CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Ackonc-AWA: a multi-species animal welfare assessment protocol for wild animals under human care to overcome the use of generic welfare checklists

Open access
Racciatti, Débora Silvia, Feld, Alejandra, Rial, Laura Analía, Blanco, Carlos, Tallo-Parra, Oriol·2022·Frontiers in Veterinary Science
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2022.1033821PMC PMC9773254
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction: Maintaining a high level of animal welfare is essential in zoos, sanctuaries and aquaria for ethical, legislative and functional reasons. Therefore, it is necessary to have welfare assessment protocols that can be incorporated into daily management programs. Currently, there are different approaches to assessing animal welfare in zoos. Those that can be applied to multiple species consist of checklists or qualitative assessments, with limitations, especially regarding the lack of guidance in the selection and interpretation of indicators. Validated protocols also exist, but they are for very few wild species. This study aimed to develop, test in the field, and describe an animal welfare assessment protocol for wild animals under human care, that can be applied to multiple species, intended to overcome the use of generic welfare checklists and offer an alternative to challenging and time consuming species-specific tools. Methods: The development process consisted of the elaboration of a protocol, substantiated by published literature on zoo animal welfare and multidisciplinary focus group work, and its on-field feasibility test. This was performed on 14 species of different taxa housed in an Argentinian zoo. The protocol was structured in two forms: an initial form to serve as scan using various animal-based (ABM), resource-based (RBM), and management-based measurements (MBM), and a follow-up form using exclusively ABM. The protocol also included a user's manual with information about preliminary preparation, equipment required, steps from arrival until completion, and details on how to assess each indicator. The scoring method consisted in rating each indicator on a 3-point scale. Results: 23 ABM, 19 RBM, and three MBM were tested and selected to integrate Ackonc-AWA, a multidimensional protocol covering the five animal welfare domains and applicable to multiple species. Discussion: This protocol was entirely developed in Spanish and can be applied noninvasively and at a low cost, which constitute features of high relevance for Latin America. Further applications of the described welfare assessment tool in other species and different institutional contexts will reinforce the validation of the proposed measurements and allow the systematic and routine evaluation of animal welfare in zoos.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fvets.2022.1033821

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ackonc-AWA has been tested on 14 individuals (10 mammals, two birds, and two reptiles) for reliability, validity, and feasibility.

    “The tool has so far been tested on 14 individuals (10 mammals, two birds, and two reptiles) for reliability, validity, and feasibility.”

    From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [70]

    Materials and methods (On-field feasibility test; page unavailable) says 14 individuals—ten mammals, two birds, and two reptiles—were selected for field testing, which included test-retest reliability and feasibility assessments. Materials and methods (Elaboration of the protocol; page unavailable) says content validity was addressed separately through a focus group of eleven zoo representatives, not by testing the 14 animals. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Ackonc-AWA integrates 23 animal-based measures, 19 resource-based measures, and three management-based measures under five domains: nutrition, environment, health, and behavior/mental state.

    “Ackonc-AWA is a recently developed multi-species tool based on the Five Domains Model that integrates 23 animal-based measures, 19 resource-based measures, and three management-based measures that fall under five domains: nutrition, environment, health, and behavior/mental state (70).”

    From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [70]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 60 · Cited by 11

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. [4]Skovlund CR Kirchner MK Moos LW Alsted N Manteca X Tallo-Parra O. A critical review of animal-based welfare indicators for polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in zoos: identification and evidence of validity. Animal Welfare. (2021) 30: 1– 18. 10.7120/09627286.30.1.001 · DOI
  2. [5]Ramp D Bekoff M. Compassion as a practical and evolved ethic for conservation. Bioscience. (2015) 65: 323– 7. 10.1093/biosci/biu223 · DOI
  3. [6]Branco ARV Soriano VS Schnaider MA Molento CFM. Compassionate conservation: concept and applications. Arch Vet Sci. (2017) 22: 116– 30. 10.5380/avs.v22i4.56938 · DOI
  4. [7]Papastavrou V Leaper R Lavigne D. Why management decisions involving marine mammals should include animal welfare. Mar Pol. (2017) 79: 19– 24. 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.02.001 · DOI
  5. [8]Beausoleil NJ I am a compassionate conservation welfare scientist: Considering the theoretical and practical differences between Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare. Animals. (2020) 10: 257. 10.3390/ani10020257 32041150 PMC7070475 · DOI
  6. [9]Bacon H Vigors B Shaw DJ Waran N Dwyer CM Bell C. Zookeepers–The most important animal in the zoo? J Appl Animal Welf Sci. (2021) 1– 13. 10.1080/10888705.2021.2012784 34894904 · DOI
  7. [10]Walker M Diez-Leon M Mason G. Animal welfare science: Recent publication trends and future research priorities. Int J Compar Psychol. (2014) 27: 80– 100. 10.46867/ijcp.2014.27.01.03 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [11]Rose PE Brereton JE Rowden LJ de Figueiredo RL Riley LM. What's new from the zoo? An analysis of ten years of zoo-themed research output. Palgrave Commun. (2019) 5: 1– 10. 10.1057/s41599-019-0345-3 · DOI
  9. [12]Binding S Farmer H Krusin L Cronin K. Status of animal welfare research in zoos and aquariums: Where are we, where to next? J Zoo Aquar Res. (2020) 8: 166– 74. 10.19227/jzar.v813.505 · DOI
  10. [13]Whitham JC Wielebnowski N. Animal-based welfare monitoring: using keeper ratings as an assessment tool. Zoo Biol. (2009) 28: 545– 60. 10.1002/zoo.20281 19851995 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [16]Kagan R Carter S Allard S A. universal animal welfare framework for zoos. J Applied Animal Welfare Sci. (2015) 18: S1– S10. 10.1080/10888705.2015.1075830 26440493 PMC4673521 · DOI
  12. [20]Botreau R Bonde M Butterworth A Perny P Bracke MBM Capdeville J. Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods. Animals. (2007) 1: 1179– 87. 10.1017/S1751731107000535 22444862 · DOI
  13. [22]Salas M Manteca X Abáigar T Delclaux M Enseñat C Martínez-Nevado E. Using Farm Animal Welfare Protocols as a Base to Assess the Welfare of Wild Animals in Captivity—Case Study: Dorcas Gazelles (Gazella dorcas). Animals. (2018) 8: 111– 9. 10.3390/ani8070111 29976913 PMC6071001 · DOI
  14. [25]Brando S Buchanan-Smith HM. The 24/7 approach to promoting optimal welfare for captive wild animals. Behav Processes. (2018) 156: 83– 95. 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.09.010 29113925 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [28]Clegg IL Borger-Turner JL Eskelinen HC. C-Well: The development of a welfare assessment index for captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Animal Welfare. (2015) 24: 267– 82. 10.7120/09627286.24.3.267 · DOI
  16. [30]Padalino B Menchetti L. The first protocol for assessing welfare of camels. Front Vet Sci. (2021) 7: 1230. 10.3389/fvets.2020.631876 33585612 PMC7876076 · DOI
  17. [32]Scott EM Nolan AM Fitzpatrick JL. Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: a framework for measurement. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci. (2001) 51: 5– 10. 10.1080/090647001316922983 · DOI
  18. [33]Battini M Vieira A Barbieri S Ajuda I Stilwell G Mattiello S. Invited review: animal-based indicators for on-farm welfare assessment for dairy goats. J Dairy Sci. (2014) 97: 6625– 48. 10.3168/jds.2013-7493 25242423 · DOI
  19. [34]Landis JR Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics. (1977) 33: 363– 74. 10.2307/2529786 884196 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [37]Miller LJ Vicino GA Sheftel J Lauderdale LK. Behavioral diversity as a potential indicator of positive animal welfare. Animals (Basel). (2020) 10: 1211. 10.3390/ani10071211 32708625 PMC7401597 · DOI
  21. [39]Pedrazzani AS Quintiliano MH Bolfe F Sans ECDO Molento CFM. Tilapia on-farm welfare assessment protocol for semi-intensive production systems. Front Vet Sci. (2020) 7: 606388. 10.3389/fvets.2020.606388 33324705 PMC7723968 · DOI
  22. [40]Laule GE. Positive reinforcement training and environmental enrichment: enhancing animal well-being. J-Am Vet Med Assoc. (2003) 223: 969– 72. 10.2460/javma.2003.223.969 14552483 · DOI
  23. [41]Melfi V. Is training zoo animals enriching? Appl Animal Behav Sci. (2013) 147: 299– 305. 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.04.011 · DOI
  24. [42]Fernandez EJ Martin AL. Animal training, environmental enrichment, and animal welfare: a history of behavior analysis in zoos. J Zool Bot Gardens. (2021) 2: 531– 43. 10.3390/jzbg2040038 · DOI
  25. [43]Barrows M. Welfare assessment in zoo animals. Vet Rec. (2017) 181: 141– 2. 10.1136/vr.j3583 28775026 · DOI
  26. [44]Riggio G Pirrone F Lunghini E Gazzano A Mariti C. Zookeepers' perception of zoo canid welfare and its effect on job satisfaction, worldwide. Animals. (2020) 10: 916. 10.3390/ani10050916 32466259 PMC7278387 · DOI
  27. [45]Carlstead K Mellen J Kleiman DG. Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in U.S. zoos: I. Individual behavior profiles and their relationship to breeding success. Zoo Biol. (1999) 18: 17– 34. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2361(1999)18:1<17::AID-ZOO4>3.0.CO;2-K · DOI
  28. [46]Wielebnowski NC. Behavioral differences as predictors of breeding status in captive cheetahs. Zoo Biol. (1999) 18: 335– 49. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2361(1999)18:4<335::AID-ZOO8>3.0.CO;2-X · DOI
  29. [51]Antonenko TV Medvedeva JE Panchuk KA. The influence of olfactory stimulation on the welfare of big cats in captivity. Ukr J Ecol. (2017) 7: 134– 8. 10.15421/2017_96 · DOI
  30. [52]Huettner T Dollhaeupl S Simon R Baumgartner K von Fersen L. Activity budget comparisons using long-term observations of a group of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) under human care: Implications for animal welfare. Animals. (2021) 11: 2107. 10.3390/ani11072107 34359239 PMC8300398 · DOI
  31. [53]Ross SR Schapiro SJ Hau J Lukas KE. Space use as an indicator of enclosure appropriateness: a novel measure of captive animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 121: 42– 50. 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.08.007 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [54]Wark JD Cronin KA Niemann T Shender MA Horrigan A Kao A. Monitoring the behavior and habitat use of animals to enhance welfare using the ZooMonitor app. Anim Behav Cogn. (2019) 6: 158– 67. 10.26451/abc.06.03.01.2019 · DOI · Paper page
  33. [55]Smulders D Verbeke G Mormède P Geers R. Validation of a behavioral observation tool to assess pig welfare. Physiol Behav. (2006) 89: 438– 47. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.07.002 16904137 · DOI
  34. [56]Meagher RK. Observer ratings: Validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 119: 1– 14. 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.026 · DOI
  35. [57]Wemelsfelder F. The scientific validity of subjective concepts inmodels of animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1997) 53: 75– 88. 10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01152-5 · DOI
  36. [59]Gosling SD. From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychol Bull. (2001) 127: 45– 86. 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.45 11271756 · DOI
  37. [60]Diesel G Brodbelt D Pfeiffer DU. Reliability of assessment of dogs' behavioural responses by staff working at a welfare charity in the UK. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2008) 115: 171– 81. 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.05.005 · DOI
  38. [62]Russel AJF Doney JM Gunn RG. Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. J Agric Sci. (1969) 72: 451– 4. 10.1017/S002185960002487430117413 · DOI
  39. [63]Kestin SC Knowles TG Tinch AE Gregory NG. Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Vet Rec. (1992) 131: 190– 4. 10.1136/vr.131.9.190 1441174 · DOI
  40. [64]Flower FC Weary DM. Effect of hoof pathologies on subjective assessments of dairy cow gait. J Dairy Sci. (2006) 89: 139– 46. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72077-X 16357276 · DOI
  41. [65]Hawkins P. Recognizing and assessing pain, suffering and distress in laboratory animals: a survey of current practice in the UK with recommendations. Lab Anim. (2002) 36: 378– 95. 10.1258/002367702320389044 12396281 · DOI
  42. [69]Furr RM Bacharach VR. Psychometrics: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications, Inc. (2008), 246– 250.
  43. [70]Wyse CA McNie KA Tannahil VJ Murray JK Love S. Prevalence of obesity in riding horses in Scotland. Vet Rec. (2008) 162: 590– 1. 10.1136/vr.162.18.590 18453379 · DOI
  44. [71]Learmonth MJ. Human–animal interactions in zoos: What can compassionate Conservation, conservation welfare and duty of care tell us about the ethics of interacting, and avoiding unintended consequences?. Animals. (2020) 10: 2037. 10.3390/ani10112037 33158270 PMC7694286 · DOI

Authors
Racciatti, D. S., Feld, A., Rial, L. A., Blanco, C., & Tallo-Parra, O.
Affiliations
Universidad de Buenos Aires (AR)
Corresponding author
Racciatti, Débora Silvia
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-12-08
Volume
9
Pages
1033821-1033821
ISSN
2297-1769 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fvets.2022.1033821
PMC
PMC9773254
OpenAlex
W4311865047
Cited by
11
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Veterinary Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
animal welfare assessment, zoo animals, welfare indicators, Latin America

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review