■ EDITED BY JENI HOOD BSc (Hons) BVMS PhD
Abstracts
Ethical challenges posed by advanced veterinary care in companion animal veterinary practice Advanced veterinary care (AVC) of companion animals may yield improved clinical outcomes, improved animal welfare, improved satisfaction of veterinary clients, improved satisfaction of veterinary team members, and increased practice profitability. However, it also raises ethical challenges. Yet, what counts as AVC is difficult to pinpoint due to continuing advancements. We discuss some of the challenges in defining advanced veterinary care (AVC), particularly in relation to a standard of care (SOC). We then review key ethical challenges associated with AVC that have been identified in the veterinary ethics literature, including poor quality of life, dysthanasia and caregiver burden, financial cost and accessibility of veterinary care, conflicts of interest, and the absence of ethical review for some patients undergoing AVC. We suggest some strategies to address these concerns, including prospective ethical review utilising ethical frameworks and decision-making tools, the setting of humane end points, the role of regulatory bodies in limiting acceptable procedures, and the normalisation of quality-of-life scoring. We also suggest a role for retrospective ethical review in the form of ethics rounds and clinical auditing. Our discussion reinforces the need for a spectrum of veterinary care for companion animals. A Quain1, MP Ward1, S Mullan2. Animals. 2021; 11(11):3010. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113010 1
Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 2 School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
Metagenomic investigation of potential abortigenic pathogens in foetal tissues from Australian horses Background: Abortion in horses leads to economic and welfare losses to the equine industry. Most cases of equine abortions are sporadic, and the cause is often unknown. This study aimed to detect potential abortigenic pathogens in equine abortion cases in Australia using metagenomic deep sequencing methods. Results: After sequencing and analysis, a total of 68 and 86 phyla were detected in the material originating from 49 equine abortion samples and 8 samples from normal deliveries, respectively. Most phyla were present in both groups, with the exception of Chlamydiae that were only present in abortion samples. Around 2886 genera were present in the abortion samples and samples from normal deliveries at a cut off value of 0.001 per cent of relative abundance. Significant differences in species diversity between aborted and normal tissues was observed. Several potential abortigenic pathogens were identified at a high level of relative abundance in a number of the abortion cases, including Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Streptococcus equi subspecies zooepidemicus, Pantoea agglomerans, Acinetobacter lwoffii, Acinetobacter calcoaceticus and Chlamydia psittaci. Conclusions: This work revealed the presence of several potentially abortigenic pathogens in aborted specimens. No novel potential abortigenic agents were detected. The ability to screen samples for multiple pathogens that may not have been specifically targeted broadens the frontiers of diagnostic potential. The future use of metagenomic approaches for diagnostic purposes is likely to be facilitated by further improvements in deep sequencing technologies. R Akter1 2,C M El-Hage1,F M Sansom1,J Carrick3, J M Devlin# 1, A R Legione# 4 BMC Genomics.†2021 Oct 2;22(1):713.Rdoi: 10.1186/s12864021-08010-5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-08010-5 1Asia Pacific Centre for Animal Health, The Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia. 2 Department of Medicine (Royal Melbourne Hospital), The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia. To page 30
12 TheVeterinarian NOVEMBER 2021
The Five Domains model and promoting positive welfare in pigs Public concern for the welfare of farm animals has increased over recent years. Meeting public demands for higher animal welfare products requires robust animal welfare assessment tools that enable the user to identify areas of potential welfare compromise and enhancement. The Five Domains model is a structured, systematic, and comprehensive framework for assessing welfare risks and enhancement in sentient animals. Since its inception in 1994, the model has undergone regular updates to incorporate advances in animal welfare understanding and scientific knowledge. The model consists of five areas, or domains, that focus attention on specific factors or conditions that may impact on an animal's welfare. These include four physical/ functional domains: nutrition, physical environment, health, and behavioural interactions, and a fifth mental or affective state domain. The first three domains draw attention to welfare-significant internal physical/functional states within the animal, whereas the fourth deals with welfare-relevant features of the animal's external physical and social environment. Initially named "Behaviour" Domain 4 was renamed "Behavioural Interactions" in the 2020 iteration of the model and was expanded to include three categories: interactions with the environment, interactions with other animals and interactions with humans. These explicitly focus attention on environmental and social circumstances that may influence the animal's ability to exercise agency, an important determinant of welfare. Once factors in Domains 1-4 have been considered, the likely consequences, in terms of the animal's subjective experiences, are assigned to Domain 5 (affective state). The integrated outcome of all negative and positive mental experiences accumulated in Domain 5 represents the animal's current welfare state. Because the model specifically draws attention to conditions that may positively influence welfare, it provides a useful framework for identifying opportunities to promote positive welfare in intensively farmed animals. When negative affective experiences are minimised, providing animals with the opportunity to engage in species-specific rewarding behaviours may shift them into an overall positive welfare state. In domestic pigs, providing opportunities for foraging, play, and nest building, along with improving the quality of pig-human interactions, has the potential to promote positive welfare. N J Kells1. Animal. 2021 Oct 22; 100378.†https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100378 1Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand. Electronic address: N.J.Kells@massey.ac.nz.
A method for assessing sustainability, with beef production as an example A comprehensive approach to decisions about the use of land and other world resources, taking full account of biological and other scientific information, is crucial for good decisions to be made now and in future. The sustainability of systems for producing food and other products is sometimes assessed using too narrow a range of component factors. A production system might be unsustainable because of adverse effects on a wide range of aspects of human welfare, animal welfare, or the environment. All factors should be included in sustainability evaluation, otherwise products or actions might be avoided without adequate consideration of key factors or of the diversity of production systems. A scoring method that is based on scientific information and potentially of general relevance is presented here, using beef production as a example with a review of each of its sustainability components. This includes an overall combined score and specific factors that make the system unacceptable for some consumers. The results show that, in this example, the sustainability of the best systems is very much better than that of the worst systems. By taking account of scores for a wide range of components of sustainability To page 30
■ www.theveterinarian.com.au
