Various arguments in favour of and against bullfighting are reviewed. The author advocates a thorough and knowledgeable adaptation, suppressing bloodshed and other sufferings. Through history, the evolution of bullfighting consists of a gradual trend towards the ‘art for the art’. Such a solution would not only keep and even stimulate the aesthetic aspects, but has also more chances to save the animals. Strategically speaking, a fight for total suppression is unlikely to succeed anyway or will last too long.

This study was designed to determine whether feedback from welfare assessments, using the Horse Welfare Assessment Protocol, affected actual horse welfare in 21 stables. After the first assessment, stable managers in the high feedback (HF; n = 10 stables) group were supplied with extensive information and support regarding the welfare measures and relevance of the results. The low feedback (LF; n = 11 stables) group only received the results without additional information. Upon re-assessment, six months later, no significant changes were seen in the stable overall (SO) score in either group. Significant changes occurred in individual measures; in the HF group more fresh-air inlets were open but water drinker function and ocular discharge deteriorated. In the LF group, the feeding troughs were cleaner but mane and tail condition deteriorated. Both groups had cleaner water troughs and less equipment chafing but the sum of relative air humidity (RH) and temperature (T) deteriorated. Significant decreases occurred in the stable welfare issues (SWI) score; the HF group decreased from 93.3 to 72.0 and the LF group from 113.3 to 91.3. There were also nonsignificant changes; in the HF group, 71 measures and five stables improved while 63 measures and five stables (50%) deteriorated. In the LF group, 65 measures and seven stables improved while 62 measures and four stables deteriorated. The observed improvements in both groups suggest that assessment alone (with no detailed feedback) might raise awareness but we cannot yet conclude whether or not the type of feedback affects overall horse welfare.

Animals under human care are exposed to a potentially large range of both familiar and unfamiliar humans. Human-animal interactions vary across settings, and individuals, with the nature of the interaction being affected by a suite of different intrinsic and extrinsic factors. These interactions can be described as positive, negative or neutral. Across some industries, there has been a move towards the development of technologies to support or replace human interactions with animals. Whilst this has many benefits, there can also be challenges associated with increased technology use. A day-long Animal Welfare Research Network workshop was hosted at Harper Adams University, UK, with the aim of bringing together stakeholders and researchers (n = 38) from the companion, farm and zoo animal fields, to discuss benefits, challenges and limitations of human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions for animals under human care and create a list of future research priorities. The workshop consisted of four talks from experts within these areas, followed by break-out room discussions. This work is the outcome of that workshop. The key recommendations are that approaches to advancing the scientific discipline of machine-animal interactions in animals under human care should focus on: (1) interdisciplinary collaboration; (2) development of validated methods; (3) incorporation of an animal-centred perspective; (4) a focus on promotion of positive animal welfare states (not just avoidance of negative states); and (5) an exploration of ways that machines can support a reduction in the exposure of animals to negative human-animal interactions to reduce negative, and increase positive, experiences for animals.

Studies on the transport of deer (Cervidae), in the UK, were published > 15 years ago. A more recent study of deer transport is required to allow for assessments and improvements to the transport of farmed deer. Sixteen deer farmers participated in a survey describing their management practices related to transport. Their responses showed that most vehicles used to transport deer were designed for other livestock. Participating farmers estimated journey times to slaughter as 1–8 h, with an arithmetic mean of 4.8 (± 2.38) h. Specific concerns raised by the respondents, relating to the transport of deer, included a need for deer-specific vehicles, stop-off areas for long journeys, market locations and haulier experience. Furthermore, data were collected from two abattoirs between July 2019 and June 2020 comprising journey times, slaughter times, bruising, location of origin, vehicle type and the number of animals. In total, 4,922 deer were transported across 133 journeys (from farm to abattoir) from 61 farms. Median and range for journey length were 3.2 (0.4–9.8) h and 154.2 (7.1–462.2) km, whereas group size and time spent in the lairage were 24 (1–121) and 17.8 (10.2–68.9) h, respectively. Group size was found to be significantly associated with both the presence of bruising in a group and the amount of bruising per deer. This study provides a much-needed update on the transport of farmed deer in the UK and highlights key areas for future research including the welfare impact of transport in larger groups and for longer durations.

Changes in plasma Cortisol concentrations in response to a stimulus have been used to indicate aversiveness. Hormone concentrations at any time point depend on the interaction between an animal's previous experience and its present physiological state. In order to assess how an animal's perception of, and thus its response to, a stimulus change as it gains experience of the stimulus, eight Welsh Mountain ewes were subject to 2h road transport daily on three occasions and then once again 4 days later. Differences in Cortisol concentrations in plasma samples taken every 15min were assessed using a general linear model and Tukey's test.

The aim of this study was to assess the welfare of culled dairy cattle sent to an auction in the UK and identify associations between animal-based measurement and economic gain. The population of cull dairy cows sold at a Scottish livestock market were assessed on ten occasions for measures including body condition, mobility, hair loss and lesions, swelling, body cleanliness, claw conformation and total time in pre-sale pens. Details on breed, age, breeding status, farm, weight and price were gathered from market reports and cattle passports. Questionnaires sent to farms gathered information on reason for culling, retirement period (a finishing period to improve body condition), and number of lactations, among other variables. Measures such as bodyweight, breeding status, and breed type influenced price paid, with heifers and larger animals receiving higher prices. A negative effect over price paid was due to reduced mobility and hair loss scores, suggesting that some animal-based indicators of compromised welfare may be associated with a lower economic return from the cows sent to market. No influence of retirement length on price paid was noted. Reason for culling also did not influence price paid, but considering the association found between welfare and price paid, this suggests that the farmers’ reason for culling may not be necessarily revealed by the visual appearance of the cow. This study reveals reasons for culling and quantifies the welfare of dairy cows at market and demonstrates how measures of breeding status and body size, as well as measures of welfare, influence the buyers’ decisions and prices paid at auction.

The gulf between ethical propositions of animal welfare and the scientific basis of wildlife conservation has, at times, impeded a practical working relationship between the two (Harrop 2003). Indeed, quite often the two disciplines are capable of looking in different directions. The conservationist fixes on the species and its population status whilst the welfarist focuses on any animal, regardless of its conservation status, that is phylogenetically sophisticated enough to be capable of suffering. In consequence, welfare components are rare in international wildlife management law and are restricted to being subordinate to conservation objects (Harrop 1997, 2010). Nevertheless, the two disciplines are moving closer in many ways with the development of scientific indicators of welfare and also the need to refine the principal drivers of conservation strategies which must ultimately derive from an ethical objective. In this connection, the recent review of the CBD's strategy at Nagoya founded its new targets on a vision of ‘Living in Harmony With Nature’ (Harrop 2011c). Such an achievement would probably be a first for humanity and an utterly impractical aspiration. However, I would like to construe this vision, with the freedom of poetic licence, as conceiving both a materially and ethically harmonious future for humans and animals.

Edmund Marriage raises three main concerns about the welfare implications of stalking: specifically, the proportion of deer that escaped injured, the length of time taken to die by body-shot deer, and the effect of disturbance on the behaviour of deer.