CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal testing and alternativesAnimal Law and Welfare

Animal Welfare Science: Recent Publication Trends and Future Research Priorities

Open access
Walker, Michael, Díez-León, María, Mason, Georgia·2014·International Journal of Comparative Psychology
DOI 10.46867/ijcp.2014.27.01.03
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Animal welfare science is a young and thriving field. Over the last two decades, the output of scientific publications on welfare has increased by c. 10-15% annually (tripling as a proportion of all science papers logged by ISI’s Web of Science), with just under half the c. 8500 total being published in the last 4 years. These papers span an incredible 500+ journals, but around three quarters have been in 80 animal science, veterinary, ethology, conservation and specialized welfare publications, and nearly 25% are published in just two: Animal Welfare and Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Farmed animals – especially mammals – have attracted by far the most research. This broadly reflects the vastness of their populations and the degree of public concern they elicit; poultry, however, are under-studied, and farmed fish ever more so: fish have only recently attracted welfare research, and are by far the least studied of all agricultural species, perhaps because of ongoing doubts about their sentience. We predict this farm animal focus will continue in the future, but embracing more farmed fish, reptiles and invertebrates, and placing its findings within broader international contexts such as environmental and food security concerns. Laboratory animals have been consistently well studied, with a shift in recent years away from primates and towards rodents. Pets, the second largest animal sector after farmed animals, have in contrast been little studied considering their huge populations (cats being especially overlooked): we anticipate research on them increasing in the future. Captive wild animals, especially mammals, have attracted a consistent level of welfare research over the last two decades. Given the many thousands of diverse species kept by zoos, this must, and we predict will, increase. Future challenges and opportunities including refining the use of preference tests, stereotypic behaviour, corticosteroid outputs and putative indicators of positive affect, to enable more valid conclusions about welfare; investigating the evolution and functions of affective states; and last but not least, identifying which taxonomic groups and stages of development are actually sentient and so worthy of welfare concern.

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 · 10.46867/ijcp.2014.27.01.03

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Public scrutiny of zoo animal welfare may intensify as scientific understanding of animal welfare develops further.

    “As such, this scrutiny may be expected to intensify as our scientific understanding of animal welfare develops further [8].”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [8]

    In “Research to Assess and Improve the Welfare of Wild and Pet Animals” (page unavailable), the paper notes public attention to some zoo species and predicts more zoo-animal welfare research. It does not predict that public scrutiny will intensify as scientific understanding develops; that connection is not supported by the cited passage. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Advancements in scientific understanding of sentience and emotions in many species likely drove ethical reflection and raised questions about the quality of life of wild animals in zoos.

    “It is likely that the considerable advancements in our scientific understanding of sentience in many species, and their capacity to experience a suite of emotions [7,8], has driven this ethical reflection and raised questions around the quality of life some wild animals experience in zoos and whether their needs can be met to an acceptable standard [7].”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [8]

    The opening discussion (page unavailable) links beliefs about animal feelings to welfare concern, while ‘Research to Assess and Improve the Welfare of Wild and Pet Animals’ (page unavailable) questions whether zoos meet different species’ needs. The paper does not say that advances in scientific understanding drove this reflection; it says some welfare decisions were driven by public pressure rather than scientific insights and stresses that evidence of sentience remains uncertain. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Appleby, M. C., Mench, J. A., Olsson, I. A., & Hughes, B. O. (Eds.). (2011). Animal welfare (2nd ed.). Wallingford, United Kingdom: CABI.
  2. Bateson, M., Desire, S. Gartside, S. E., Wright, G. A. (2011). Agitated honeybees exhibit pessimistic cognitive biases. Current Biology, 21, 1070-1073. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.017 · DOI
  3. Baumans, V., & Van Loo, P. L. P. (2013). How to improve housing conditions of laboratory animals: The possibilities of environmental refinement. Veterinary Journal, 195, 24-32. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.09.023 Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (2013). Animal Welfare. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/science/topical/animal-welfare.aspx. · DOI
  4. Bradshaw, J. (2013). Cat sense: The feline enigma revealed. London: England: Penguin Books Ltd.
  5. Broom, D. M. (2013). Ruth Harrison's later writings and animal welfare work. In R. Harrison & M. S. Dawkins, Animal machines: The new factory farming industry (pp. 21-25). Wallingford, United Kingdom: CABI.
  6. Broom, D. M., Galindo, F. A., & Murgueitio, E. (2013). Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 2025, 1471-2954. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2025 · DOI
  7. Buob, M., Meagher, R., Dawson, L., Palme, R., Haley, D. B., & Mason, G. (2013). Providing 'get-away' bunks and other enrichments to adult female mink improves their reproductive productivity. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 147, 194-204. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.05.004 · DOI
  8. Campbell, D., Dallaire, J., & Mason, G. (2013). Environmentally enriched rearing environments reduce repetitive perseveration in caged mink, but increase spontaneous alternation. Behavioral Brain Research, 239, 177-187. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.11.004 · DOI
  9. Chua, B., Coenen, E., van Delen, J., & Weary, D.M. (2002). Effects of pair versus individual housing on the behavior and performance of dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science, 85, 360-364.
  10. Clubb, R., & Mason, G. (2003). Captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores. Nature, 425, 473. doi: 10.1038/425473a · DOI · Paper page
  11. Clubb, R., Rowcliffe, M., Lee, P., Mar, K. U., Moss, C., & Mason, G.J. (2008). Compromised survivorship in zoo elephants. Science, 332, 1649. doi: 10.1126/science.1164298 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Conde, D. A., Flesness, N., Colchero, F., Jones, O. R., & Scheuerlein, A. (2011). An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science, 331, 1390-1391. doi: 10.1126/science.1200674 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Council of the European Union (1999). Council Directive 1999/74/EC. Official Journal of the European Communities. Council of the European Union (2008). Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union C 115, Volume 51.
  14. Dawkins, M. S., Donnelly, C. A., & Jones, T. A. (2004). Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature, 427, 342-344. doi: 10.1038/nature02226 · DOI
  15. Dawkins, M. S. (2012a). Retrieved on October 13, 2013, from: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals/special_issues/farm_animals
  16. Dawkins, M. S. (2012b). Why animals matter: Animal consciousness, animal welfare, and human well-being. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  17. Dawkins, M. S. (2013). Why we still need to read Animal Machines. In R. Harrison & M. S. Dawkins, Animal machines: The new factory farming industry (pp. 1-4). Wallingford, United Kingdom: CABI.
  18. Final. European Food and Safety Authority (2009). General approach to fish welfare and to the concept of sentience in fish. Retrieved on October 13, 2013, from: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/954.htm, doi: 10.2309/j.efsa.2009.954 · DOI
  19. Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare: the science in its cultural context. Ames, IA: Wiley- Blackwell, Oxford.
  20. Fraser, D., & Nicol, C.J. (2011). Preference and motivation research. M. C. Appleby, J. A. Mench, I. A. Olsson, & B. O. Hughes (Eds.), Animal welfare (2nd ed., pp. 183 -199). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing..
  21. Frynta, D., Šimková, O., Lišková, S., & Landová, E. (2013). Mammalian collection on Noah's Ark: The effects of beauty, brain and body size. PLOS ONE, 8, No. e63110. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063110 · DOI
  22. Garnett, T., Appleby, M. C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I. J., Benton, T. G., Bloomer, R., . . . Godfray, H. C. J. (2013). Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science, 341, 33-34. doi: 10.1126/science.1234485 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Government of California (2010). Assembly Bill 1437, Chapter 51.
  24. Grandin, T. (2012). Auditing animal welfare and making practical improvements in beef-, pork-, and sheep- slaughter plants. Animal Welfare, 21, 29-34. doi: 10.7120/096272812X13353700593400 · DOI
  25. Harrop, S. (2011). Climate change, conservation and the place for wild animal welfare in international law. Journal of Environmental Law, 23, 441-462. doi: 10.1093/jel/eqr017 · DOI
  26. Hosey, G., Melfi, V., & Pankhurst, S. (2013). Zoo animals: Behavior, management and welfare. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  27. Hoy, J. M., Murray, P. J., & Tribe, A. (2010). Thirty years later: Enrichment practices for captive mammals. Zoo Biology, 29, 303-316. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20254 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Hutchinson, E., Avery, A., & Vandewoude, S. (2005). Environmental enrichment for laboratory rodents. ILAR Journal, 46, 148-161.
  29. Jones, M. A., Mason, G. J., & Pillay, N. (2011). Correlates of birth origin effects on the development of stereotypic behavior in striped mice, Rhabdomys. Animal Behavior, 82, 149-159. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.04.010 · DOI
  30. Keeling, L., Anderson, L., Schutz, K. E., Kerje, S., Fredriksson, R., Carlborg, O., Cornwallis, C.K., Pizzari, T., & Jensen, P. (2004). Chicken genomics: Feather-pecking and victim pigmentation. Nature, 427, 645- 646. doi: 10.1038/431645a · DOI
  31. Keeling, L.J., Rushen, J & Duncan, I. J. H. (2011). Understanding animal welfare. M. C. Appleby, J. A. Mench, I. A. Olsson, & B. O. Hughes (Eds.), Animal welfare (2nd ed., pp. 13-26). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
  32. Kleiman, D. G., Thompson, K. V., & Baer, C. K. (2012) Wild mammals in captivity. (2nd ed.). Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.
  33. Lay, D. C., & Marchant-Forde, J. N. (2009). Future perspectives of the welfare of pigs. In J. N. Marchant- Forde (Ed.), The welfare of pigs.'Welfare of pigs' (pp. 331-342). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  34. Low, P. (2012). In J. Panksepp, D. Reiss, D. Edelman, B. Van Swinderen, & C. Koch (Eds.), The Cambridge declaration on consciousness. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf.
  35. Magee, B. & Elwood, R.W. (2013). Shock avoidance by discrimination learning in the shore crab (Carcinus maenas) is consistent with a key criterion for pain. Journal of Experimental Biology, 216, 353-358. doi: 10.1242/jeb.072041 · DOI
  36. Maple, T.L., & Perdue, B.M. (2013). Zoo animal welfare. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
  37. Mason, G. (2010). Species differences in responses to captivity: stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25, 713-721. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.08.011 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Mason, G.J. (2011). Invertebrate welfare: where is the real evidence for conscious affective states? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26, 212-213. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.02.009 · DOI
  39. Mason, G. J., & Burn C. C., (2011). Behavioral restriction. In M. C. Appleby, J. A. Mench, I. A. Olsson, & B. O. Hughes (Eds.), Animal welfare (2nd ed., pp. 98-119). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
  40. Mason, G., Burn, C. C., Dallarie, J. A., Kroshko, J., Kinkaid, H. M., & Jeschke, J. M. (2013). Plastic animals in cages: behavioral flexibility and responses to captivity. Animal Behavior, 85, 1113-1126. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.02.002 · DOI
  41. Meagher, R.K. & Mason, G.J. (2012). Environmental enrichment reduces signs of boredom in caged mink. PLOS One 7, e49180: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0049180 · DOI
  42. Mendl, M., Burman, O. H., Parker, R., & Paul, E. S. (2009). Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 118, 161-181. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.023 · DOI
  43. Miller, L. J. & Hill, H. (2014). Future directions in comparative psychology: an introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27(1), 1-2.
  44. Millman, S.T., Mench, J.A., & Malleau, A.E. (2010). The future of poultry welfare. In I. J. H. Duncan & P. Hawkins, The welfare of domestic fowl and other captive birds (pp. 279-302). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  45. Olsson, I. A. S., Wuerbel, H. & Mench, J. A. (2011). Behavior. In M. C. Appleby, J. A. Mench, I. A. Olsson, & B. O. Hughes (Eds.), Animal welfare (2nd ed., pp. 138-154). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
  46. Paul, E. S., Harding, E. J., & Mendl, M. (2005). Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 469-491. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.002 · DOI
  47. Rees, P. A. (2013). A dictionary of zoo biology and animal management. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley- Blackwell.
  48. Rose, J. D., Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S. J., Diggles, B. K., Sawynok, W., E. D., Stevens, E. D., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2012). Can fish really feel pain? Fish and Fisheries. First published online: 20 Dec 2012. doi: 10.1111/faf.12010 · DOI
  49. Rushen, J., de Passillé, A. M., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. & Weary, D. M. (2008). The Welfare of Cattle. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  50. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Faucitano, L., Dadgar, S., Shand, P., Gonzalez, L.A., & Crowe, T. G. (2012). Road transport of cattle, swine, and poultry in North America and its impact on animal welfare, carcass and meat quality: A review. Meat Science, 92, 227-243. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.010 · DOI
  51. Thornton, P. K. (2010). Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 2853-2867. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0134 · DOI
  52. Tilly, S. C., Dallaire, J. & Mason, G. J. (2010). Middle-aged mice with enrichment-resistant stereotypic behavior show reduced motivation for enrichment. Animal Behavior, 80, 363-373. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.06.008 · DOI
  53. Pomerantz, O., & Terkel, J. (2009). Effects of positive reinforcement training techniques on the psychological welfare of zoo-housed chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). American Journal of Primatology, 71, 687-695. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20703 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Walker, M., Duggan, G., Roulston, N., Van Slack, A., & Mason, G. (2012). Negative affective states and their effects on morbidity, mortality, and longevity. Animal Welfare, 21, 497-509. doi: 10.7120/09627286.21.4.497 · DOI
  55. Weary, D. M. in press. What is suffering in animals? In M. C. Appleby, D. M. Weary, & P. Sandøe (Eds.)., Dilemmas in animal welfare. Wallingford, UK : CAB International.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walker, M., Díez-León, M., & Mason, G.
Affiliations
University of Guelph (CA)
Corresponding author
Mason, Georgia
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Comparative Psychology
Publisher
International Society of Comparative Psychology
Published
2014
Volume
27
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0889-3667 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-3344
DOI
10.46867/ijcp.2014.27.01.03
OpenAlex
W297553675
Cited by
68
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Comparative Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RVC Research Online (Royal Veterinary College) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
Keywords
animal welfare, publication trends, research priorities, livestock, fish sentience, laboratory animals, pet welfare, captive wildlife, welfare indicators, preference test, stereotypy, corticosteroids, positive affect, sentience, zoos

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