Using the Five Domains Model to develop welfare assessment guidelines for Thoroughbred horses in New Zealand

References

• *Anonymous. Thoroughbred Welfare Assessment Guidelines. https://loveracing.nz/OnHorseFiles/NZTR%20Thoroughbred%20Welfare%20Guidelines%202019%20(FINAL).pdf (accessed 29 October 2019). New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, Petone, NZ, 2019a
   Google Scholar
• *Anonymous. Sport Horse Welfare and Social Licence to Operate. https://www.horsesa.asn.au/social-licence-to-operate (accessed 27 October 2019). Horse SA, Woodside, SA, Australia, 2019b
   Google Scholar
• *Appleby MC, Mench JA, Olsson JAS, Hughes BO. Animal Welfare. 2nd Edtn. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2011
   Google Scholar
• Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH. Science and its application in assessing the welfare of laying hens. Australian Veterinary Journal 81, 615–24, 2003 doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2003.tb12506.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beausoleil NJ, Mellor DJ. Advantages and limitations of the “Five Domains” model for assessing animal welfare impacts associated with vertebrate pest control. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63, 37–43, 2015a doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.956832
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beausoleil NJ, Mellor DJ. Introducing breathlessness as an animal welfare issue. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63, 44–51, 2015b doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.940410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beausoleil NJ, Fisher P, Littin KE, Warburton B, Mellor DJ, Dalefield RR, Cowan P. A systematic approach to evaluating and ranking the relative animal welfare impacts of wildlife control methods: poisons used for lethal control of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand. Wildlife Research 43, 553–65, 2016 doi: 10.1071/WR16041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boissy A, Aubert A, Desire L, Greiveldinger L, Delval E, Veissier I. Cognitive sciences to relate ear postures to emotions in sheep. Animal Welfare 20, 47–56, 2011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, Wincklern C, Forkman B, Dimitrov I, Langbein J et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behavior 92, 375–97, 2007 doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botreau R, Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bracke MBM, Keeling LJ. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 225–8, 2007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broom DM. Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142, 524–6, 1986 doi: 10.1016/0007-1935(86)90109-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Broom DM. Cognitive ability and awareness in domestic animals and decisions about obligations to animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 126, 1–11, 2010 doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broom DM. A history of animal welfare science. Acta Biotheoretica 59, 121–137, 2011. doi: 10.1007/s10441-011-9123-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook WR, Kibler M. Behavioural assessment of pain in 66 horses, with and without a bit. Equine Veterinary Education 31, 551–560, 2019 doi: 10.1111/eve.12916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denton DA, McKinley MJ, Farrell M, Egan GF. The role of primordial emotions in the evolutionary origin of consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition 18, 500–14, 2009 doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2008.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan IJH. Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm animals. Scientific and Technical Review, Office International des Epizooties 24, 483–92, 2005 doi: 10.20506/rst.24.2.1587
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Duncan IJH, Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby MC, Hughes BO (eds). Animal Welfare. Pp 19–31. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Duncan IJH, Petherick JC. The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 69, 5017–22, 1991 doi: 10.2527/1991.69125017x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edgar JL, Mullan SM, Pritchard JC, McFarlane UJC, Main DCJ. Towards a “good life” for farm animals: development of a resource tier framework to achieve positive welfare for laying hens. Animals 3, 584–605, 2013 doi: 10.3390/ani3030584
   Google Scholar
• Evans D, McGreevy P. An investigation of racing performance and whip use by jockeys in Thoroughbred races. PLoS ONE 6, e15622, 2011 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015622
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser D. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12, 433–43, 2003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Fraser D. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in Its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2008
   Google Scholar
• Fraser D, Duncan IJH. “Pleasures”, “pains” and animal welfare: toward a natural history of affect. Animal Welfare 7, 383–96, 1998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser D, Weary DM, Pajor EA, Milligan BN. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6, 187–205, 1997.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Grandin T. Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach. 2nd Edtn. CAB International, Boston, MA, USA, 2015
   Google Scholar
• Green TC, Mellor DJ. Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include “quality of life” and related concepts. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 59, 316–24, 2011 doi: 10.1080/00480169.2011.610283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Gregory NG. Pain. In: Physiology and Behaviour of Animal Suffering. Pp 94–119. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, 2004
   Google Scholar
• Hemsworth PH, Mellor DJ, Cronin G, Tilbrook A. Scientific assessment of animal welfare. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63, 24–30, 2015 doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.966167
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkden RD, Pajor EA. Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals’ feelings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100, 29–47, 2006 doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence AB, Vigors B, Sandøe P. What is so positive about positive animal welfare? A critical review of the literature. Animals 9, 783, 2019 doi: 10.3390/ani9100783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledger RA, Mellor DJ. Forensic use of the Five Domains Model for assessing suffering in cases of animal cruelty. Animals 8, 101, 2018 doi: 10.3390/ani8070101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGreevy P, Berger J, de Brauwere N, Doherty NO, Harrison A, Fiedler J, Jones C, McDonnell S, McLean A, Nakonechny L, et al. Using the Five Domains Model to assess the adverse impacts of husbandry, veterinary and equitation impacts on horse welfare. Animals 8, 41 2018 doi: 10.3390/ani8030041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Mellor DJ. Comprehensive assessment of harms caused by experimental, teaching and testing procedures on live animals. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 32 (Suppl. S1), 453–457, 2004 doi: 10.1177/026119290403201s73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare states. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 60, 1–8, 2012 doi: 10.1080/00480169.2011.619047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Enhancing animal welfare by creating opportunities for “positive affective engagement”. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63, 3–8, 2015a doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.926799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Positive welfare states and promoting environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63, 9–16, 2015b doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.926800
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Positive animal welfare states and reference standards for welfare assessment. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63, 17–23, 2015c doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.926802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A life Worth living”. Animals 6, 21, 2016a doi: 10.3390/ani6030021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” by updating the “Five Provisions” and introducing aligned “Animal Welfare Aims”. Animals 6, 59, 2016b doi: 10.3390/ani6100059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Operational details of the Five Domains Model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals 7, 60, 2017 doi: 10.3390/ani7080060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ. Welfare-aligned sentience: enhanced capacities to experience, interact, anticipate, choose and survive. Animals 9, 440, 2019 doi: 10.3390/ani9070440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ, Bayvel ACD. New Zealand’s inclusive science-based system for setting animal welfare standards. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 313–29, 2008 doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ, Bayvel ACD. Animal welfare: focusing on the future. Scientific and Technical Review, Office International des Epizooties 33, 1–358, 2014
   Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ. Extending the “Five Domains” model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare 24, 241–53, 2015 doi: 10.7120/09627286.24.3.241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ. Equine welfare during exercise: an evaluation of breathing, breathlessness and bridles. Animals 7, 41, 2017 doi: 10.3390/ani7060041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ. Moving beyond a problem-based focus on poor welfare towards creating opportunities to have positive welfare experiences, pp 50–66. In: FD McMillan (ed). Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals. 2nd Edtn. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 2019
   Google Scholar
• *Mellor DJ, Reid CSW. Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. In: Baker, RM, Jenkin G, Mellor DJ (eds). Improving the Well-Being of Animals in the Research Environment. Pp. 3–18. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, Glen Osmond, SA, Australia, 1994
   Google Scholar
• *Mellor DJ, Patterson-Kane E, Stafford KJ. The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Pp 3–94. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2009
   Google Scholar
• *Mellor DJ, Hunt S, Gusset M. Caring for Wildlife: The World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy. https://www.waza.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/WAZA-Animal-Welfare-Strategy-2015_Landscape.pdf (accessed 11 October 2019). World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Gland, Switzerland, 2015
   Google Scholar
• Mendl M, Burman OHP, Paul ES. An integrative and functional framework to the study of animal emotion and mood. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 277, 2895–904, 2010 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panksepp J. Affective consciousness: core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Consciousness and Cognition 14, 30–80, 2005 doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2004.10.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherwen SL, Hemsworrth LH, Beausoleil NJ, Embury A, Mellor DJ. An animal welfare risk assessment process for zoos. Animals 8, 130, 2018 doi: 10.3390/ani8080130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uldahl M, Clayton HM. Lesions associated with the use of bits, nosebands, spurs and whips in Danish competition horses. Equine Veterinary Journal 51, 154–62, 2019. doi: 10.1111/evj.12827
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veissier I, Jensen KK, Botreau R, Sandøe P. Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality scheme. Animal Welfare 20, 89–101, 2011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Webster J. Assessment of animal welfare: the five freedoms. In: Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden. Pp. 10–14, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, 1994
   Google Scholar
• *Webster J. Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden. UFAW Animal Welfare Series; Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK, 2005
   Google Scholar
• Webster J. Zoomorphism and anthropomorphism: fruitful fallacies? Animal Welfare 20, 29–36, 2011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wemelsfelder F. The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 75–88, 1997 doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01152-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams VM, Mellor DJ, Marbrook J. Revision of a scale for assessing the severity of live animal manipulations. ALTEX 23, 163–9, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Yeates JW, Main DCJ. Assessment of positive welfare: a review. The Veterinary Journal 175, 293–300, 2008 doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Non-peer-reviewed
   Google Scholar