Anthropocentric claims about the ways in which non-human animals (hereafter animals) interact in their social and non-social worlds are often used to influence decisions on how animals can or should be used by humans in various sorts of activities. Thus, the treatment of individuals is often tightly linked to how they are perceived with respect to their ability to perform behaviour patterns that suggest that they can think - have beliefs, desires, or make plans and have expectations about the future. Here, I review some basic issues in the comparative study of animal minds and discuss how matters of mind are related to matters of welfare and well-being. Much comparative research still needs to be done before any stipulative claims can be made about how an individual's cognitive abilities can be used to influence decisions about how she or he should be treated. More individuals from diverse species whose lives, sensory worlds, motor abilities and nervous systems are different from those of animals with whom we identify most readily or with whom we are the most familiar, need to be studied. As others, I stress the importance of subjectivity and common sense along with the use of empirical data in making decisions about animal welfare, and that subjective assessments should be viewed in the same critical light as are supposedly objective scientific facts. I also argue that whatever connections there are between an individual's cognitive abilities and what sorts of treatment are permissible can be overridden by that individual's ability to feel pain and to suffer. When we are uncertain, even only slightly, about their ability to experience pain or to suffer, individual animals should be given the benefit of the doubt. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the phylogenetic distribution of pain and suffering.

Ninety-six pregnant sows, previously penned in individual stalls, were housed in groups of four in pens containing three zones: a) four individual feeding stalls without rear gates, b) a communal sleeping kennel and c) a dunging area between the stalls and kennel. The feeding stalls were either long (2m) or short (1m) with barriers made of wire mesh. The daily allowance of 2.5kg pelleted feed per sow was presented either all at once (dump) or at the rate of approximately 100g/min by a manual system (trickle). Dung disposal systems were either a pit füled with sawdust-based compost, a slatted floor, or straw on a sloped concrete floor. There were two replicates of the 2×2×3 factorial design. The location of sows was observed from time-lapse video recordings taken at regular intervals throughout the 31 day experimental period.

Use of the three zones of the pens was influenced by feeding method, barrier length and dung disposal system. Overall the feeding stalls were used more with trickle than with dump feeding (P<0.05); more with long than with short barriers (P<0.001), and most with slatted floors and least with the straw system (P<0.001). AU these treatments had the opposite effects on the use of the communal kennel The use of the dunging area was not affected by feeding method or stall length but was greater (P<0.01) on the compost compared with the other two dung disposal systems. Throughout the experimental period the use of feeding stalls decreased (P<0.001). Orcadian use of the pen zones interacted with barrier length and dung disposal system. Kennels were used most at night in pens with straw, exceeding 54minlh with half length (1m) stalls. The lowest night-time use of kennels, around 8min/h, was found in pens with full length (2m) stalls combined with either compost or slats. Ambient temperature did not have a major influence on use of pen zones.

The occupation of stalls, especially full length stalls, indicates that offering a choice between solitary and communal areas may improve the welfare of group-housed sows.

Three recently developed and published schemes to evaluate the acceptability of proposed animal experiments are discussed and compared:

1. The model developed at the request of the Dutch Veterinary Public Health Chief Inspectorate by the Department of Animal Problems of Leiden University (the ‘Dutch Model’);

2. The model proposed by the Canadian, David G Porter (the ‘Porter model’);

3. The model developed by the British Institute of Medical Ethics, published in ‘Lives in the Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research’ (the ‘IME model’).

It is concluded that the Porter model, although compact, does not have an acceptable level of discrimination; nor does it provide the researcher with any pragmatic tools to optimize the research design. The other models appear to be quite adequate for the different purposes for which they were developed. The Dutch model was developed to guide the evaluation procedure at the level of local institution-based committees (ie internal evaluation by colleagues), whereas the IME model will serve the professional officers of the United Kingdom Home Office Inspectorate (ie external evaluation).

Finally, the pragmatic consequences of the three models are discussed with respect to two hypothetical cases.

Six animals in a free-ranging herd often Aberdeen Angus cattle showed mouth movements induced by skin stimulation by grooming of the sacro-coccygeal region with a horse grooming brush. Three of the animals reacted by mouth movements similar to stereotypic tongue rolling. Twenty-two (ie 37 %) of 59 animals at a cattle show reacted by mouth movements when firmly scratched by hand on the skin in the sacro-coccygeal region and among these animals, significantly more beef breed cattle reacted compared to dairy breeds (P<0.02).

Stereotypic mouth movements of cattle including tongue-rolling, bar-biting and bar-licking are regularly observed in dairy cows and calves. Although it is generally accepted that these kinds of behaviour are behavioural stress reactions, scientific evidence related to the mechanisms behind these oral movements is scarce. In relation to animal welfare science these behavioural stress reactions ewe important because knowledge of the aetiology of the abnormal behaviour is necessary for the prevention and cure of the symptoms. The present demonstration of skin stimulated induction of mouth movements in cattle, similar to tongue-rolling, therefore seems interesting, as the discovery of such a behaviour may be used in further research on oral stereotypies in cattle.

This study demonstrates that only a minimal time investment was needed to train a large troop of laboratory non-human primates to co-operate in the catching procedure. A group of 45 rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) was trained to enter a chute system voluntarily and be caught one by one. The total duration of the training sessions was under six hours, with less than 15 total work-hours invested by three people. The result was an improved capture procedure which minimized risk to personnel and distress to the animals.