific perspectives (1992) c Effective animal experimentation ethics committees (1994) Improving the well-being of animals in the research environment (1994) Animal welfare in the 21st century: ethical, educational and scientific challenges (1994) Animals and science in the 21st century: new technologies and challenges (1995) Farm animals in biomedical and agricultural research (1996) Animals and education: value, responsibilities and questions (1997) Ethical approaches to animal-based science (1998) The use of wildlife for research (1999) Innovation, ethics and animal welfare: public confidence in science and agriculture (2000) Farm animals in research—can we meet the demands of ethics, welfare, science and industry? (2001) Learning, animals and the environment: changing the face of the future (2002) Animal welfare and animal ethics committees: where are the goalposts now? (2003) Lifting the veil: finding common ground (2004) Animal ethics: new frontiers, new opportunities (not published) Animal ethics committees and animal use in a monitored environment: is the ethics real, imagined or necessary? (2005)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 a

Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, formed from ACCART, the Australian Council, in 1993. b Web sites: http://www.rsnz.org/advisory/anzccart/; http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/. c Proceedings publication dates are in parentheses.

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

319

Table 4 Codes of welfarea and voluntary codes of recommendations and minimum standardsb (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2006a) Datec Codes of welfare Broiler chickens, fully housed Rodeos Layer hens Zoos Circuses Pigs Painful husbandry procedures Deer Cats Commercial slaughter Codes of recommendations and minimum standards The Sea Transport of Sheep from New Zealand The Welfare of Dairy Cattle The Welfare of Horses The Care of Animals in Boarding Establishments The Sale of Companion Animals The Welfare of Animals Transported within New Zealand The Emergency Slaughter of Farm Livestock The Welfare of Deer During the Removal of Antlers The Welfare of Sheep The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Slaughter at Licensed and Approved Premises The Welfare of Bobby Calves The Welfare of Animals at Saleyards The Welfare of Dogs The Welfare of Ostrich and Emu a b c

(2003) (2003) (2004) (2004) (2005) (2005) (2005) (2007) (2007) (Approaching completion) (1991) (1992) (1993) (1993) (1994) (1994) (1996) (1994) (1996) (1996) (1997) (1998) (1998) (1998)

Codes prepared or approaching completion between 2000 and 2007. Codes prepared and some revised between 1989 and 1998. Publication date of latest version.

2.2. Agricultural, companion, recreational, service, sport and other animals Initiatives taken in the mid-1980s led, in 1989, to the establishment of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, the predecessor of NAWAC (Table 1). This committee was modelled on the Farm Animal Welfare Council in the United Kingdom. Its roles include identifying animal welfare problems and effective remedies for them, and its membership consists of animal welfare advocates, animal welfare and livestock scientists, educators, veterinarians, primary industry stakeholders, lay people and others, who, as required by the Animal Welfare Act 1999, are appointed by the Minister of Agriculture on the advise of MAF officials. Between 1989 and 1999, AWAC led the development of 21 Codes of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the welfare of animals (Table 4). These voluntary codes were widely adopted but, being voluntary, they were considered by those drafting the new animal welfare legislation to provide less demonstrable impetus to compliance than would more binding codes. Thus, under the 1999 Act, minimum standards defined in codes of welfare were given legal standing, and these new codes are now progressively replacing the previous voluntary codes (Table 4). During the formulation

320

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

of these new codes, as with the previous voluntary codes, extensive consultation with stakeholders and others likely to be affected, including members of the public, helps to secure stakeholder cooperation with implementing them. Such consultation is also a requirement under the 1999 Act and is essential because the minimum standards, once implemented in regulations, apply to all people living in New Zealand. Thus, failure to comply with a minimum standard may be advanced as evidence of an offence under the 1999 Act, just as demonstration of compliance may be used as a defence should a charge be laid. The decade of experience with developing and using the previous voluntary codes is considered to have greatly facilitated acceptance by stakeholders and others of the legal standing now underpinning the minimum standards in the codes of welfare mandated under the 1999 Act. Although not envisaged originally, this progression may now be seen as an example of incremental improvement towards more effective management of animal welfare standards nationally. Extensive pastoral farming dominates livestock use in New Zealand, especially with regard to the dairy cattle, beef cattle, sheep and deer sectors, which are orientated mainly towards export markets, whereas the pig and poultry (meat and eggs) sectors are primarily intensive and service only local requirements. Three-quarters of all current welfare codes (new and previous) cover livestock farming, and the remainder deal with other animal-related activities (Table 4). 2.3. Institutional developments There were parallel developments at an institutional level (Table 1). Burgeoning Animal Welfare Science research and educational activities in the Veterinary Science Faculty at Massey University led in 1990, to the creation of the Animal Welfare Science Research Group. In 1991, recognition of the value of providing strong behavioural perspectives to enhance animal welfare assessments led AgResearch, a Crown Research Institute in Hamilton, to set-up the Animal Behaviour and Welfare Research Centre. The establishment, in 1994, of the Chair of Animal Welfare Science at Massey University, supported by an agricultural trust (Table 1), consolidated and extended these earlier developments in the context of a growing recognition within livestock industries of the strategic significance of animal welfare for New Zealand’s export success. A bioethical dimension was added when, in 1998, the Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre was established at Massey University. This recognised a continuing strong commitment to Animal Welfare Science and growing contributions, nationally and internationally, to discussion of ethical issues raised by various facets of the wider management and use of animals (e.g. Wilson et al., 2001; Mellor and Stafford, 2001; Mellor and Littin, 2004; Littin et al., 2004; Mellor et al., 2004), in addition to those issues raised by the use of animals in science (e.g. Table 3). Continuing leadership in integrating practical, clinical and behavioural dimensions of animal welfare developments was acknowledged in 2003, by the creation of a Personal Chair of Veterinary Ethology, also at Massey University. Beginning in 1991, the introduction of several animal health and welfare qualifications at UNITEC Institute of Technology in Auckland led in 2005, to the establishment of a Chair in Animal Welfare to strengthen these initiatives at that Institute, especially the related research. Most recently, in 2006, a New Zealand Three Rs Programme has been established in the Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre at Massey University. This programme, a joint venture between Massey University and MAF, has an inclusive national focus. It builds on previous New Zealand development of high quality Three Rs systems, especially in teaching (Davies, 1997, 2000, 2004; Dewhurst and Davies, 2000), low invasive techniques for acquiring physiological data from live animals (Cook et al., 2000; Cook and Thomas, 2004), and the development of non-animal alternatives to marine biotoxin bioassays

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

321

(Seamer and Busbyt, 2004). The programme aims to stimulate further innovative Three Rs activity. Animal welfare research was also undertaken throughout the 1990s by an industryfunded group at the Meat Industry Research Institute (Hamilton), which focused mainly on humane slaughter, and by individuals in other research centres in New Zealand who undertook other welfare projects. New Zealand contributions to national and international research, scholarship and education in Animal Welfare Science and related bioethical analyses have been supported by these institutional developments. They have also provided sound foundations for evaluating and setting animal welfare standards, as discussed below. 2.4. Other developments The New Zealand commitment to broad societal participation in animal welfare and related developments is further illustrated thus. First, the Animal Behaviour and Welfare Consultative Committee, established in 1994, incorporates members with diverse animal-related interests and roles (Table 1). It meets once every 6 months to provide for discussion, explanation and updating its members about national and international events and trends across all the sectors represented. As described elsewhere (Mellor and Bayvel, 2004), in the late 1990s this committee succeeded in having a higher priority assigned to stalled policy development for the Bill that was subsequently enacted as the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Second, political interest in animal welfare and the value of Members of Parliament being better informed about unfamiliar new animal welfare developments authorised under the 1999 Act, led several organisations (Table 1) to establish the All-Party Animal Welfare Liaison Group, which operated for 5 years from 2001. Finally, consultation and participation are exemplified in the modus operandi of the Bioethics Council (Toi te Taiao),1 created in 2002. NAEAC and NAWAC interact with the Council, which also consults widely with relevant researchers, scholars, industry groups, professional groups (e.g. NZ Veterinary Association), animal advocacy groups and others when it is dealing with matters having animal welfare or related dimensions. Emphasis is given to mutually respectful interactions between those with strongly held and contrasting views (Fleming, 2004; Mellor and Battye, 2004). 3. New Zealand science supporting animal welfare improvements 3.1. Early indirect contributions Well before the mid-1970s when the term ‘‘animal welfare’’ began to be used more often (Stafford et al., 2002), marked animal welfare improvements occurred largely as by-products of successful livestock production and veterinary research. In parallel with events in other countries between 25 and 50 years ago, New Zealand research was focused mainly on the nutritional requirements of livestock and the prevention and treatment of disease, with problems of specific national relevance being emphasised (Table 2). Welfare improvements occurred, despite the production focus of this research, because nutrition and health are major areas where problems can compromise the welfare of animals (Mellor and Reid, 1994; Mellor and Stafford, 2001). Such nutritional and disease-orientated research of animal welfare relevance has continued to this day (Table 2). 1

http://www.bioethics.org.nz/.

322

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

3.2. Direct animal welfare contributions During the last 20–25 years, and especially the last 10–15 years, there has been a marked increase in research with an explicit animal welfare focus. This occurred partly in response to rising public interest in animal welfare internationally, but also because the earlier advances in the management of nutrition and disease by then allowed research attention to be redirected towards evaluating the implications of the environmental, behavioural and mental needs of animals (Mellor and Bayvel, 2004). The overall purpose was to develop and introduce scientifically verified methods that would improve both the welfare status and the management of farm livestock and other animals. There are numerous New Zealand examples for the success of this approach (Table 2) related to, for instance, humane livestock slaughter, dairy cow management, bobby calf transport and processing, on-farm use of painful husbandry procedures, lambing management, long-distance transport by sea, and vertebrate pest control methods. These research activities, in their turn, required that the fundamentals of environmental, behavioural and cognitive/neural sciences be explored as integral parts of problem-solving research in an approach which paralleled that adopted in the earlier nutritional and disease studies. All such research contributed to developments in our thinking about what animals’ needs are and how they are affected, positively or negatively, by the way we manage them (Kirkwood et al., 2001, 2004; Webster and Main, 2003; Webster, 2006). 3.3. Contributions to animal welfare from other fields The evident success of this animal welfare-directed research, the related affirmation of the substantial role played by animal behaviour science in these developments and the emergence of Animal Welfare Science as a recognised discipline (see Table 2), might lead us to naı¨vely disregard informative developments in other areas. Relevant studies could include those where particular species that are of animal welfare interest to us, are used quite independently as models to support improved clinical management of human patients. An example is the vast literature on the physiology and pathophysiology of fetal and newborn lambs, and birth mechanisms in sheep, which has been generated over a 50-year period with the clinical management of human fetuses, pregnancy and birth, and newborn infants as the almost exclusive focus. Findings from this body of work which are relevant to whether the fetal sheep is continuously unconscious or is ‘‘aware’’ before birth, or experiences ‘‘awareness’’ for the first time only after birth, have now been reevaluated in the context of the humane management of ruminant fetuses when their dams are slaughtered (Mellor, 2003; Mellor and Gregory, 2003; Mellor et al., 2005; Mellor and Diesch, 2006). This could not have occurred if the only literature consulted had been from animal behaviour, welfare science and related journals. This example also emphasises the value of accessing breadth of expertise to support fresh thinking in the animal welfare arena. Such breadth continues to be a prominent feature of the research and scholarship supporting New Zealand’s ongoing contributions to behavioural, health and welfare developments nationally and internationally (Tables 1–3). 4. Setting science-based animal welfare standards NAWAC takes into account a wide range of factors when it recommends minimum standards within codes of welfare (Mellor, 2004). Chief among these, and required by the Animal Welfare Act 1999, are scientific knowledge, good practice and available technology. These terms were not

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

323

defined by the 1999 Act, but the meaning attributed to them by NAWAC provides an insight into their place in its national standard setting (Mellor, 2004). NAWAC takes ‘‘scientific knowledge’’ relevant to its areas of responsibility to mean knowledge within animal-based scientific disciplines, especially those that deal with nutritional, environmental, health, behavioural and cognitive/neural functions and the related needs of animals. Such knowledge is not haphazard or anecdotal; it is generated by rigorous and systematic application of the scientific method and the results are objectively and critically reviewed before acceptance. It is acknowledged that when such knowledge is applied to setting minimum welfare standards, which it has with every code of welfare developed under the 1999 Act (Table 4), there is often no one, immutable interpretation at a scientific-functional level by which issues may be resolved, and judgements need to be made based on the weight of scientific evidence for or against particular propositions. A constraint on over-emphasis of one interpretation, where more than one is credible, is the necessity for each minimum standard to be expressed in a legally robust and defensible manner. An aid to achieving this is NAWAC’s policy of, where possible, expressing minimum standards in terms of demonstrable animal health and welfare outcomes, not management inputs. For instance, defining lower body condition score thresholds is used in preference to delineating required feed component inputs, which are highly variable depending on the animal’s maturity, physiological state, thermal environment, exercise requirements and the like. The scientists on NAWAC and other scientific experts, consulted via their publications or in person, have a major role in assessing the relevance and applicability of available science during the formulation of minimum standards. Reference to ‘‘good practice’’ recognises that the knowledge derived from direct experience, critically evaluated, can both complement and extend the application of scientific knowledge in practical contexts. Good practice is therefore taken to mean a standard of care that has a general level of acceptance among knowledgeable practitioners and experts in the field, is based on good sense and sound judgement, is practical and thorough, has robust experiential or scientific foundations, and prevents unreasonable or unnecessary harm to, or promotes the interests of, the animals to which it is applied. Good practice also takes account of the evolution of attitudes about animals and their care. ‘‘Available technology’’, which is an integral component of both scientific knowledge and good practice, is considered to represent, for example, existing chemicals, drugs, instruments, devices and facilities which are used practically to care for and manage animals. Input from New Zealand’s vigorous, multidimensional and integrated animal behaviour, health and welfare researchers and infrastructure (Tables 1–3), with recognised international standing, supports NAWAC’s development of scientifically robust minimum standards and provides national and international credibility to the related codes of welfare (Table 4). Likewise, NAEAC benefits from this expertise (Table 3). From 1993 increasing MAF funding has been made available to support specific research projects designed to address particular issues of interest to NAWAC and NAEAC (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2006b). NAWAC has a statutory responsibility to regularly provide advise on national animal welfare research priorities. The areas to be supported are determined by MAF in consultation with those NAWAC and NAEAC members who are not research providers. They review annually solicited input from all members of both national committees, from animal-based industries, the veterinary profession, research providers and others, taking into consideration relevant national and international developments. Animal welfare research has also been supported by animal-based industry groups and by the national public good science fund, administered by the Foundation for Research,

324

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

Science and Technology. Although emphasis has often been given to applied research, developments in fundamental knowledge are also fostered, especially if such developments are required to achieve an applied objective.

5. International perspectives and participation NAWAC keeps abreast of international developments in animal welfare thinking and standards by accessing an extensive information-sharing network involving researchers, government regulators, industry personnel, animal advocates and others in Australia, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and other countries, and their counterparts in New Zealand. Active participation in this international network via personal contacts, laboratory visits, working groups, scientific exchanges, conference organisation, contributions and attendance, and other activities, continues to be given highfunding priority by New Zealand research institutions and ministries. Although NAWAC’s deliberations are informed by this, its ethos is to set standards that are appropriate for New Zealand conditions and, as such, it establishes standards it regards as acceptable, revises standards that require improvement and seeks to phase out unacceptable practices. Where practicable, minimum standards are expressed in terms of animal health and welfare outcomes, and not specified inputs (see above). During discussions overseas, therefore, New Zealand officials emphasise the equivalence of animal welfare standards, not the ways they are achieved, offering our welfare codes (Table 4) as evidence. This recognises that there are often several different ways of achieving a desired welfare state (Mellor and Bayvel, 2004). An outcomes orientation is also being adopted by the OIE (the World Organisation for Animal Health) in the global animal welfare guidelines it has begun to develop as part of its animal welfare strategic initiative (Bayvel, 2004a,b, 2006). Together with colleagues from other countries, New Zealand-based personnel have participated in this process through membership of the OIE Working Group on Animal Welfare, OIE Ad Hoc Groups, and by contributing to OIE publications (Bayvel, 2004a,b; Mellor and Bayvel, 2004; Bayvel et al., 2005; Littin and Mellor, 2005). NAEAC’s deliberations are likewise informed by New Zealand-based personnel who access, and contribute to, the latest international thinking about the scientific use of animals. For instance, planning, attending and/or speaking by invitation at the five World Congresses on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences (Bayvel, 1994, 2004b; Cook and Thomas, 2004; Davies, 2000; Fleming, 2004; Mellor, 1997, 2000; Warburton and O’Connor, 2004; Wells and Nicholson, 2004; Williams et al., 2006), held triennially, have provided opportunities to internationally benchmark and critique various facets of the New Zealand system for managing animal uses in research, teaching and testing. They have also allowed others to benefit from our experience. The New Zealand commitment to wide participation and consultation during the development of scientifically robust, outcome-orientated animal welfare standards at a national level is therefore extended to participation in international initiatives. The quality of New Zealand research and scholarly contributions to animal welfare thinking, practice and related bioethical analysis (Tables 2 and 3), and the practical success of our management of animal welfare nationally, supported by our up-to-date regulatory system, are admired overseas and have thereby created opportunities for constructive New Zealand input into international animal welfare developments.

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

325

6. Conclusions The strength of the comprehensive animal welfare infrastructure that has developed in New Zealand during the last 25 years rests on several key factors. Having one minister and one ministry with clear responsibility for all areas of animal welfare, and the more recent enactment of up-to-date animal welfare legislation, are seen to be major advantages. The inclusive modus operandi evident in both the development and operation of this national infrastructure merits particular attention, especially with regard to decision-making processes by the two ministerial advisory committees (NAEAC and NAWAC). Mandated by the 1999 Act, committee members with diverse backgrounds are appointed in a personal capacity, not as representatives of nominating organisations. Engendering mutually respectful interactions despite some strongly contrasting views among some committee members (Mellor and Battye, 2004), and responding to a shared desire to achieve agreed animal welfare goals, have to date avoided bitter defences of entrenched positions and have facilitated consensus-based decision-making by both committees. The 1999 Act requires that public input be sought during formulation of codes of welfare because, once they are gazetted, the minimum standards in these codes become regulations under the 1999 Act (Table 4). Submissions usually cover a wide spectrum of views on animal welfare generally and on specific features of draft codes. They are beneficial in reflecting different facets of societal expectations, current public opinion, and stakeholder expectations and experience. They also demonstrate that ‘‘public opinion’’ usually does not represent a single, unified view on a particular subject; rather, members of the public can hold diverse, sometimes irreconcilable, views. This consultation process has some disadvantages. Some submitters are well informed and others are not. The legally mandated opportunity to make submissions on draft codes of welfare may, in relation to particular issues (e.g. sow stalls, cages for layer hens), generate public expectations for change beyond the capacity for NAWAC to respond within the constraints of the 1999 Act. Finally, the submission and review process is extremely time-consuming. Nevertheless, the issues raised in each and every submission are evaluated very carefully, and NAWAC considers that, quite apart from the legal requirement for it, public input via the formal submission process enhances the codes that are finally gazetted. Thus, the New Zealand experience is that, although the operation of inclusiveness as a policy may not always be convenient, it is unquestionably beneficial in the animal welfare arena. Acknowledgements We are grateful to Drs. Michelle Cooke, Lindsay Matthews, Cheryl O’Connor, Jo Pollard and Virginia Williams, and to Profs. Kevin Stafford and Natalie Waran, for providing information which assisted in the preparation of this paper. References Arave, C., Kilgour, R., Temple, W., Matthews, L.R., 1983. Effect on heifer feeding preference of adding feed flavour or pelleting a dairy meal. J. Dairy Sci. 66, 107–112. Bager, F., Braggins, T.J., Devine, C.E., Graahuis, A.E., Mellor, D.J., Tavener, A., Updell, M.P., 1992. Onset of insensibility at slaughter in calves: effects of electroplectic seizure and exsanguination on spontaneous electrocortical activity and indices of cerebral metabolism. Res. Vet. Sci. 52, 162–173.

326

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

Barry, T.N., Hoskin, S.O., Wilson, P.R., 2002. Novel forages for growth and health in farmed deer. N.Z. Vet. J. 50, 244– 251. Bayvel, A.C.D., 1994. World congress on alternatives and animal use in the life sciences—a policy, teaching and information perspective. In: Baker, R.M., Mellor, D.J., Nichol, A.N. (Eds.), Animal Welfare in the Twenty-first Century: Ethical, Educational and Scientific Challenges. ANZCCART, The Royal Society of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 101–105. Bayvel, A.C.D., 2004a. The OIE animal welfare strategic initiative—progress, priorities and prognosis. In: Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OIE Initiative; Proceedings of an OIE Conference, Paris, France, February 23–25, 2004, pp. 13–17. Bayvel, A.C.D., 2004b. Animal use statistics: the New Zealand and Australian experience and perspective. ATLA 32 (Suppl. 1), 287–292. Bayvel, A.C.D., 2006. The international animal welfare role of the office international des epizooties: the world organisation for animal health. In: Turner, J., D’Silva, J. (Eds.), Animals, Ethics and Trade: The Challenge of Animal Sentience. Earthscan, London, United Kingdom, pp. 248–260. Bayvel, A.C.D., Rahman, S.A., Gavinelli, A. (Eds.), 2005. Animal Welfare: global issues, trends and challenges. scientific and technical review. Off. Int. Epizoot. 24, 467–813. Beausoleil, N.J., Mellor, D.J., Stafford, K.J., 2004. Methods for Marking New Zealand Wildlife: Amphibians Reptiles and Marine Mammals. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 1–147. Beausoleil, N.J., Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., 2005. Sheep show more aversion to a dog than to a human in an arena test. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 91, 219–232. Black, H., 1989. Live sheep shipments. N.Z. Vet. J. 37, 33–38. Black, H., 1990. Gastroenteritis and inanition diarrhoea of sheep transported by ship. N.Z. Vet. J. 38, 122. Black, H., Matthews, L.R., Bremner, K.J., 1994. The behaviour of male lambs transported by sea from New Zealand to Saudi Arabia. N.Z. Vet. J. 42, 16–23. Blackmore, D.K., 1979. Non-penetrative percussion stunning of sheep and calves. Vet. Rec. 105, 372–375. Blackmore, D.K., Newhook, J.C., 1981. Insensibility during slaughter of pigs in comparison to other livestock. N.Z. Vet. J. 29, 219–222. Blackmore, D.K., Cook, C.J., Devine, C.E., Gilbert, K.V., Tavener, A., Langdon, S., Isaacs, S., Maasland, S.A., 1993. Electrical stunning of red deer (Cervus elphus). N.Z. Vet. J. 41, 126–130. Bremner, K.J., Matthews, L.R., Brears, D.J., Painting, A.M., 1992. Behaviour and welfare of calves during transportation: unloading. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 52, 73–75. Breuer, K., Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Matthews, L.R., Coleman, G.J., 2000. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 66, 273–288. Cook, C.J., Thomas, D., 2004. Reducing the invasiveness of obtaining blood-borne measures in animals. ATLA 32 (Suppl. 1), 203–207. Cook, C.J., Devine, C.E., Glibert, K.V., Tavener, A., Day, A.M., 1991. Encephalograms and electrocardiograms in young bulls following upper cervical vertebrae-to-brisket stunning. N.Z. Vet. J. 39, 121–125. Cook, C.J., Mellor, D.J., Harris, P.J., Ingram, J., Matthews, L., 2000. Hands-on and hands-off measurement of stress. In: Moberg, G.P., Mench, J.A. (Eds.), The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic Principles and Implications for Welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, (Chapter 6), pp. 123–146. Davies, A.S., 1997. Alternatives which enhance or substitute for animal use. In: Brennan, A., Einstein, R. (Eds.), Animals in Education: Value, Responsibilities and Questions. ANZCCART, Glen Osmond, South Australia, pp. 57–58. Davies, A.S., 2000. Electronic alternatives to using animals for learning veterinary anatomy. In: Balls, M., van Zeller, A.M., Halder, M.E. (Eds.), Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Dev. Anim. Vet. Sci. 31 B, 1361–1364. Davies, A.S., 2004. Technological advances that enhance teaching using animals, and the application of the three Rs. ATLA 32 (Suppl. 1), 561–563. Devine, C.E., Tavener, A., Gilbert, K.V., Day, A., 1986. Electroencephalographic studies of adult cattle associated with electrical stunning, throat cutting and carcass immobilisation. N.Z. Vet. J. 34, 210–213. Dewhurst, D., Davies, A.S., 2000. Replacement alternatives in teaching. In: Balls, M., van Zeller, A.M., Halder, M.E. (Eds), Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Dev. Anim. Vet. Sci. 31 B, 1741–1745. Diesch, T.J., Mellor, D.J., Stafford, K.J., Ward, R.N., 2004. The physiological and physical status of single calves at birth in a New Zealand dairy herd. N.Z. Vet. J. 52, 250–255. Drew, K.R., Fennessy, P.F. (Eds), 1980. Supplementary Feeding. New Zealand Society of Animal Production Occasional Publication No. 7.

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

327

Elliott, R., 1998. Animal welfare—public perceptions and reality. In: Mellor, D.J., Fisher, M., Sutherland, G. (Eds.), Ethical Approaches to Animal-based Science. ANZCCART, The Royal Society of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 47–51. Fielden, E.D., Smith, J.F., 1998. Reproductive Management of Grazing Ruminants in New Zealand. New Zealand Society of Animal Production Occasional Publication No. 12. Fisher, A.D., Matthews, L.R., 2001. The social behaviour of sheep. In: Gonyou, H., Keeling, L. (Eds.), Social Behaviour of Farm Animals. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp. 209–243. Fisher, A.D., Edwards, J.D., Stewart, M., Tacon, J., Matthews, L.R., 2002. The effects of stock crate design and stocking density on environmental conditions for lambs on road transport vehicles. N.Z. Vet. J. 50, 148–153. Fisher, A.D., Pearce, P.V., Matthews, L.R., 1999. The effects of long haul transport on pregnant, non-lactating dairy cows. N.Z. Vet. J. 47, 161–166. Fisher, A.D., Stewart, M., Duganzich, D.M., Tacon, J., Matthews, L., 2005. The effects of stationary periods and external temperature and humidity on thermal stress conditions within sheep transport vehicles. N.Z. Vet. J. 53, 6–9. Fisher, A.D., Stewart, M., Verkerk, G.A., Morrow, C.J., Matthews, L.R., 2003. The effects of surface type on lying behaviour and stress responses of dairy cows during weather-induced removal from pasture. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 81, 1–11. Fisher, M.W., Mellor, D.J., 2002. The welfare implications of shepherding during lambing in extensive New Zealand farming systems. Anim. Welfare 11, 157–170. Fleming, J.S., 2004. Ethical, cultural and spiritual objections to genetically modified organisms: a review of the New Zealand process and perspective. ATLA 32 (Suppl. 1), 21–27. Fraser, D., 2003. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Anim. Welfare 12, 433–443. Grace, N.D. (Ed.), 1983. Mineral Requirements of Grazing Ruminants. New Zealand Society of Animal Production Occasional Publication No. 9. Gregory, N.G., Milne, L.M., Rhodes, A.T., Littin, K.E., Wickstrom, M., Eason, C.T., 1998. Effect of potassium cyanide on behaviour and time to death in possums. N.Z. Vet. J. 46, 60–64. Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Beveridge, L., Matthews, L.R., 1995. The welfare of extensively-managed dairy cattle: a review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 42, 161–182. Hoskin, S.O., Gee, E.K., 2004. Feeding value of pastures for horses. N.Z. Vet. J. 52, 332–341. Jolly, P.D. (Ed.), 2002. N.Z. Vet. J. 30, (Suppl. 3), 3–120 (50th jubilee issue) Jolly, P.D. (Ed.), 2003. Advances in companion animal gastroenterology. N.Z. Vet. J. 51, 251–301. Jolly, R.D., Blair, H.T., Johnstone, A.C., 2004. Genetic disorders of sheep in New Zealand: a review and perspective. N.Z. Vet. J. 52, 52–64. Kenyon, P.R., Morris, S.T., Revell, D.K., McCutcheon, S.N., 2003. Shearing during pregnancy—review of a policy to increase birthweight and survival of lambs in New Zealand pastoral farming. N.Z. Vet. J. 51, 200–207. Kilgour, R., Dalton, C., 1984. Livestock Behaviour: A Practical Guide. Methuen, Auckland, New Zealand. Kirkwood, J.K., Hubrecht, R.C., Wickens, S., O’Leary, H., Oakeley, S. (Eds.), 2001. Consciousness, cognition and animal welfare. Anim. Welfare 10 (Suppl.) S1–S251. Kirkwood, J.K., Roberts, E.A., Vickery, S. (Eds.), 2004. Science in the service of animal welfare. Anim. Welfare 13 (Suppl.) S1–S259. Lester, S.J., Mellor, D.J., Ward, R.N., Holmes, R.J., 1991. Cortisol responses of young lambs to castration and tailing using different methods. N.Z. Vet. J. 39, 134–138. Lester, S.J., Mellor, D.J., Holmes, R.J., Ward, R.N., Stafford, K.J., 1996. Behavioural and cortisol responses of lambs to castration and tailing using different methods. N.Z. Vet. J. 44, 45–54. Littin, K.E., Mellor, D.J., 2005. Strategic animal welfare issues: welfare and ethical issues arising from the killing of wildlife for disease control and environmental reasons. In: Bayvel, A.C.D., Rahman, S.A., Gavinelli, A. (Eds.), Animal Welfare: Global Issues, Trends and Challenges. Scientific and Technical Review, Office International des Epizooties 24 (2), 767–782. Littin, K.E., Mellor, D.J., Warburton, B., Eason, C.T., 2004. Animal welfare and ethical issues relevant to the humane control of vertebrate pests. N.Z. Vet. J. 52, 1–10. Matthews, L.R., 1998. Using economic techniques to assess animal priorities: repays the investment. Anim. Behav. 55, 1076–1078. Matthews, L.R., Ladewig, J., 1994. Environmental requirements of pigs measured by demand functions. Anim. Behav. 47, 713–719. Mellor, D.J., 1997. Humane end points: some perspectives from farm animal studies. In: van Zutphen, L.F.M., Balls. M. (Eds.), Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics. Dev. Anim. Vet. Sci. 27, 291–296.

328

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

Mellor, D.J., 2000. Learning from refinement strategies applied at low and high levels of noxiousness. In: Balls, M., van Zeller, A.M., Halder, M.E. (Eds.), Progress in the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Dev. Anim. Vet. Sci. 31 A, 65–77. Mellor, D.J., 2003. Guidelines for the humane slaughter of the fetuses of pregnant ruminants. Surveillance 30, 26–28. Mellor, D.J., 2004. Chairman’s comment: ‘‘Good practice’’ and ‘‘scientific knowledge’’ and their application to setting minimum standards. National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee 2003 Annual Report Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 4–8. Mellor, D.J., Battye, J., 2004. Mutual respect overcomes mutual disregard: working to resolve the GE impasse. In: Reflections on the Use of Human Genes in Other Organisms: Ethical spiritual and cultural dimensions, The Bioethics Council, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 15–19. Mellor, D.J., Bayvel, A.C.D., 2004. Application of legislation, scientific guidelines and codified standards to advancing animal welfare. In: Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OIE initiative Proceedings of an OIE Conference, Paris, France, February 23–25, 2004, pp. 249–259. Mellor, D.J., Diesch, T.J., 2006. Onset of sentience: the potential for suffering in fetal and newborn farm animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 100, 48–57. Mellor, D.J., Gregory, N.G., 2003. Responsiveness, behavioural arousal and awareness in fetal and newborn lambs: experimental, practical and therapeutic implications. N.Z. Vet. J. 51, 2–13. Mellor, D.J., Littin, K.E., 2004. Using science to support ethical decisions promoting humane livestock slaughter and vertebrate pest control. Anim. Welfare 13 (Suppl.), S 132–S 172. Mellor, D.J., Reid, C.S.W., 1994. Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. In: Baker, R.M., Jenkin, G., Mellor, D.J. (Eds.), Improving the Well-being of Animals in the Research Environment. ANZCCART, Glen Osmond, South Australia, pp. 3–18. Mellor, D.J., Stafford, K.J., 2000. Acute castration and tailing distress and its alleviation in lambs. N.Z. Vet. J. 48, 33–43. Mellor, D.J., Stafford, K.J., 2001. Integrating practical, regulatory and ethical strategies for enhancing farm animal welfare. Aust. Vet. J. 79, 762–768. Mellor, D.J., Stafford, K.J., 2004. Animal welfare implications of neonatal mortality and morbidity in farm animals. Vet. J. 168, 118–133. Mellor, D.J., Beausoleil, N.J., Stafford, K.J., 2004. Marking Amphibians, Reptiles and Marine Mammals: Animal welfare practicalities and public perceptions in New Zealand. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 1– 55. Mellor, D.J., Cook, C.J., Stafford, K.J., 2000. Quantifying some responses to pain as a stressor. In: Moberg, G.P., Mench, J.A. (Eds.), The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic principles and implications for welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp. 171–198. Mellor, D.J., Diesch, T.J., Gunn, A.J., Bennet, L., 2005. The importance of ’awareness’ for understanding fetal pain. Brain Res. Rev. 49, 455–471. Mellor, D.J., Fisher, M., Sutherland, G. (Eds.), 1998. Ethical Approaches to Animal-based Science. ANZCCART, The Royal Society of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 1–159. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2005. Animal Welfare in New Zealand. MAF Biosecurity, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 1–19. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2006a. Codes of Welfare and Codes of Recommendations and Minimum Standards. http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/codes. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2006b. National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee 2005 Annual Report MAF, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 25–38. Munksgaard, L., Jensen, M.B., Pedersen, L.J., Hansen, S.W., Matthews, L.R., 2005. Quantifying behavioural priorities— effects of time constraints on behaviour of dairy cows, Bos Taurus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 92, 3–14. Nicol, A.M. (Ed.), 1987. Livestock Feeding on Pasture. New Zealand Society of Animal Production Occasional Publication No. 10. O’Connor, C.E., Matthews, L.R., 1999. Induced bait aversions in wild possums: influence of bait characteristics and prevalence. Wildl. Res. 26, 375–381. Pollard, J.C., 1992. The effects of litter size on the behaviour of ewes and lambs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 34, 75–84. Pollard, J.C., Wilson, P.R., 2002. Welfare of farmed red deer in New Zealand. 1. Management practices. N.Z. Vet. J. 50, 214–220. Schofield, J., Mellor, D.J., 1998. Regulating scientific animal use: centralised control or facilitated self-regulation. In: Mellor, D.J., Fisher, M., Sutherland, G. (Eds.), Ethical Approaches to Animal-based Science. ANZCCART, The Royal Society of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 99–103.

D.J. Mellor, A.C.D. Bayvel / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 313–329

329

Seamer, C., Busbyt, P., 2004. Marine biotoxin testing in New Zealand: a new direction. In: Cragg, P., Stafford, K., Love, D., Sutherland, G. (Eds.), Lifting the Veil: Finding Common Ground. ANZCCART, The Royal Society of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 93–97. Sorensen, D.B., Ladewig, J., Matthews, L.R., Ersboll, A.K., Lawson, L., 2001. Measuring motivation: using the cross point of two demand functions as an assessment of the substitutability of two reinforcers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 74, 281–291. Stafford, K., 2005. The Welfare of Dogs. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., 2005a. The welfare significance of the castration of cattle: a review. N.Z. Vet. J. 53, 271–278. Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., 2005b. Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. Vet. J. 169, 337–349. Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., Corner, R., 2005. Sucking behaviour of hand-reared newborn dairy calves. N.Z. Vet. J. 53, 246–248. Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., Gregory, N.G., 2002. Advances in animal welfare. N.Z. Vet. J. 50 (Suppl.), 17–21. Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., Todd, S.E., Gregory, N.G., Bruce, R.A., Ward, R.N., 2001. The physical state and biochemical profile of calves on arrival at a slaughter plant. N.Z. Vet. J. 49, 142–149. Todd, S.E., Mellor, D.J., Stafford, K.J., Gregory, N.G., Bruce, R.A., Ward, R.N., 2000. Effects of food withdrawal and transport on five to ten-day-old calves. Res. Vet. Sci. 68, 125–134. Waghorn, G.C., Davis, G.B., Harcombe, M.J., 1995. Specification of pen rail spacing and trough heights to prevent escape and enable good access to feed by sheep during sea shipments from New Zealand. N.Z. Vet. J. 43, 219–224. Warburton, B., 1982. Evaluation of seven trap models as humane and catch-efficient possum traps. N.Z. J. Zool. 9, 409– 418. Warburton, B., Hall, J.V., 1995. Impact momentum and clamping force thresholds for developing standards for possum kill traps. N.Z. J. Zool. 22, 39–44. Warburton, B., O’Connor, C., 2004. Research on vertebrate pesticides and traps: do wild animals benefit? ATLA 32 (Suppl. 1), 229–234. Warburton, B., Orchard, I., 1996. Evaluation of five kill traps for effective capture and killing of Australian brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula). N.Z. J. Zool. 23, 307–314. Webster, A.J.F., Main, D.C.J. (Eds.), 2003. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Anim. Welfare 12, 429–760 (special issue). Webster, J. (Ed.), 2006. Sentience in Animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 100, 1–151 (special issue). Wells, N., Nicholson, J., 2004. Five plus three: legislating for five freedoms and three Rs—Animal Welfare Act 1999 (New Zealand). ATLA 32 (Suppl. 1), 417–421. Wilson, P.R., Stafford, K.J., 2002. Welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand. 2. Velvet antler removal. N.Z. Vet. J. 50, 221– 227. Wilson, P.R., Mellor, D.J., Stafford, K.J., Haigh, J.C., 2001. Velvet antler removal: international welfare, ethical and legal issues. In: Sim, J.S., Sunwoo, H.H., Hudson, R.J., Jeon, B.T. (Eds.), Antler Science and Product Technology. Publication of the Antler Science and Product Technology Research Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp. 363– 386. Williams, V.M., Mellor, D.J., Marbrook, J., 2006. Revision of a scale for assessing the severity of live animal manipulations. ALTEX 23, 163–169 (special issue).