•
Agrárias
Adimar Cardoso Júnior 11/10/2024
Prévia do material em texto
<p>Title</p><p>Advances in</p><p>Sheep Welfare</p><p>Page left intentionally blank</p><p>Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science,</p><p>Technology and Nutrition</p><p>Advances in</p><p>Sheep Welfare</p><p>A volume in the Advances in Farm</p><p>Animal Welfare series</p><p>Edited by</p><p>Drewe M. Ferguson</p><p>Caroline Lee</p><p>Andrew Fisher</p><p>Woodhead Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier</p><p>The Officers’ Mess Business Centre, Royston Road, Duxford, CB22 4QH, United Kingdom</p><p>50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States</p><p>The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom</p><p>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p><p>No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or</p><p>mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without</p><p>permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the</p><p>Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance</p><p>Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.</p><p>This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher</p><p>(other than as may be noted herein).</p><p>Notices</p><p>Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden</p><p>our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become</p><p>necessary.</p><p>Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and</p><p>using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information</p><p>or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom</p><p>they have a professional responsibility.</p><p>To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any</p><p>liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or</p><p>otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the</p><p>material herein.</p><p>Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data</p><p>A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress</p><p>British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data</p><p>A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library</p><p>ISBN: 978-0-08-100718-1 (print)</p><p>ISBN: 978-0-08-100727-3 (online)</p><p>For information on all Woodhead publications visit our website at</p><p>https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals</p><p>Publisher: Andre G. Wolff</p><p>Acquisition Editor: Patricia Osborn</p><p>Editorial Project Manager: Anneka Hess</p><p>Production Project Manager: Julie-Ann Stansfield</p><p>Designer: Alan Studholme</p><p>Typeset by Thomson Digital</p><p>http://www.elsevier.com/permissions</p><p>https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals</p><p>Contents</p><p>List of Contributors xi</p><p>Preface xiii</p><p>Introduction xv</p><p>Part One Introduction to Sheep Welfare 1</p><p>1 Understanding the natural behaviour of sheep 3</p><p>Geoffrey N. Hinch</p><p>Highly selective herbivores 4</p><p>Followers, fearful and gregarious 9</p><p>Conclusions 13</p><p>References 14</p><p>2 Overview of sheep production systems 19</p><p>Stephen T. Morris</p><p>International perspectives in sheep production: differences in systems</p><p>and welfare risks 19</p><p>Traditional, extensive and intensive sheep production systems 21</p><p>Future trends in sheep production 29</p><p>Conclusions 33</p><p>References 33</p><p>3 Consumer and societal expectations for sheep products 37</p><p>Grahame Coleman</p><p>The nature of public perceptions 37</p><p>Public attitudes and consumption of sheep products 38</p><p>Community behaviour 41</p><p>Impact of public attitudes on the livestock industries 42</p><p>Conclusions 47</p><p>References 48</p><p>Part Two New Advances in Sheep Welfare Assessment 53</p><p>4 Sheep cognition and its implications for welfare 55</p><p>Rebecca E. Doyle</p><p>Cognitive capacities of sheep 56</p><p>Stress and cognitive processing 60</p><p>vi Contents</p><p>Learning and expectations 62</p><p>Cognitive biases 63</p><p>Implications for welfare 67</p><p>References 68</p><p>5 New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding</p><p>to challenges 73</p><p>Dominique Blache, Shane K. Maloney</p><p>Introduction 73</p><p>The classical responses to challenge and the associated indicators</p><p>of welfare 78</p><p>New physiological indicators 80</p><p>Interpreting physiological indicators 92</p><p>Conclusions 94</p><p>References 94</p><p>Part Three Current and Future Solutions to Sheep</p><p>Welfare Challenges 105</p><p>6 Genetic solutions 107</p><p>Sonja Dominik, Jennifer L. Smith, Joanne Conington,</p><p>Hans D. Daetwyler, Ingrid Olesen, Kim L. Bunter</p><p>Introduction 107</p><p>Welfare-related breeding objectives and novel trait concepts</p><p>in livestock breeding programmes 108</p><p>Breeding strategies to improve welfare in sheep 117</p><p>Conclusions 124</p><p>References 124</p><p>7 Reproductive management (including impacts of prenatal</p><p>stress on offspring development) 131</p><p>Cathy Dwyer</p><p>Introduction 131</p><p>Conception 132</p><p>Pregnancy management 134</p><p>Stress during pregnancy 137</p><p>Lambing and lactation 139</p><p>Lamb survival 147</p><p>Conclusions and future directions 148</p><p>References 149</p><p>8 Nutritional management 153</p><p>Paul R. Kenyon, Lydia M. Cranston</p><p>Introduction 153</p><p>Body condition score 154</p><p>Contents vii</p><p>Nutritional management pre and during transportation and prior</p><p>to slaughter 157</p><p>Pregnancy management 158</p><p>Management during lactation 162</p><p>Nutritional management post-weaning 163</p><p>Early weaning management 164</p><p>Nutrition, wool and shearing 165</p><p>Intensive farming systems 167</p><p>Mineral trace/elements requirements 167</p><p>Dietary toxins 168</p><p>Future considerations 169</p><p>Conclusions 170</p><p>References 170</p><p>9 Predation control 177</p><p>Christopher Johnson, Linda van Bommel</p><p>Introduction 177</p><p>The impact of predation on sheep welfare 178</p><p>Protecting sheep from predators 179</p><p>Lethal approaches 179</p><p>Non-lethal control 180</p><p>The impact of predator control methods on sheep welfare 186</p><p>Conclusions 188</p><p>References 188</p><p>10 Managing disease risks 197</p><p>Neil Sargison</p><p>General introduction 197</p><p>Importance of small ruminant welfare within the primary context</p><p>of global food security 198</p><p>Management of disease risks with reference to improved</p><p>food production 199</p><p>Promotion of animal welfare within the context of food</p><p>production efficiency 200</p><p>Clinical evaluation of individual animals 202</p><p>Individual animal disease management 203</p><p>Planned animal health as a means of ensuring a good state</p><p>of welfare 204</p><p>Sheep flock health and welfare planning 205</p><p>Biosecurity with reference to infectious diseases compromising</p><p>animal welfare 208</p><p>Welfare education focused on managing disease risks 209</p><p>Conclusions 210</p><p>References 210</p><p>viii Contents</p><p>11 Husbandry procedures 211</p><p>Kevin Stafford</p><p>Pain 211</p><p>Distress 213</p><p>Conclusions 224</p><p>References 224</p><p>12 Transport and pre-slaughter management 227</p><p>Alison Small, Leisha Hewitt</p><p>Introduction 227</p><p>Preparation of sheep for transportation 227</p><p>Transport of sheep by road, rail and air 228</p><p>Transport of sheep by sea 229</p><p>Transport practices 229</p><p>Post-transport conditions 233</p><p>Conclusions 237</p><p>References 238</p><p>13 Advanced livestock management solutions 245</p><p>S. Mark Rutter</p><p>Introduction 245</p><p>Current sheep precision livestock farming (PLF) technologies 247</p><p>Future sheep PLF technologies 250</p><p>Impact of PLF on sheep welfare 255</p><p>Barriers to technology adoption 257</p><p>Wider potential benefits of sheep PLF 258</p><p>Summary 259</p><p>References 260</p><p>14 Optimised welfare for sheep in research and teaching 263</p><p>Mark Oliver, Samantha Rossenrode</p><p>Introduction 263</p><p>Legislation and codes 264</p><p>Sheep biology, health and interventions 267</p><p>The facility 273</p><p>Training staff and students in Sheep Welfare 101 276</p><p>Concluding comments 278</p><p>References 280</p><p>Part Four Sheep Welfare Beyond 2020 283</p><p>15 Future challenges and opportunities in sheep welfare 285</p><p>Drewe M. Ferguson, Andrew Fisher, Ian G. Colditz, Caroline Lee</p><p>The changing face of sheep production 285</p><p>Advances in technology 285</p><p>Contents ix</p><p>Societal expectations 286</p><p>Advances in animal biology and their implications for animal welfare 288</p><p>Assessment and management of welfare 290</p><p>Conclusions 291</p><p>References 292</p><p>Index 295</p><p>Page left</p><p>pasture conditions and, as a consequence, account for 60% of the world</p><p>sheep population. The semi-arid tropics of Africa and Asia between 5 and 35 degree</p><p>north, including India, the Middle East and the highlands of East Africa, account for</p><p>40% of the world sheep population.</p><p>Wool and sheep meat are very minor components of the global red meat and textile</p><p>markets. The total annual world sheep meat production is 14 million tonnes and this</p><p>constitutes around 3% of global meat production (FAO, 2016). Inter-country trade</p><p>in sheep meat accounts for 7%–9% of total production with most of the meat being</p><p>consumed in the country it was produced (FAO, 2016). The bulk of the international</p><p>trade consists of exports from the Southern Hemisphere (New Zealand has 47% and</p><p>Australia has 36%) to the European Union, North Asia, the Middle East and North</p><p>America (Morris, 2009). The current world consumption of sheep meat stands at</p><p>about 2.5 kg per person annually out of an annual meat consumption of 41.6 kg per</p><p>person (Morris, 2009). The annual world post-scoured wool production is estimated</p><p>at 1.2 million tonnes (Cottle, 2010) and comprises just over 1.5% of the textile fibre</p><p>market (Rowe, 2010). It is estimated that worldwide between 500 and 700 million</p><p>skins from sheep and lambs are produced annually (Scobie, 2010). Less than 2% of</p><p>the world milk production is derived from sheep (Balthazar et al., 2017).</p><p>There has been a universal decline in sheep numbers throughout the world over the</p><p>last 10 years especially in Australia and New Zealand. Many of the world’s pastoral</p><p>systems are in transition, for example in Europe, there has been widespread changes,</p><p>with abandonment and farming retreat in many areas (Pollock et al., 2013). Australian</p><p>sheep numbers have plummeted from 150 million head in 1990 to 70 million in 2010</p><p>with the main change in land use being an increase in cropping and mixed farm-</p><p>ing (Rowe, 2010). Key contributing factors to this decline have been on-going and</p><p>2</p><p>20 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>widespread droughts, high crop prices, low wool prices and increasing on farm costs</p><p>such as fertiliser, feed, fuels and finance.</p><p>Other contributing factors to the decline in sheep numbers is the fact that sheep</p><p>are inferior converters of feed to meat relative to poultry and pigs (Morris, 2009).</p><p>However, an important attribute of sheep is that they can live and produce on</p><p>land unfavourable to other forms of agriculture. Many sheep breeds are adapted</p><p>for survival on extensive unimproved, semi-natural pastures, in difficult climate</p><p>conditions. For example, approximately 40% of the ewes in the United Kingdom</p><p>are maintained in relatively harsh hill and upland environments (Pollott, 2014;</p><p>Wolf et al., 2014). Sheep are also a very valuable animal in small farm situations,</p><p>where large ruminants may be out of place due to limited land and other resources</p><p>and when small quantities of meat are required for local consumption in remote</p><p>communities.</p><p>Sheep production systems</p><p>Sheep farmers produce meat, wool/hair, milk and skins for local, national and in-</p><p>ternational markets. The uses ofsheep vary in many countries, but in many other</p><p>countries sheep produce more than one product. Sheep farmed in Iran, Sudan and</p><p>Turkey are major producers of meat, wool and milk, while sheep farmed in Aus-</p><p>tralia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Uruguay produce meat and wool (Kilg-</p><p>our et al., 2008). The systems used for farming sheep do, however, vary between</p><p>and within different countries. In temperate regions, meat is now the major product</p><p>while in many countries wool production is declining. In Australia, the world’s</p><p>largest fine wool producer, the importance of meat production is also increasing</p><p>and the Merino ewe is increasingly regarded as a ‘maternal breed’. The traditional</p><p>wool production enterprises have adopted new breeding and management practices</p><p>to produce both meat and wool rather than wool-only (Rowe, 2010). In the more</p><p>arid regions of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, sheep are increasingly multipur-</p><p>pose in their generation of products and in sustaining the livelihoods of those who</p><p>farm the sheep.</p><p>The management of sheep does vary depending on the product to be harvested</p><p>from the animals and whether the product is for home consumption or for sale in local</p><p>or export markets. Sheep’s wool is usually shorn once a year, whereas sheep dedicated</p><p>to milk production will be milked twice a day. Within the different systems climate,</p><p>financial and cultural differences affect management factors such as the number of</p><p>animals supervised by one person and whether the sheep are housed all year round or</p><p>just for the cold winter months or are always kept outdoors.</p><p>Kilgour et al. (2008) has comprehensively described the three major management</p><p>systems for sheep production that exist in the world, namely extensive production</p><p>for wool and meat, intensive dairy production and traditional pastoralism. There are,</p><p>however, new systems being developed that are variations on these such as the emer-</p><p>gence of housed lamb production systems in China where female sheep and their</p><p>progeny spend their entire life indoors and feed is cut and carried to them. Likewise,</p><p>outdoor feedlot type lamb finishing systems have been developed in countries such</p><p>Overview of sheep production systems 21</p><p>as Australia, México and USA where slaughter lambs are fed high energy diets while</p><p>confined in a feedlot.</p><p>Welfare risks in different systems</p><p>Many sheep farms have less than 100 ewes within Europe and the USA and in the</p><p>traditional nomadic systems of Asia, the Middle East and Africa, but in Australia and</p><p>New Zealand, flock sizes are in thousands (Morris, 2009). Sheep farms with small</p><p>flocks have a high human to animal ratio and farmers can identify and probably deal</p><p>with each sheep as an individual. Moreover, each animal is worth more relative to the</p><p>total flock value compared toone animal in a large flock (Goddard, 2008). Although</p><p>sometimes the larger flocks have greater resources, and hence superior infrastructure</p><p>to ensure good handling of sheep and a high level of husbandry and welfare. A di-</p><p>verse range of sheep breeds is managed in the different systems, many of which are</p><p>adapted to their environments (Kilgour et al., 2008). Generally, the different farming</p><p>systems have the capacity to provide good welfare outcomes for the animals, provided</p><p>adequate resources and husbandry (e.g. supplementary feed, labour veterinary care)</p><p>are given when required. Some specific welfare concerns are mentioned within each</p><p>of the three systems described; however, most of these are elaborated further in later</p><p>chapters.</p><p>Traditional, extensive and intensive</p><p>sheep production systems</p><p>Traditional systems</p><p>Traditional pastoralism is the main sheep production system of the semi-arid range-</p><p>lands, where there is unpredictable climate and economic dependence on livestock</p><p>increases as rainfall decreases. Traditional pastoralism can be categorised by the de-</p><p>gree of movement of animals from highly nomadic through transhumance to agropas-</p><p>toral (FAO, 2001). Pastoralists by their nature are flexible and opportunistic, and can</p><p>swap between systems, as well as have multiple systems in one overall productive</p><p>enterprise. Nomadic systems are highly flexible systems with seasonal migration</p><p>of livestock and normally have no home base. Transhumance is the regular move-</p><p>ment of flocks among fixed points to exploit the seasonal availability of pastures. In</p><p>mountainous regions, the movement is usually vertical between established points</p><p>and the routes are often very ancient. Horizontal transhumance is perhaps more op-</p><p>portunistic with movement between fixed sites developing over a few years and are</p><p>often disrupted by climatic, political or economic changes (FAO, 2001). Recently,</p><p>transhumance has been transformed with the introduction of modern transport in</p><p>many regions of the world and trucks are often used to transfer sheep</p><p>from lowlands</p><p>to highland areas for summer grazing in the United Kingdom. Agropastoralism can</p><p>be described as settled pastoralists who cultivate sufficient areas to feed their fami-</p><p>lies from their own crop production and keep animals but only enough to ensure</p><p>22 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>they can graze them close to their home base or village. These farmers often own</p><p>larger flocks that are sent away to nomadic shepherds in rangelands who look after</p><p>the sheep for the owners.</p><p>The main risk to traditional systems is the unpredictability of the climate. This</p><p>has an impact on the growing season of plants and hence the forage that is available</p><p>to sheep. The risks are particularly acute mid-winter when sheep are in their poorest</p><p>condition and least likely to be able to withstand any other challenge, and during the</p><p>spring lambing season. High losses of newborn lambs can be especially damaging as</p><p>it limits the supply of new females to enable flock rebuilding, and hence slow recovery</p><p>from a catastrophic climate event (Kilgour et al., 2008). In traditional systems in arid</p><p>regions, lack of drinking water for sheep, attack from predators and disease can be a</p><p>barrier for production and good animal welfare standards.</p><p>Extensive systems</p><p>There are many different types of extensive sheep systems in the world, but a dis-</p><p>tinguishing feature of these systems is that sheep graze in enclosed fenced systems,</p><p>where they are usually individually owned. These are the basis of sheep production</p><p>systems in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and Uruguay. The systems</p><p>operating in these four countries will be described in detail to highlight the major dif-</p><p>ferences in systems of production.</p><p>United Kingdom sheep systems</p><p>Sheep farming in the United Kingdom can be divided into hill, upland and lowland</p><p>systems, all of which are dependent or interact with each other for the supply or sale</p><p>of sheep (Kilgour et al., 2008; Pollott, 2014; Rodriguez-Ledesma et al., 2011). Strati-</p><p>fication is the term used to describe this highly structured sheep industry in the United</p><p>Kingdom based on the natural resources of the different regions and the sale and</p><p>movement of sheep between these regions. Farming sheep in the hill farming areas</p><p>of the United Kingdom relies traditionally on all year round grazing, with sometimes</p><p>away wintering of the young replacements females on lowland pastures. Most of these</p><p>farms have large areas of unfenced hill grazing and smaller areas of improved fields</p><p>or paddocks (Morgan-Davies et al., 2006). There is a wide diversity of breeds and ge-</p><p>netic improvement is largely realised through the purchase of breeding males (Simm</p><p>et al., 1996). Typically, the hill farmed sheep are purebred with the following char-</p><p>acteristics: hardy with physical (e.g. wool characteristics), physiological (e.g. cold</p><p>tolerance) and behavioural adaptations (e.g. grazing behaviour) of low mature body</p><p>size and produce slaughter lambs with lightweight carcasses and poor conformation</p><p>classes (i.e. lack of low muscling in the carcass). The breeding ewes tend to remain on</p><p>hill grazing land throughout the year with little contact between sheep and shepherds.</p><p>Lambing dates are fixed, typically late April and May with little flexibility due to the</p><p>time of onset of spring grass growth. Supplementary feed can be given especially the</p><p>emergency feeding of hay in difficult weather conditions and there has been some</p><p>increase in concentrate feed fed in recent years (Kilgour et al., 2008). The sale of ewes</p><p>Overview of sheep production systems 23</p><p>after they have produced four or five lamb crops, from hill farms to upland or lowland</p><p>farms, is a very integral part of the stratification sheep system. Here the ewes may be</p><p>retained for a further 1–3 years (Kilgour et al., 2008).</p><p>Within the stratified breeding system of the United Kingdom, hill breeds make</p><p>a large genetic contribution to lamb meat production in part, through the direct</p><p>slaughter of lambs produced by purebred hill ewes, and also through the contribu-</p><p>tion hill sheep make to the crossbred ewe populations maintained in the uplands</p><p>and lowlands (Annett et al., 2011; Pollott, 2014; Wolf et al., 2014). This pattern</p><p>is, however, far from a complete model, and recent changes in the structure of the</p><p>UK sheep industry have resulted in increased crossbreeding in hilly environments</p><p>requiring an associated increased level of management to ensure feed resources are</p><p>adequate to realise the potential for enhanced performance of crossbred ewes with</p><p>a greater proportion of twin lambs (Wolf et al., 2014). The traditional stratified</p><p>crossbreeding nature of the UK sheep industry is still identifiable, but the ratio of</p><p>stratified:non stratified has declined from 71:29% in 2003 to 55:45% in 2012 (Pol-</p><p>lott, 2014). A feature now is the emergence of a wide range of ad hoc crossbreds</p><p>with crossbred ewes outnumbering purebred ewes by 56 and 44% of ewes mated,</p><p>respectively. In 2003, it was 50:50, although the change was mainly due to a reduc-</p><p>tion in purebred numbers and maintenance of crossbreds associated with the overall</p><p>decline in sheep numbers in the United Kingdom (Pollott, 2014). When considering</p><p>the genetic contribution of the different breeds to lamb output from the industry,</p><p>terminal sire breeds (e.g. Texel and Suffolk) sired 68% of lambs and contributed</p><p>to 45% of the genetic makeup of the lamb carcass meat produced in the United</p><p>Kingdom (Pollott, 2014; Rodriguez-Ledesma et al., 2011).</p><p>Upland sheep systems are largely based on improved pastures with a large propor-</p><p>tion being sown pasture. Lambs from upland flocks may be born between February</p><p>and May and quite often the whole flock may be housed from mid/late winter through</p><p>to shortly after lambing. Ewes may be purebred hill bred ewes purchased from hill</p><p>farm systems or crossbred ewes also purchased from other farms and managed to pro-</p><p>duce slaughter lambs with carcass weights of 18–21 kg (Kilgour et al., 2008). Increas-</p><p>ingly composite breeds are being used where replacements are bred on the farm and</p><p>only a proportion of the ewe flock is bred to terminal sire breeds. Lowland systems are</p><p>similar to upland farms in terms of ewe breeds and crosses with the main difference</p><p>being the sheep are often confined to areas that are difficult to cultivate or farmed on</p><p>pasture sown as part of the arable rotation.</p><p>With financial pressures on farm labour, the trend over recent times has been to-</p><p>wards a higher sheep:stockperson ratio (Goddard et al., 2006). Lower input systems</p><p>are becoming increasingly attractive to farmers in the United Kingdom, as farm in-</p><p>comes and subsidy payments decline. Overall, the welfare risks are potentially higher</p><p>in these lower input systems. Nutrition remains an issue with extensive sheep systems</p><p>especially the hill systems. The nutritional value of hill pastures is low and supple-</p><p>mentation levels are also low often because of the low profitability of these sheep farm</p><p>systems. Nutrition of the pregnant ewe is often sup-optimal and can result in a high</p><p>level of lamb and ewe mortality although improvements in management strategies</p><p>can reduce these welfare issues (see Dwyer Chapter 7 and Kenyon Chapter 8). Sheep</p><p>24 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>handling or inspection facilities also dictate if high standards of welfare are practiced</p><p>on these farms. Often these facilities have not been designed with the welfare of the</p><p>sheep in mind and this is exaggerated when hill or extensively managed sheep are only</p><p>having minimal human interaction.</p><p>Uruguayan sheep production systems</p><p>In South America, sheep production is concentrated in the Southern Cone countries</p><p>(Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and the south of Brazil) where climate is temperate or de-</p><p>sert like. These countries have close to 60% of sheep numbers and account for 85% of</p><p>the wool production in South America. Two defined systems operate, namely small-</p><p>holder production systems characterised by low input, low productivity</p><p>and small</p><p>farms. The other system is commercial where the main objective is wool production,</p><p>but with an increasing focus on meat production. Depressed worldwide wool prices</p><p>have led to this change in focus, but it has also resulted in a decline in sheep numbers</p><p>as farmers move to alternative enterprises with superior economic returns and an in-</p><p>creased focus on sheep meat production. Cropping and dairying has also been instru-</p><p>mental in pushing sheep farming to the more marginal land areas (Abella et al., 2010).</p><p>Sheep numbers in Uruguay have declined from 25.2 to 13.2 million sheep from</p><p>1990 to 2000 and to 8.3 million sheep in 2010 (Montossi et al., 2013a). Sheep pro-</p><p>duction in Uruguay is within a mixed farm system where most farms are running</p><p>both beef cattle and sheep. These mixed systems are located on the less fertile soils</p><p>where more profitable farming enterprises are not possible. On fertile soils, cropping</p><p>predominates although there may be some sheep production. Most flocks are self-</p><p>replacing with autumn mating and spring lambing being the most common practice to</p><p>match sheep feed requirements with pasture production. Sheep production is usually</p><p>low input and sheep usually graze native pastures. The predominant breeds are Cor-</p><p>riedale (60%), Merino (20%) and Polwarth (12%), and these breeds can be described</p><p>as dual purpose, as they generate income from the sale of both wool and meat (Abella</p><p>et al., 2010). The wool produced is a reflection of these breeds with 70% being in</p><p>the mid-micron range between 25 and 32 µm and 30% being below 24.5 µm (Abella</p><p>et al., 2010). The breeding structure of the sheep industry in Uruguay follows the com-</p><p>mon hierarchical pattern with ‘top’ and ‘multiplier’ ram breeding flocks. Performance</p><p>recording schemes have been in use since 1969 together with central performance</p><p>tests and more recently, across flock genetic evaluation through the use of reference</p><p>sires primarily in the two most numerous breeds, the Correidale and Merino (Cardel-</p><p>lino and Mueller, 2008). With the decline in world wool prices in the mid-micron</p><p>range, there has been increased industry effort to reduce the fibre diameter of Merino</p><p>wool, and hence increase returns while maintaining fleece and body weights (Cardel-</p><p>lino and Mueller, 2008).</p><p>The average percentage of lambs weaned varies between 70% and 85%; how-</p><p>ever, many farmers have adopted improved management practices and are now</p><p>achieving 100%. With the increase in meat production, lambs are often finished on</p><p>improved sown pastures to 17–20 kg carcass weight at between 6 and 11 months</p><p>of age. Sheep production in Uruguay has been subjected to very strong economic</p><p>Overview of sheep production systems 25</p><p>pressures as a consequence of depressed wool prices, increased costs of production</p><p>and the competition of alternative enterprises with better economic returns (beef</p><p>cattle, dairy cattle, cropping and forestry). However, as Montossi et al. (2013a)</p><p>point out there are opportunities to use more prolific breeds and terminal sires to</p><p>achieve higher weaning percentages than present and produce heavier lambs at a</p><p>slaughter age of 6–8 months.</p><p>New Zealand sheep industry</p><p>Sheep farming in New Zealand in the past has been extensive by nature with sheep be-</p><p>ing farmed on pasture all round the year, with no housing and mostly with no supple-</p><p>mentary feed. New Zealand grasslands where sheep are farmed can be conveniently</p><p>divided on the basis of topography and elevation into three broad farming groups:</p><p>high, hill and flat to rolling country. Each varies in the quantity of pasture produced</p><p>and the number and type of animals carried. High country is characterised by hilly</p><p>terrain and low pasture production, especially during the cold winter months, and is</p><p>used predominantly for sheep farming targeting fine wool production. Flat to rolling</p><p>country usually has good all-year-round pasture production and supports almost all</p><p>of New Zealand’s dairy cattle in addition to large numbers of sheep and beef cattle.</p><p>It is estimated that over 70% of lambs are born in hill country farms in New Zealand.</p><p>There are few specialised sheep or beef cattle farms in New Zealand and most farms</p><p>run sheep and beef cattle together and increasingly in recent times, sheep and beef cat-</p><p>tle farmers may also be contracted to finish dairy heifer replacements for dairy farm-</p><p>ers. A farmer having sheep and cattle on the same farm increases management flex-</p><p>ibility through the ability to preferentially feed some livestock while maintaining high</p><p>levels of grazing pressure with other livestock classes. The role of the beef breeding</p><p>cow has been, and continues to be, important in the sustainability of hill country farms</p><p>where the contour requires that pasture control—the maintenance of species within</p><p>the sward, and the prevention of pasture deterioration and weed ingress is primarily a</p><p>function of livestock pressure and grazing management. This requires that beef cattle</p><p>graze with sheep and this is seldom to the short-term benefits of the cattle, but often</p><p>improves the performance of sheep and the pasture (Morris, 2007). The higher herb-</p><p>age allowances required by cattle compared tosheep means that cattle are likely to</p><p>be wintered separately, but that they are likely to suffer from the low herbage covers</p><p>operating in early spring on sheep-breeding hill country farms. Electric fencing has</p><p>revolutionised grazing management because of its greater portability, effectiveness in</p><p>animal control and lower cost compared with conventional fencing methods. Fencing</p><p>allows managers to vary the frequency and intensity of defoliation, transfer pasture</p><p>reserves through time and to impose special purpose grazing regimens. It also allows</p><p>separate stock classes to be preferentially fed or to control intakes on other classes of</p><p>stock.</p><p>New Zealand is the largest exporter of lamb in the world accounting for around</p><p>47% of the world’s trade in lamb (Morris, 2009). New Zealand is the third largest</p><p>producer of wool in the world, producing 12% of world production on a ‘clean’ basis</p><p>(Morris, 2013). Most of the wool produced (88%) is described as strong crossbred</p><p>26 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>wool (greater than 31 µm) and China is the major market with the proportion of wool</p><p>exports going to China increasing from 27% to 53% over the last 5 years, with 70% of</p><p>this being classified as strong wool largely used in carpet manufacture. Fine wool (less</p><p>than 25 µm) accounts for around 10% of New Zealand’s wool production. Thirteen</p><p>percent of the wool clip originates as slipe wool (that which is removed from pelts</p><p>after processing of sheep at meat plants) (Morris, 2013). Annual lambing percent-</p><p>ages have increased significantly over the last 20 years from 98% in 1987 to over</p><p>122% in 2014 and range from 90% (lambs surviving to weaning/100 ewes mated) on</p><p>high country to 138% on easier or flatter country (Beef+Lamb New Zealand, 2016).</p><p>Carcass weights have increased from 14 to over 18 kg in 2016. This increased pro-</p><p>ductivity has required a commensurate increase in forage production both in quality</p><p>and quantity, and utilisation through increased use of fertilisers, fencing and modified</p><p>management systems. Other gains in production have occurred through widespread</p><p>adoption of exist ing technologies such as increasing the number of ewe lambs bred,</p><p>increasing the weight of lamb weaned per ewe bred each year through increased adop-</p><p>tion of man agement techniques such as pregnancy diagnosis, body condition scoring</p><p>of ewes and then managing them according to condition, improving pasture produc-</p><p>tion and quality through fertiliser application, fencing and where applicable, sowing</p><p>new improved pastures (Morris and Kenyon, 2014). Most of the sheep farmed are</p><p>Romney or their crossbred derivatives and in the last 20 years, there has been an in-</p><p>crease in composite breeds incorporating East Friesian, Finn and Texel genes with the</p><p>existing Romney, Coopworth or Perendale</p><p>flock to improve fertility and meat produc-</p><p>tion potential. It is estimated that around 25% of the 20 million female breeding sheep</p><p>are mated to terminal or meat sire breeds such as the Poll Dorset, Suffolk or Texel, or</p><p>composite terminal sires (Morris, 2013).</p><p>The New Zealand sheep industry was genetically isolated from the rest of the world</p><p>for over 40 years until the release from quarantine of the Finnish Landrace, Texel,</p><p>Oxford Down and Gotland Pelt breeds in 1990. This release of genetics with improved</p><p>fecundity led to a rapid improvement in lambing percentage from 100% in 1990 to</p><p>over 120% in 2015(Blair, 2011). Furthermore, the improved lambing percentages</p><p>coupled with concentrated mating patterns lead to large numbers of ewes lambing at</p><p>the same time. This can be problematic should extreme cold wet weather prevail dur-</p><p>ing lambing. An example is in the Southland region of New Zealand, if a storm hits</p><p>in late September, there could be 800,000 ewes lambing outdoors with an expectant</p><p>number of lambs born being 1.2 million. In such an extreme weather event, high lamb</p><p>mortality could occur resulting in considerable economic losses and large negative</p><p>animal welfare consequences.</p><p>Extensive sheep farming in New Zealand and elsewhere is characterised by the</p><p>animals maintained outdoors, often without need for supplementary feed and having</p><p>much behavioural freedom. In this situation, there is the requirement not only to fit</p><p>the farm to the sheep (e.g. developing shade and shelter and providing suitable forage</p><p>species) but also to fit the sheep into the farm, assuming sheep adapted to a particular</p><p>environment will fare better than those that are not (Simm et al., 1996).</p><p>Lamb mortality is an issue with mortality rates from birth to weaning ranging from</p><p>15% to 25% depending on the farming system and climatic conditions. Although</p><p>Overview of sheep production systems 27</p><p>many factors are not under direct management control (i.e. lamb gender, litter size and</p><p>year of lambing), examples of how producers make informed management decisions</p><p>to reduce lamb mortality include choice of sire breed, optimum age at first lambing,</p><p>optimising nutrition of multiple bearing ewes after pregnancy scanning and choice of</p><p>lambing paddock for single versus multiple bearing ewes pre-lambing.</p><p>In grazing systems, there are some associated health problems, and a range of man-</p><p>agement techniques is used to alleviate the deleterious effects of some forages fed</p><p>to sheep, including ryegrass endophyte toxicosis, facial eczema and toxins associ-</p><p>ated with Fusarium fungi (Lambert et al., 2004). Generally, these techniques are not</p><p>completely effective and more research is required to understand these disorders in</p><p>intensive sheep grazing systems. Gastrointestinal nematode parasitism is an important</p><p>factor limiting production of sheep and anthelmintic resistance is a concern for New</p><p>Zealand sheep producers (Ridler, 2008).</p><p>Historically, the sheep meat industry has been supply driven, and dominated by the</p><p>need of farmers and meat companies to dispose of their respective products (livestock,</p><p>meat and by-products) as quickly and as profitably as possible, given the constraints</p><p>of market access and commodity trading. Increasingly, contracts and the development</p><p>of supply chains with particular processors is becoming normal practice as marketers</p><p>seek to provide a consistent year round supply of lamb for export.</p><p>Australian sheep systems</p><p>The Australian sheep flock has undergone a significant decline over the last 30 years.</p><p>Sheep numbers peaked at 180 million in the early 1970s and have declined steadily to</p><p>70 million with a breeding base of 40 million ewes. The sheep industry can be divided</p><p>into two production sectors: one primarily focussed on the production of wool and the</p><p>other dedicated to the production of lambs for slaughter (Ferguson et al., 2014). How-</p><p>ever, there are an increasing and significant number of dual-purpose flocks emerging.</p><p>Wool production is based on the Merino breed and Australia is the largest exporter of</p><p>wool in the world, with high quality finer micron wool accounting for 44% of export</p><p>volume. Australia produces nearly 90% of global supply of wool in the super-fine cat-</p><p>egory (Rowe, 2010). The wool production sector also accounts for the majority of the</p><p>mutton produced in Australia and for the live sheep exported to the Middle East (Fer-</p><p>guson et al., 2014). Australia is the world's largest live sheep exporter by sea although</p><p>live export numbers have declined over the last 2 decades but still number around 1.5</p><p>million head/year (MLA, 2016).</p><p>The lamb production sector is mostly concentrated in south-eastern Australia in</p><p>the higher rainfall areas (>500 mm/year). This sector comprises both specialist prime</p><p>lamb and dual-purpose (meat/wool) enterprises (Ferguson et al., 2014). Lambing is</p><p>concentrated in autumn–early winter and crossbreeding is a feature of the system.</p><p>Prime lambs are typically second cross produced from crossbred ewes (e.g. Border</p><p>Leicester × Merino) that have been mated with a terminal sire or meat sheep breed,</p><p>such as Suffolk and Poll Dorset. In dual-purpose systems, first cross lambs are gen-</p><p>erated from Merino ewes being bred to a terminal sire. The national Merino lamb-</p><p>marking rate in 2014 was 94%, while for all other breeds the marking rate averaged</p><p>28 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>112%. The national average lamb carcass weight has been increasing over the last</p><p>15 years and in 2015 it was 22.2 kg.</p><p>There are specialist lamb finishing systems where lambs are finished on forage</p><p>crops or irrigated pasture and there is some opportunistic finishing of lambs in feedlots</p><p>largely influenced by the price of feed grain (Ferguson et al., 2014). Some abattoirs</p><p>also operate feedlots to assist with managing the supply of finished lambs for slaughter.</p><p>Exports account for around 50% of lamb production with the major markets being</p><p>the Middle East, China and the USA and Australia is second behind New Zealand</p><p>in world lamb exports and is the largest mutton exporter. Despite the expansion and</p><p>importance of lamb exports in recent years, the domestic market remains the mainstay</p><p>of the Australian lamb industry (MLA, 2016). Lamb consumed in Australia is almost</p><p>exclusively produced domestically ensuring freshness desired by the Australian con-</p><p>sumer, which is considered the most important attribute when purchasing meat.</p><p>The main welfare issues specific to Australian sheep production systems are mor-</p><p>tality and disease induced by the production environment and/or system, the surgi-</p><p>cal husbandry practices such as mulesing, long-distance transport and sea transport</p><p>(Ferguson et al., 2014). Mulesing involves the surgical removal of wool bearing skin</p><p>around the breach and tail to mitigate against fly strike in Merino sheep. It is a prac-</p><p>tice relatively exclusive to Australia where Merino ewe lambs kept for breeding are</p><p>mulesed whilst those destined for slaughter are not mulesed. Efforts to produce non-</p><p>surgical alternatives or strategies to minimise the level of pain experienced by mulesed</p><p>sheep have increased over the last decade. Sheep breeders can now select for fly strike</p><p>resistant traits, thus reducing the need to mules sheep (Ferguson et al., 2014). Lamb</p><p>mortality remains a significant welfare concern and economic loss in sheep production</p><p>systems in Australia. Post weaning death rates in lambs is also a concern as is adult</p><p>mortality. The size of farms and harsh environment that sheep are farmed in Australia</p><p>contributes to high adult mortality rates in some seasons and years. Land transport</p><p>of sheep over long distances is common as lamb ready for slaughter are often moved</p><p>to the more profitable markets in the eastern states and adult ewes are moved to the</p><p>two main mutton export abattoirs in central New South Wales and southern Western</p><p>Australia. Sheep destined for live export are collected onto a pre-departure feedlot</p><p>and then the typical sea</p><p>voyage from Australia to the main markets in the Middle East</p><p>takes around 10–14 days. There has been an increased awareness of welfare concerns</p><p>and this has led to the introduction of the exporter supply chain assurance system in</p><p>2011 (Ferguson et al., 2014).</p><p>Intensive dairy systems</p><p>Milk production from sheep is an important activity in Southern Europe, the Near</p><p>East and the Middle East. The European Mediterranean countries (France, Greece,</p><p>Italy, Spain and Turkey) produce 65% of the European sheep milk and raise most of</p><p>the 40 million milk-producing sheep. These ewes are milked twice a day throughout</p><p>a 3–6-month lactation period under either an extensive or a semi-intensive system</p><p>(Kilgour et al., 2008). Dairy ewes produce up to 600 L per lactation period, and al-</p><p>though there is a growing market for whole milk, sheep milk is particularly suited to</p><p>Overview of sheep production systems 29</p><p>cheese making and most sheep milk is processed into cheese, yoghurt or ice-cream.</p><p>Traditionally, husbandry systems involving dairy sheep include a suckling period fol-</p><p>lowed by a milking-only period. In general, lambs either remain with their mothers</p><p>for 25 days or are taken off at birth and artificially reared. Milk production reaches a</p><p>peak at 4–7 weeks post parturition and then gradually declines. Peak milk production</p><p>can be as high as 3.4 L/day (Gootwine and Pollott, 2000).</p><p>To overcome seasonal milk production, intensive sheep milking systems are being</p><p>increasingly adopted in a desire to produce year-round milk supply (Sitzia et al., 2015).</p><p>This has led to the development of intensive confined systems especially in France and</p><p>Israel. Housed systems are utilised for summer milk production in pasture fed systems</p><p>during drought and when the amount and quality of pasture dramatically declines. In</p><p>Israel, confined systems of milk production have been enhanced by the highly produc-</p><p>tive Awassi and Assaf dairy sheep breeds (Gootwine and Pollott, 2000). These two</p><p>breeds can be used in accelerated lambing systems, where ewes might breed more</p><p>frequently than once a year to produce a year-round supply of milk (Gootwine and</p><p>Pollott, 2000; Hunter, 2010; Kilgour et al., 2008).</p><p>Dairy sheep production exists throughout the world, and it is becoming increasingly</p><p>popular in the United Kingdom, the USA, Central America, South Africa, Australia and</p><p>New Zealand. For example in Brazil, importations of the Lacaune breed from France has</p><p>led to dairy sheep flocks in the Rio Grande do Sul, where the main products are yoghurt</p><p>and cheese, supplying to a large Italian community in that region (Abella et al., 2010).</p><p>Welfare issues identified in dairy sheep include early weaning of lambs, housing</p><p>and disease issues (Kilgour et al., 2008). The practice of removing lambs from dairy</p><p>sheep and artificially rearing them can be stressful for both dams and offspring and</p><p>can lead to reduced lamb growth rates. There is a considerable amount of research</p><p>being undertaken on artificial rearing of lambs to ensure good welfare and production</p><p>outcomes (Rassu et al., 2015; Thomas et al., 2014). Close confinement of ewes can be</p><p>a source of stress in housed dairy sheep. Sheep can be particularly prone to respiratory</p><p>infections and good ventilation of buildings is paramount (Caroprese, 2010). Con-</p><p>fined ewes in hot climates can also be very susceptible to heat stress. Mastitis is also</p><p>an issue with dairy ewes, as with dairy cattle, and attention to milking practices and</p><p>hygiene is required to reduce the risk of infection. As in other intensively managed</p><p>livestock systems the close animal and stockperson contact inherent in sheep milking</p><p>systems requires that there be skilled stockpersons involved who bring positive wel-</p><p>fare standards to the dairy flock.</p><p>Future trends in sheep production</p><p>Decline in pastoralism</p><p>Throughout Africa, the Near East, the Middle East and South America pastoralists</p><p>are being driven to ever-more marginal areas through the gradual expansion of arable</p><p>farming. Pastoralism is likely to disappear in any region where it competes with ar-</p><p>able farming. Reduced profitability has also led to traditional upland sheep grazing in</p><p>30 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Europe declining, leading to concerns about possible impacts on biodiversity (Pollock</p><p>et al., 2013). Farming sheep in marginal areas does increase the welfare risks. A com-</p><p>mon result is seasonal live weight loss in the dry seasons and during winters, during</p><p>which pasture quality and quantity decreases significantly. In these periods, adult sheep</p><p>can lose up to 30% of their body weight, with severe consequences to productivity and</p><p>welfare. Under these conditions, sheep become susceptible to parasitic and other dis-</p><p>eases and ultimately have poorer reproductive outcomes. This can severely compromise</p><p>income and livelihoods of farmers particularly in less developed countries where access</p><p>to veterinary care, as well as feed supplements is often non-existent or unaffordable.</p><p>Storage of feed will become important, including many different forage options (shrubs</p><p>and leguminous trees) and treatment of crop residues, together with the addition of min-</p><p>erals, to improve feeding in some situations. There is no doubt, however, that pastoral-</p><p>ists remain a useful resource, as a system of producing meat and milk cheaply on land</p><p>that is otherwise hard to exploit, and as such they will persist in some form in the future.</p><p>Meat versus wool</p><p>The trend to move away from reliance on wool production to meat production is likely</p><p>to continue. Lamb meat is considered in most western countries as a luxury meat,</p><p>and hence most commercial lamb producers in the exporting countries of Australia,</p><p>New Zealand, United Kingdom and Uruguay are positioning their businesses to pro-</p><p>duce high quality lamb consistently using traceable and environmentally and welfare-</p><p>friendly practices.</p><p>When production emphasis changes from wool to meat, then it is highly likely that</p><p>new and imported sheep breeds are often introduced. However, the introduction of</p><p>new genetics is not always favourable as in most situations, local breeds can be more</p><p>adapted and resistant to disease and environmental challenges than imported breeds.</p><p>In countries with developed sheep industries, it is likely that more specialisation will</p><p>occur in the future. The emergence of specialised breeding and finishing units with</p><p>increased networking between them and more direct alignment with particular supply</p><p>chains and processors is also likely to increase (Montossi et al., 2013b; Morris and</p><p>Kenyon, 2014).</p><p>Increased fertility</p><p>Improvements in production efficiency are essential if many sheep sectors in the world</p><p>are to remain viable. Increased fertility and hence an improved lambing percentage</p><p>is one of the main reasons that New Zealand sheep industry has remained viable and</p><p>increasingly, Australian sheep systems are looking to increase fertility and hence lamb</p><p>marking percentages. However, studies in high output sheep systems have demon-</p><p>strated that increasing prolificacy can impact negatively on neonatal mortality rates</p><p>(Dwyer et al., 2016) and on the longevity of ewes (Hohenboken and Clarke, 1981).</p><p>Although the latter was not observed by Annett et al. (2011) where prolific crossbred</p><p>ewes had superior longevity than the hill breeds due to their lower culling rate. Over-</p><p>all, the potential for reduced biological fitness in the more prolific breed types was</p><p>offset by fewer ewes being culled due to infertility.</p><p>Overview of sheep production systems 31</p><p>An associated impact of increased fertility is often increased neo-natal mortality.</p><p>New-born lamb mortality rates have proved remarkably stubborn and resistant to at-</p><p>tempts to reduce them and published average mortality rates for sheep for the last</p><p>40 years across many countries and systems remain almost unchanging at 15% de-</p><p>spite considerable amount of research on the causes of, and risks to, lamb mortality</p><p>(Dwyer et al., 2016). However</p><p>as these authors point out there is a large variation in</p><p>lamb mortality and this suggests that improvements can be made. It is clear that some</p><p>farmers perceive they have a lack of control over lamb mortality and thus may not be</p><p>motivated to attempt to improve lamb survival or have little knowledge of the extent</p><p>of the problem on their farms, as records are not kept.</p><p>Increasing the frequency of lambing has been proposed as a means to increase</p><p>efficiency of sheep production, but realisation has often be thwarted by the season-</p><p>al anoestrus commonly observed in the spring and early summer in most temperate</p><p>sheep breeds (Goff et al., 2014; Morris and Kenyon, 2014). Accelerated lambing sys-</p><p>tems without using breeds of sheep that will mate all year-round will require the use</p><p>of artificial means (hormones or indoor light manipulation) to ensure ewes will breed</p><p>in the non-breeding spring early summer period. There will be some welfare issues</p><p>with out-of-season breeding especially if ewes are lambing outdoors in mid-winter</p><p>(Fisher, 2003).</p><p>Genomic selection</p><p>The use of genomic selection, which has become possible due to high-performance gen-</p><p>otyping technology that allows individuals to be typed for thousands of single nucleotide</p><p>polymorphisms (SNPs), distributed over the whole genome (Shumbusho et al., 2016).</p><p>The benefits of genomic selection in sheep systems are still being evaluated, but in New</p><p>Zealand sheep farmers are now less focussed on breeds but more on breed combinations</p><p>(composites) to achieve their profitability focus. Blair (2011) notes that there are chal-</p><p>lenges for the breeders of composite rams as many of the flocks are small and they will</p><p>struggle to maintain genetic diversity. Another issue that might delay the advancement</p><p>of genomic selection is that many of the numerically small breeds may find it difficult</p><p>to generate training populations of sufficient size to utilise the new genomic technology</p><p>(Blair, 2011). The development of accurate genomic predictions requires large numbers</p><p>of animals within a breed to be phenotyped and this can take some time to achieve es-</p><p>pecially for meat type traits. Further, for genomic selection to be useful in sheep breed-</p><p>ing programmes, the costs of genotyping need to decrease substantially, as presently</p><p>the economic value of the selection candidate is low compared to costs of genotyping</p><p>(Shumbusho et al., 2016). These issues are discussed further in Chapter 6.</p><p>Probably the most demanded characteristic or trait required of new breeds or sheep</p><p>in general will be a lower cost (labour and feeding), tied to an easy-care manage-</p><p>ment (increased fitness). Increased productivity will involve both an improvement in</p><p>offspring survival rate and to breeding ewe hardiness while maintaining good animal</p><p>welfare outcomes. Using genetics to breed sheep that are well adapted to the vari-</p><p>ous climatic zones of the world may be just as important as breeding for increased</p><p>production. The benefits of this will be realised through reduced labour requirements,</p><p>32 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>reduced welfare issues and lower environmental impact. This probably requires</p><p>choosing local breeds in relation to the main local constraints and achieving a balance</p><p>between reproductive fitness, growth and meat production abilities.</p><p>Labour will become difficult</p><p>Reduced labour input would be an issue where there is pressure to increase flock sizes</p><p>and economic efficiency. In the United Kingdom farmers realise the need to have</p><p>more labour available for dealing with health issues such as ectoparisites (Morgan-</p><p>Davies et al., 2006). The increase in part-time-farming is also of concern as farmers</p><p>will have even less time to devote to sheep husbandry or those coming in new to</p><p>sheep farming lack the necessary skills and training to ensure animal health and wel-</p><p>fare (Lawrence and Conington, 2008). Smallholders with low numbers of sheep will</p><p>be able to stay in business providing their labour input to their own farms or flocks</p><p>remains below market price, which works well in countries where there are limited</p><p>opportunities in other sectors. But when employment opportunities in other sectors</p><p>increase, many small holders opt out of livestock production.</p><p>Labour saving technologies</p><p>Technologies that can substitute traditional husbandry (shepherd time) are likely to be</p><p>used in future sheep farm systems. Precision livestock farming defined as real-time</p><p>monitoring technologies aimed at managing flocks on a per animal basis is one such</p><p>example. Potential applications have been described to include assessing individual</p><p>animal intake, remote automatic monitoring and early detection of illness or stress</p><p>and monitoring of animal welfare indicators (Halachmi and Guarino, 2016). The use</p><p>of electronic identification and rapid throughput of sheep handling systems to record</p><p>live weights is becoming commonplace in New Zealand and Australia.</p><p>The use of radio-frequency identification, which has already begun to revolution-</p><p>ise the management of sheep will allow rapid, efficient and accurate collection and</p><p>analysis of information on individual animals. Once tagged, animal growth, disease</p><p>susceptibility, wool production and body condition can be monitored and lifetime</p><p>information on reproduction and health treatments recorded. Automated drafting fa-</p><p>cilities configured to enable drafting of multiple mobs on live weight at weaning to</p><p>facilitate more precise feeding and less variable slaughter weights. Farm management</p><p>software packages will/are being developed to handle all the data and transcribe it into</p><p>an easily understood form for sheep managers. Another possible future technology is</p><p>virtual fencing to allow more flexible movement of animal and enable greater grazing</p><p>management has been trialled in Australia.</p><p>Large scale sheep milk production systems and intensification</p><p>to indoor feeding systems</p><p>Intensification of sheep production is taking place with regard to most of the produc-</p><p>tion inputs in some countries. Examples are the housed breeding systems in China</p><p>and the large-scale sheep dairy systems in New Zealand and Australia. Each of these</p><p>Overview of sheep production systems 33</p><p>systems will result in new issues of providing sufficient forage that meets the nutri-</p><p>ent quality requirements of the flock and in providing housing and management that</p><p>meets the high welfare requirements that consumers will demand in the future. In</p><p>case of large-scale sheep dairying, the rearing of lambs artificially will require high</p><p>standards of sheep husbandry to ensure health, welfare and performance of lambs</p><p>are not compromised. Intensification of sheep production often means an increase in</p><p>flock size, which will be associated with a decrease in the human:sheep ratio (Stafford</p><p>and Gregory, 2008). Shepherd and farmers will generally have less time to observe</p><p>individual animals for problems such as fly strike, cast ewes, or prolapsed vagina, and</p><p>as individual animals become a smaller proportion of the value of the whole farm-</p><p>ing enterprise, they are likely to receive less attention. Consequently, animal welfare</p><p>could be compromised. These negative results may be mitigated if these larger more</p><p>intensive farms have better resources to improve facilities and employ specialist as-</p><p>sistance for shearing, vaccination and supervision at lambing.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Sheep production is undertaken in a multitude of ways throughout the world, provid-</p><p>ing a variety of products in a wide spectrum of ecological and socio-economic condi-</p><p>tions. Sheep tend to be farmed on fragile lands, and many of these are in decline as</p><p>grasslands become degraded. The need for flexibility is undeniable as the climate vari-</p><p>ation with seasons on pasture supply will be exaggerated if climate change continues</p><p>at predicted rates. Sheep systems will need to be designed to cope with these greater</p><p>fluctuations by building flexibility and possibly having greater numbers of trading</p><p>(sale) stock</p><p>to compliment breeding ewes.</p><p>References</p><p>Abella, I., Cardellino, R.C., Mueller, J., Cardellino, R.A., Benitez, D., Lira, R., 2010. Sheep</p><p>production in South America. In: Cottle, D.J. (Ed.), International Sheep and Wool Hand-</p><p>book. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK, pp. 85–94.</p><p>Annett, R.W., Carson, A.F., Dawson, L.E.R., Irwin, D., Gordon, A.W., Kilpatrick, D.J., 2011.</p><p>Comparison of the longevity and lifetime performance of Scottish Blackface ewes and</p><p>their crosses within hill sheep flocks. Animal 5, 347–355.</p><p>Balthazar, C.F., Pimentel, T.C., Ferrao, L.L., Almado, C.N., Santillo, A., Albenzio, M., Mol-</p><p>lakhalili, N., Mortazavian, A.M., Nascimento, J.S., Silva, M.C., Freitas, M.Q., Santana,</p><p>A.S., Granato, D., Cruz, A.G., 2017. Sheep milk: physiochemical characteristics and rel-</p><p>evance for functional food development. Comp. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 16, 247–262.</p><p>Beef+Lamb New Zealand 2016. Annual Report 2014–2015. Available from: www.beefand-</p><p>lambnz.com</p><p>Blair, H.T., 2011. Ram breeding in New Zealand two decades after the introduction of exotic</p><p>sheep. Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 19, 407–410.</p><p>Cardellino, R.C., Mueller, J.P., 2008. Fibre production and sheep breeding in South America.</p><p>Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 18, 366–373.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0020</p><p>http://www.beefandlambnz.com/</p><p>http://www.beefandlambnz.com/</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0030</p><p>34 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Caroprese, M., 2010. Sheep housing and welfare. Small Rumin. Res. 76, 21–25.</p><p>Cottle, D.J., 2010. World sheep and wool production. In: Cottle, D.J. (Ed.), International Sheep</p><p>and Wool Handbook. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK, pp. 1–48.</p><p>Dwyer, C.M., Conington, J., Corbiere, F., Holmoy, I.H., Muri, K., Nowak, R., Rooke, J., Vi-</p><p>pond, J., Gautier, J.M., 2016. Invited review: improving neonatal survival in small rumi-</p><p>nants: science into practice. Animal 10, 449–459.</p><p>FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation), 2001. Pastoralism in the new millennium. FAO</p><p>Animal Production and Health paper 150. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/</p><p>Y2647E/Y2647E00.HTM</p><p>FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation), 2016. Food Outlook. June 2016. Biannual Report</p><p>on global food markets June 2016. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-I5703E.pdf</p><p>Ferguson, D.M., Schreurs, N.M., Kenyon, P.R., Jacob, R.H., 2014. Balancing consumer and</p><p>societal requirements for sheep meat production: an Australian perspective. Meat Sci. 98,</p><p>477–483.</p><p>Fisher, M.W., 2003. New Zealand farmer narratives of the benefits of reduced human interven-</p><p>tion during lambing in extensive farming systems. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 16, 77–90.</p><p>Goddard, P.J., 2008. The management of sheep. In: Dwyer, C.M. (Ed.), The Welfare of Sheep.</p><p>Springer, Nottingham, UK, pp. 291–323.</p><p>Goddard, P., Waterhouse, T., Dwyer, C., Stott, A., 2006. The perception of the welfare of sheep</p><p>in extensive systems. Small Rumin. Res. 62, 215–225.</p><p>Goff, K.J., Notter, D.R., Vanimisetti, H.B., Wright, J.W., 2014. Strategies for rapid breeding of</p><p>lactating ewes in the spring. Animal 8, 968–974.</p><p>Gootwine, E., Pollott, G.E., 2000. Factors affecting milk production in improved Awassi dairy</p><p>ewes. Anim. Sci. 71, 6007–6615.</p><p>Halachmi, I., Guarino, M., 2016. Editorial: Precision livestock farming: a “per animal” ap-</p><p>proach using advanced monitoring technologies. Animal 10, 1482–1483.</p><p>Hohenboken, W.D., Clarke, S.E., 1981. Genetic, environmental and interactions effects on lamb</p><p>survival, cumulative lamb production and longevity of crossbred ewes. J. Anim. Sci. 53,</p><p>966–976.</p><p>Hunter, G.L., 2010. Accelerated lambing. Part 2. Increasing the frequency of pregnancy in</p><p>sheep. CAB reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natu-</p><p>ral Resources 4, No. 009.</p><p>Kilgour, R.J., Waterhouse, T., Dwyer, C.M., Ivanov, I.D., 2008. Farming systems for sheep pro-</p><p>duction and their effect on welfare. In: Dwyer, C.M. (Ed.), The Welfare of Sheep. Springer,</p><p>Nottingham, UK, pp. 213–265.</p><p>Lambert, M.G., Clark, D.A., Litherland, A.J., 2004. Advances in pasture management for ani-</p><p>mal productivity and health. N. Z. Vet. J. 52, 311–319.</p><p>Lawrence, A.B., Conington, J., 2008. Sheep welfare: a future perspective. In: Dwyer, C.M.</p><p>(Ed.), The Welfare of Sheep. Springer, Nottingham, UK, pp. 343–360.</p><p>MLA, 2016. Australian Sheep Industry Projections. Meat & Livestock Australia, North Sydney,</p><p>NSW.</p><p>Montossi, F., De Barbieri, I., Clappesoni, G., Ganzabal, A., Banchero, G., Luzardo, S., San</p><p>Julian, R., 2013a. Intensification, diversification, and specialization to improve the com-</p><p>petitiveness of sheep production systems under pastoral conditions: Uruguay’s case. Anim.</p><p>Front. 3, 28–35.</p><p>Montossi, F., Font-i-Furnols, M., del Campo, M., San Julian, R., Brito, G., Sanudo, C., 2013b.</p><p>Sustainable sheep production and consumer preference trends: compatibilities, contradic-</p><p>tions, and unresolved dilemmas. Meat Sci. 95, 772–789.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0045</p><p>http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2647E/Y2647E00.HTM</p><p>http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2647E/Y2647E00.HTM</p><p>http://www.fao.org/3/a-I5703E.pdf</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0075</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0075</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0085</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0085</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0085</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0105</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0105</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0115</p><p>Overview of sheep production systems 35</p><p>Morgan-Davies, C., Waterhouse, A., Milne, C.E., Stott, A.W., 2006. Farmers opinions on wel-</p><p>fare, health and productive practices in extensive hill sheep flocks in Great Britain. Livest.</p><p>Sci. 104, 268–277.</p><p>Morris, S.T., 2007. Pastures and supplements in beef production systems. In: Rattray, P.V.,</p><p>Brookes, I.M., Nicol, A.M. (Eds.), Pasture and Supplements for Grazing Animals. Occa-</p><p>sional Publication 14. New Zealand Society of Animal Production, pp. 243–254.</p><p>Morris, S.T., 2009. Economics of sheep production. Small Rumin. Res. 86, 59–62.</p><p>Morris, S.T., 2013. Sheep and beef cattle production systems. In: Dymond, J.R. (Ed.), Ecosys-</p><p>tem Services in New Zealand—Conditions and Trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln,</p><p>New Zealand, pp. 79–84.</p><p>Morris, S.T., Kenyon, P.R., 2014. Intensive Sheep and beef production from pasture—a New</p><p>Zealand perspective of concerns, opportunities and challenges. Meat Sci. 98, 330–335.</p><p>Pollock, M.L., Holland, J.P., Morgan-Davies, C., Waterhouse, A., 2013. Reduced sheep graz-</p><p>ing and biodiversity: a novel approach to selecting and measuring biodiversity indicators.</p><p>Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 66, 387–400.</p><p>Pollott, G.E., 2014. The breeding structure of the British sheep industry. Report for the Agriculture</p><p>and Development Board. Available from: http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/wp/wp-content/</p><p>uploads/2014/09/The-breeding-structure-of-the-British-sheep-industry-2012-180914.pdf</p><p>Rassu, S.P.G., Nudda, A., Carzedda, C., Battacone, G., Bencini, R., Pulina, G., 2015. A partial</p><p>suckling regime increases milk production in Sarda dairy sheep without affecting meat</p><p>quality of lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 125, 15–20.</p><p>Ridler, A.L., 2008. Disease threats to sheep associated with intensification of pastoral farming.</p><p>N. Z. Vet. J. 56, 270–273.</p><p>Rodriguez-Ledesma, A., Waterhouse, A., Morgan-Davies, C., Bruelisauer, F., 2011. Structural</p><p>assessment of the Scottish stratified sheep production system. Small Rumin. Res. 100,</p><p>79–88.</p><p>Rowe, J.B., 2010. The Australian sheep industry—undergoing transformation. Anim. Prod. Sci.</p><p>50, 991–997.</p><p>Scobie, D., 2010. Skin. In: Cottle, D.J. (Ed.), International Sheep and Wool Handbook. Not-</p><p>tingham University Press, Nottingham, UK, pp. 661–675.</p><p>Shumbusho, F., Raoul, J., Astruc, J.M., Palhiere, I., Lemarie, S., Fugeray-Scarbel, A., Elsen,</p><p>J.M., 2016. Economic evaluation of genomic selection in small ruminants: a sheep breed-</p><p>ing program. Animal 10, 1033–1041.</p><p>Simm, G., Conington, S.J., Bishop, S.C., Dwyer, C.M., Patterson, S., 1996. Genetic selection</p><p>for extensive conditions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 49, 47–59.</p><p>Sitzia, M., Bonanno, A., Todaro, M., Cannas, A., Atzori, A.S., Francesconi, A.H.D., Trabalza-</p><p>Marinucci, M., 2015. Feeding and management techniques to favour summer sheep milk</p><p>and cheese production in the Mediterranean environment. Small Rumin. Res. 126, 43–58.</p><p>Stafford, K.J., Gregory, N.G., 2008. Implications of intensification of pastoral animal produc-</p><p>tion on animal welfare. N. Z. Vet. J. 56, 274–280.</p><p>Thomas, D.L., Berger, Y.M., McKusick, B.C., Mikolayunas, C.M., 2014. Dairy sheep pro-</p><p>duction research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA—a review. J. Anim. Sci.</p><p>Biotechnol. 5, 22.</p><p>Wolf, W.T., McLean, B.M.L., Davies, O.D., Griffiths, J.B., 2014. Performance of purebred</p><p>Welsh Mountain and crossbred ewes in a hill environment. Livest. Sci. 165, 181–188.</p><p>Zygoyiannis, Z., 2006. Sheep production in the world and in Greece. Small Rumin. Res. 62,</p><p>143–147.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0145</p><p>http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/The-breeding-structure-of-the-British-sheep-industry-2012-180914.pdf</p><p>http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/The-breeding-structure-of-the-British-sheep-industry-2012-180914.pdf</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9/ref0205</p><p>Page left intentionally blank</p><p>Advances in Sheep Welfare. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0</p><p>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p><p>Consumer and societal</p><p>expectations for sheep products</p><p>Grahame Coleman</p><p>Animal Welfare Science Centre, Veterinary Clinical Sciences,</p><p>University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia</p><p>The aim of this chapter is to discuss the relevance of public perceptions of animal wel-</p><p>fare in the sheep industry for the sustainability of the industry in terms of licence to</p><p>farm, best on-farm management practices and the public consumption of produce de-</p><p>rived from sheep. To do this, it is first necessary to clarify what is meant by public</p><p>perceptions and how to best measure them. People have a range of views about sheep</p><p>farming and sheep welfare, but not all are relevant to the consumption of sheep prod-</p><p>ucts. For example, people may think of sheep farms in terms of the broad aspects of</p><p>rural life, or of ewes and lambs in domestic-like settings, but these may neither be the</p><p>most salient views that they hold with respect to using sheep products, nor may they be</p><p>anything other than transient thoughts that are experienced while driving</p><p>in the coun-</p><p>tryside or while viewing a movie. The focus here is on those public perceptions about</p><p>sheep welfare that influence use of sheep products or that influence the way in which</p><p>people act in ways that may have an impact on social licence to farm sheep.</p><p>The nature of public perceptions</p><p>Public perception refers to the expressed opinions, knowledge and beliefs that are</p><p>communicated in a multitude of ways—in discussions amongst friends, relatives and</p><p>colleagues; in writing via letters to newspapers or politicians; in commentary to talk-</p><p>back radio or in response to surveys or interviews. To understand public perceptions,</p><p>there are multiple things that can be measured. Values, beliefs, attitudes and norms</p><p>measure some aspect of perception. As the focus in this chapter is on the aspect of</p><p>public perceptions that impacts the sheep industry, it is important to consider the way</p><p>in which these perceptions influence people’s behaviour. Not all aspects of values, at-</p><p>titudes and beliefs directly affect behaviour.</p><p>Values are broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of action or out-</p><p>comes. They are general principles that guide behaviour but lack situational specific-</p><p>ity. Rokeach (1973) stated ‘an attitude differs from a value in that an attitude refers to</p><p>an organisation of several beliefs around a specific object or situation… A value, on</p><p>the other hand, refers to a single belief of a very specific kind. It concerns a desirable</p><p>mode of behaviour or end-state … guiding actions, attitudes, judgements … beyond</p><p>immediate goals to more ultimate goals’ (p. 19). For example, a person expressing a</p><p>value that we have a duty of care to farm animals does not predict, with any accuracy,</p><p>whether or not that person will purchase a particular animal product (e.g. wool). To</p><p>3</p><p>38 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>predict purchasing intentions, it would be necessary to identify the specific beliefs that</p><p>lead to that purchasing choice.</p><p>Attitudes are reflective of a positive or negative evaluation concerning a given be-</p><p>haviour or object and are derived from beliefs (Ajzen, 1991; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993).</p><p>Generally speaking, a person who believes that ‘meat is healthy’ and that ‘meat tastes</p><p>good’ would be considered to have a positive attitude towards meat. A person who</p><p>holds a positive attitude towards meat would most likely be a meat eater. In contrast, a</p><p>person who believes ‘meat is full of cholesterol’ and ‘meat tastes bad’ holds a negative</p><p>attitude towards meat and is unlikely to eat meat. Clearly people may hold specific</p><p>attitudes to the purchase or use of sheep products as well as the consumption of sheep</p><p>meat, and these attitudes may directly affect consumption and indirectly affect the</p><p>sustainability of the sheep industry by influencing regulators and retailers. The term</p><p>‘societal expectations’ is taken to mean a range of attitudes that people hold towards</p><p>sheep products and the sheep industry.</p><p>This chapter’s priority is to seek to understand attitudes that lead to specific com-</p><p>munity behaviours and consumer behaviours. Consumer behaviour refers to the pur-</p><p>chasing and consumption of sheep products, while community behaviours are those</p><p>activities that impact the sheep industry and include using media or personal contacts</p><p>to advocate for or against sheep farming or a specific farming practice.</p><p>Attitudes are important because they act as the prime determinants of volitional</p><p>human behaviours, that is those behaviours that are carried out as a conscious choice</p><p>(Ajzen, 1991). One of the key theories relevant to the relationship between attitudes</p><p>and behaviour is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). This theory</p><p>proposes that people’s behaviour is determined by attitudes to performing the be-</p><p>haviour, their beliefs about others’ (co-worker, spouse, close family or friend, etc.)</p><p>relevant expectations from them and their beliefs about the extent to which they have</p><p>control over their ability to actually perform the behaviour (i.e. the extent to which</p><p>there are no barriers to performing the behaviour). The theory also states that values,</p><p>knowledge, demographic and similar factors act indirectly by shaping attitudes rather</p><p>than directly affecting behaviours (Fig. 3.1). The reason for describing this theory</p><p>is to indicate that attitudes are not to be considered as data in their own right, but as</p><p>indicators leading to relevant behavioural outcomes and that there are a number of</p><p>background variables that shape attitudes. As will be seen, despite the widespread use</p><p>of this theory in other areas (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011), there are very limited</p><p>cases where it has been applied in research in public attitudes to sheep animal welfare.</p><p>Nevertheless, it would be a very useful tool when seeking to understand community</p><p>attitudes and the specific individual behaviours that they lead to.</p><p>Public attitudes and consumption of sheep products</p><p>Meat</p><p>While many studies do not specifically address welfare attributes in sheep meat pur-</p><p>chasing behaviour but focus on sheep meat attributes (Sepúlveda et al., 2010, 2011),</p><p>nevertheless there is some research to indicate that animal welfare is a relevant</p><p>Consumer and societal expectations for sheep products 39</p><p>attribute. Gracia (2013) analysed intentions to purchase ‘animal welfare friendly’ meat</p><p>products using the TPB and found that several beliefs significantly predicted these</p><p>intentions. The belief that ‘animal friendly products’ are ‘healthier’ and are of better</p><p>quality were related to stronger intentions to purchase ‘animal welfare friendly’ meat</p><p>products. Consumers' normative beliefs (beliefs about how important others think</p><p>they should behave), their perceived ability to control their purchasing behaviour, and</p><p>competing attributes of food such as taste and freshness, influence food choices (Gra-</p><p>cia, 2013). While these beliefs targeted meat products generally, there are some limit-</p><p>ed data relating specifically to sheep meat purchasing. Burnués et al. (2003) identified</p><p>a segment of the European population that were characterised by the need to know the</p><p>origin of the sheep meat they purchased, the production system and its traceability.</p><p>This group placed high importance on animal welfare. The group comprised 39% of</p><p>the sample. However, the authors did not relate these preferences to actual sheep meat</p><p>purchasing behaviour.</p><p>Coleman and Toukhsati (2006) surveyed 516 Australian respondents about their</p><p>perceptions towards farm animal welfare and meat purchases. Of these 516 respond-</p><p>ents, 116 respondents were interviewed at point-of-sale. Attitudes, in combination</p><p>with demographic variables, predicted 13.3% of the variance in self-reported sheep</p><p>meat purchases but did not significantly predict point of sale sheep meat purchases.</p><p>The results also indicated that although welfare was moderately important, factors</p><p>other than concern for animal welfare were more predictive of pork, beef and sheep</p><p>meat purchases. The fact that animal welfare attitudes play only a moderate role in</p><p>predicting some consumer behaviours is perhaps not surprising, considering that a</p><p>host of other factors influence purchasing behaviours. Past research has shown that</p><p>Figure 3.1 The theory of planned behaviour model.</p><p>Source:Redrawn from Ajzen, I. Available from: http://people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.background.html</p><p>http://people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.background.html</p><p>40 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>when food attributes relevant to meat purchasing are ranked in order of importance,</p><p>freshness, taste, flavour, safety and price are rated as extremely important, and at-</p><p>tributes such as humane treatment and being environment friendly are rated as very</p><p>important (Curtis et al., 2011). A comparison of consumers’ sheep meat purchasing</p><p>intentions between Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Argentina and</p><p>Uruguay indicated that while local production was the most important factor, feeding</p><p>system was the next most important</p><p>(Font i Furnols et al., 2011). Regarding the second</p><p>factor, there was a belief that grass-fed animals produce better meat, probably because</p><p>of beliefs about naturalness of pasture and extensive production. This aligns with the</p><p>data from Australia, discussed here, which indicates that people prefer extensive graz-</p><p>ing for lambs (Coleman et al., 2014).</p><p>Even though animal welfare does not rank high in consumer ratings of important</p><p>food attributes, the situation is more complex than it appears. Welfare friendly prod-</p><p>ucts have been associated with other attributes such as safety (Clark et al., 2016), so it</p><p>may be that there is a constellation of interlinked beliefs that guide purchasing behav-</p><p>iour. Nevertheless, when making purchasing decisions, animal welfare is not a major</p><p>driver of purchasing behaviour, with barriers such as price, availability and perceived</p><p>personal influence being more important (Clark et al., 2016).</p><p>Font i Furnols and Guerrero (2014) proposed that the mismatch between concerns</p><p>about animal welfare and purchasing behaviour can be explained by a cognitive pro-</p><p>tective mechanism. ‘This behaviour might emerge as a result of a psycho-protective</p><p>mechanism known as “Directed or Intentional Forgetting” (MacLeod, 1998), which is</p><p>aimed at de-emphasising unpleasant or threatening memories consciously or uncon-</p><p>sciously. Such forgetting may also help to explain the apparent discrepancy between</p><p>attitudes towards meat and meat products and their consumption’ (Font i Furnols and</p><p>Guerrero, 2014, p. 363).</p><p>Despite these findings, retailers and some producers capitalise on a market that</p><p>seeks animal welfare friendly products. Retailers in many countries such as Australia,</p><p>the United States and the United Kingdom, have policies on animal welfare. There are</p><p>many instances of this, but some examples follow. In the USA, Walmart, in response</p><p>to a campaign by Mercy for Animals (an animal rights group), developed a policy</p><p>on humane treatment of farm animals based on the Five Freedoms (Walmart, 2015).</p><p>Similarly, ALDI Australia subscribed to the Australian Livestock Processing Indus-</p><p>try Animal Welfare Certification System. In the United Kingdom, Waitrose claims</p><p>to ‘champion British produce, support responsible sourcing, treat people fairly and</p><p>tread lightly on the environment’ (Waitrose, 2016) and, like Walmart, uses the Five</p><p>Freedoms as the core of its animal welfare standards. These are just a few examples</p><p>from the large array of retailers that demand their suppliers meet their animal welfare</p><p>standards.</p><p>Fibre</p><p>There is relatively little research that specifically targets consumer attitude towards</p><p>sheep welfare affecting the purchase of wool products. In three southern US states,</p><p>consumers were willing to pay more for US wool over Australian wool (Hustvedt</p><p>Consumer and societal expectations for sheep products 41</p><p>et al., 2013). However, this research targeted ethnocentricity without reference to en-</p><p>vironmental or welfare concerns, so it is not known what aspects of the Australian</p><p>product were less preferred. The practice of mulesing (discussed in more detail later)</p><p>has attracted considerable adverse publicity. There was considerable media reporting</p><p>of calls by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to boycott the pur-</p><p>chase of Australian wool and instances where buyers actually boycotted the purchase</p><p>of Australian wool ( e.g., Brennan, 2009). This boycotting was done by wool buyers,</p><p>not consumers. In fact, a similar pattern is observed with meat products. It is often</p><p>somewhere in the supply chain that constraints are put on the purchasing of sheep</p><p>products, not at the consumer level. Despite these boycotts, the Australian national</p><p>flock numbers were higher in 2016 as compared to those in 2009. Also, in the 2 years,</p><p>from October 2014 to October 2016, wool prices have steadily risen (Australian Wool</p><p>Innovation, 2016). Nevertheless, Lee (2014) used the TPB approach to investigate the</p><p>effects of one- and two-sided communications for and against the purchasing of fash-</p><p>ion goods based on animal products including wool. He found that attitudes and nor-</p><p>mative beliefs predicted intention to purchase wool products. Importantly, one-sided</p><p>messages that described mulesing made respondents’ attitudes more negative, whereas</p><p>positive messages about the superiority of wool as a fibre did not make attitudes more</p><p>positive. Respondents exposed to both messages had more negative attitudes than those</p><p>exposed to irrelevant or positive information, but slightly more positive than those ex-</p><p>posed just to negative information. This indicates that for the general community to be</p><p>properly informed, both positive and negative information needs to be addressed. The</p><p>sheep industry needs to discuss sheep welfare issues transparently if it wishes to main-</p><p>tain trust and counter the adverse publicity that adverse media campaigns produce.</p><p>Community behaviour</p><p>Increasing concern for the welfare of livestock animals is also reflected in community</p><p>behaviours in opposition to the livestock industry (Grunert, 2006). Community behav-</p><p>iours take the form of actions in opposition to the livestock animal industry. Commu-</p><p>nity behaviours are distinct from lobbying behaviour, which involves deliberate and</p><p>repetitive campaigning of politicians and regulatory bodies for change (Coleman and</p><p>Toukhsati, 2006). According to Coleman and Toukhsati (2006, p. 21) ‘community be-</p><p>haviour is less deliberate and involves taking advantage of situational opportunities to</p><p>express an attitude through action’. These behaviours include actions such as signing a</p><p>petition, donating money to an animal welfare organisation, participating in rallies and</p><p>speaking with acquaintances/friends/family about an issue. With the increasing popu-</p><p>larity of social media, community behaviours in opposition to livestock industries may</p><p>also take the form of posting videos or writing blogs. Coleman and Toukhsati (2006)</p><p>found the prevalence of these community behaviours to be quite high. They surveyed</p><p>1061 Australians at supermarkets and over telephone and found that 56% of respond-</p><p>ents reported that they had engaged in at least one activity in opposition to livestock</p><p>farming. However, the frequency with which community members engaged in online</p><p>activities in opposition to livestock farming was not investigated.</p><p>42 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>These behaviours and the public opinions driving them can have a considerable in-</p><p>fluence on how governments either react to publicised ‘animal welfare events’ or regu-</p><p>late contentious management practices in industry. This is especially the case when</p><p>concerns are expressed by non-governmental animal welfare or rights organisations.</p><p>The campaign by PETA in 2004 against the practice of mulesing in the Australian</p><p>sheep industry is one such example where PETA demanded that the practice of mules-</p><p>ing in Australian sheep flocks be ceased. The industry response to this is discussed</p><p>later, but the campaign received widespread media coverage and led to some countries</p><p>banning the import of Australian wool.</p><p>More recently, Coleman et al. (2016b) found that information seeking and trust in</p><p>information, attitudes related to animal welfare and the livestock industries, and mem-</p><p>bership of an animal welfare group accounted for 43% of the variance in community</p><p>behaviours that express dissatisfaction with the livestock industries. Of special interest</p><p>in this study was a finding that about 15% of 479 respondents identified themselves as</p><p>opinion leaders, that is people who tended to be used as a source of animal welfare-</p><p>related information by friends and neighbours, tended to be asked about livestock</p><p>animal welfare and tended to tell people about livestock welfare. These people were</p><p>characterised by more negative beliefs about livestock animal welfare, a higher self-</p><p>perceived knowledge of livestock practices, but no better actual knowledge than the</p><p>remainder of the population.</p><p>intentionally blank</p><p>List of Contributors</p><p>Dominique Blache The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia</p><p>Kim L. Bunter University of England, Armidale, NSW, Australia</p><p>Ian G. Colditz CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Armidale, NSW, Australia</p><p>Grahame Coleman Animal Welfare Science Centre, Veterinary Clinical Sciences,</p><p>University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia</p><p>Joanne Conington SRUC, The Roslin Institute, The University of Edinburgh,</p><p>Edinburgh, United Kingdom</p><p>Lydia M. Cranston International Sheep Research Centre, Massey University,</p><p>Palmerston North, New Zealand</p><p>Hans D. Daetwyler Agriculture Victoria, AgriBio, Centre for AgriBioscience;</p><p>La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia</p><p>Sonja Dominik CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Armidale, NSW, Australia</p><p>Rebecca E. Doyle Animal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne,</p><p>Parkville, Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia</p><p>Cathy Dwyer SRUC, Edinburgh, United Kingdom</p><p>Drewe M. Ferguson CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Armidale, NSW, Australia</p><p>Andrew Fisher University of Melbourne, Werribee, VIC, Australia</p><p>Leisha Hewitt Dr L Hewitt Livestock Welfare, Franklin, TAS, Australia</p><p>Geoffrey N. Hinch University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia</p><p>Christopher Johnson Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian</p><p>National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia</p><p>xii List of Contributors</p><p>Paul R. Kenyon International Sheep Research Centre, Massey University,</p><p>Palmerston North, New Zealand</p><p>Caroline Lee CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Armidale, NSW, Australia</p><p>Shane K. Maloney The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia</p><p>Stephen T. Morris International Sheep Research Centre, Massey University,</p><p>Palmerston North, New Zealand</p><p>Ingrid Olesen Nofima, Ås, Norway</p><p>Mark Oliver Liggins Institute; UniServices Ltd, University of Auckland, Auckland,</p><p>New Zealand</p><p>Samantha Rossenrode UniServices Ltd, University of Auckland, Auckland, New</p><p>Zealand</p><p>S. Mark Rutter Harper Adams University, Newport, United Kingdom</p><p>Neil Sargison University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Roslin,</p><p>United Kingdom</p><p>Alison Small CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Armidale, NSW, Australia</p><p>Jennifer L. Smith CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Armidale, NSW, Australia</p><p>Kevin Stafford Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand</p><p>Linda van Bommel Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian</p><p>National University, Canberra, ACT; School of Biological Sciences, University</p><p>of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia</p><p>Preface</p><p>Animal welfare began to emerge as a scientific discipline in the 1960s, and there is</p><p>now a large body of published research addressing a range of fundamental and applied</p><p>topics. However, the field is currently in a stage of transition, with an increasing em-</p><p>phasis on translating the knowledge that has been gained into ‘real-world’ improve-</p><p>ments. This is necessitating new and evermore sophisticated research approaches,</p><p>including collection of more complex data with an increasing focus on solutions, the</p><p>development and use of new research methodologies and technologies, and integra-</p><p>tion of information across different disciplines. It also requires enhancing communi-</p><p>cation and collaboration among diverse stakeholders as well as developing science-</p><p>based approaches for setting ‘best practice’ standards and on-site welfare assessments</p><p>to help ensure public confidence.</p><p>The five books in this series provide overviews of key scientific approaches to</p><p>assess and improve the welfare of farm animals and address how that science can be</p><p>translated into practice. The books are not meant to provide a comprehensive over-</p><p>view, but instead focus on selected ‘hot topics’ and emerging issues for cattle, pigs,</p><p>poultry and sheep (as well as the overarching issue of linking animal welfare science</p><p>and practice). Advances and challenges in these areas are presented in each book in</p><p>the form of an integrated collection of focused review chapters written by top experts</p><p>in the field. The emphasis is not only on discussing problems, but also on identifying</p><p>methods for mitigating those problems and knowledge gaps.</p><p>Although the topic reviewed in the cattle, pig, poultry and sheep books are tai-</p><p>lored to those most important for the particular species, all of the books include</p><p>overviews of production systems and discussions of the most pressing animal wel-</p><p>fare challenges and important advances associated with those systems from the per-</p><p>spectives of normal and abnormal behaviour, animal health and pain management.</p><p>Emphasis is placed on both management and genetic approaches in improving wel-</p><p>fare and emerging scientific tools for investigating questions about the welfare of</p><p>that species. As relevant, the books also include reviews on human–animal interac-</p><p>tions and transport and/or slaughter. Finally, practical tools for in situ (on the farm,</p><p>during transport or at the slaughter facility) assessment of welfare are presented.</p><p>The reviews in the overview volume focus on animal welfare in the context of agri-</p><p>cultural sustainability, and also address how science can be translated into practice</p><p>taking into account ethical views, social developments and the emergence of global</p><p>standards.</p><p>The topics covered by these books are highly relevant to stakeholders interested</p><p>in the current and future developments of farm animal welfare policies, includ-</p><p>ing farmers, food industry, retailers and policy makers as well as researchers and</p><p>xiv Preface</p><p>veterinary practitioners. The editors hope they not only serve to help improve farm</p><p>animal welfare, but also to encourage discussion about future directions and priori-</p><p>ties in the field.</p><p>Joy Mench</p><p>Series Editor</p><p>Introduction</p><p>Sheep were one of the first animals to be domesticated by humans, over 10,000 years</p><p>ago. The domestic sheep breeds form the species Ovis aries and are widely farmed for</p><p>their milk, meat, wool and pelts, particularly in temperate areas of the world. Sheep</p><p>are also an important, albeit niche, model research animal. Large sheep flocks are a</p><p>key part of extensive livestock farming in countries such as New Zealand and Austral-</p><p>ia. Substantial sheep numbers also exist in China, India, the United Kingdom, and in</p><p>parts of continental Europe, North Africa, South America and the Middle East. Sheep</p><p>are typically described as vigilant, flock-dwelling ruminants, which may form closer</p><p>groups for protection. These social behavioural characteristics of sheep probably fa-</p><p>cilitated the initial management of wild flocks for human purposes, and subsequently,</p><p>domestication.</p><p>In common with other farmed and managed animals, the welfare of sheep has be-</p><p>come a core consideration, both for the sheep industries and for the wider public.</p><p>Farmers, scientists, veterinarians, policy makers and animal advocate all have a role</p><p>to play in understanding and advancing sheep welfare. Demonstration of improved</p><p>animal welfare has and will continue to be a primary element of the social licence</p><p>to farm, particularly in comparatively wealthy societies. In areas where smallholder</p><p>sheep farming is a critical component of subsistence, improvements to sheep manage-</p><p>ment and welfare have the capacity to benefit both the animals and the people who</p><p>depend upon them.</p><p>Farm animal welfare as an issue that is often mired in controversy, and the basis</p><p>for this has sometimes been predicated on misconceptions, claim and counter-claim,</p><p>and unsubstantiated evidence. This book aims to highlight where improvements or</p><p>advances in sheep welfare have been made and where more effort is required. This will</p><p>hopefully also serve as a reference to facilitate more informed and balanced thinking</p><p>and debate regarding the welfare of sheep.</p><p>The objective of this book is to provide readers with an interest or stake in sheep</p><p>with a detailed reference of current knowledge and advancements in sheep wel-</p><p>fare. This book describes the biology and natural behaviour of sheep, the range of</p><p>production systems in which sheep are</p><p>Further, these people tended to engage in more activities</p><p>in opposition to the livestock industries. It is not known what, if any, role do such</p><p>people play in forming or reinforcing public opinions about the livestock industries.</p><p>It would be useful to use a method other than self-report to establish the existence of</p><p>such a group and its role.</p><p>Impact of public attitudes on the livestock industries</p><p>Producer practices</p><p>Mulesing is the surgical procedure of removing skin from the tail and breech area</p><p>of sheep to prevent flystrike. Flystrike, which can lead to death, is a particular-</p><p>ly painful and stressful condition where flies lay their eggs in the soiled areas</p><p>of the fleece and the maggots feed on the fleece and flesh in the area (Colditz</p><p>et al., 2005; Shutt et al., 1988). Public concerns, however, do not relate to the</p><p>welfare risks of pain, stress and mortality associated with flystrike, but to the</p><p>painful and stressful aspects of mulesing to prevent flystrike. Somewhat surpris-</p><p>ingly, when asked about the extent to which Australians approved or disapproved</p><p>of mulesing, about 28% disapproved or strongly disapproved, 22% didn’t know</p><p>and 32% neither approved nor disapproved (Coleman et al., 2014). However, while</p><p>difficult to compare between surveys, disapproval had increased since 2000 (3%),</p><p>(Roy Morgan Research, 2000). By 2006 this percentage grew to 39% (Coleman</p><p>and Toukhsati, 2006) but reduced to 28% in 2014 (Coleman et al., 2014). In the</p><p>latter survey, when asked to nominate the correct description of what mulesing</p><p>entailed from two options presented, only 62% answered correctly. This is not</p><p>Consumer and societal expectations for sheep products 43</p><p>much above chance. Some ethicists have argued that mulesing should have been</p><p>phased out in accordance with the original industry target of 2010 (Sneddon and</p><p>Rollin, 2010) and that this would be necessary for the future survival and success</p><p>of the industry. They based their argument on the changing social ethics towards</p><p>animal welfare, the changing demographics and the associated increase in animal</p><p>welfare activism.</p><p>In 2011, a small number of Western Australian wool producers were surveyed</p><p>about their intentions regarding the practice of mulesing. While they generally held</p><p>negative attitude towards the practice, half of them indicated that they would con-</p><p>tinue to mules (Wells et al., 2011). Further, about half of the farmers surveyed be-</p><p>lieved that consumers don’t care about the issue. This is not too different from the</p><p>survey results reported previously (Coleman et al., 2014). In fact, mulesing was still</p><p>reported being practiced in 2016. In Western Australia during 2014–15, of those</p><p>cases where a declaration was made (48% were not declared), 25% of sheep were</p><p>not mulesed, and the remainder were mulesed (Lindon, 2015). Nevertheless, there</p><p>has been some progress on alternatives to mulesing (Agriculture Victoria, 2016)</p><p>using intradermal technology, insecticides and targeting of the sheep genome and</p><p>the blowfly genome. While the number of sheep shorn in Australia has declined</p><p>recently, this is attributed to the very dry recent conditions rather than a loss of</p><p>market of wool prices (Australian Wool Innovation, 2016). Also, Australian Wool</p><p>Innovation (a not-for-profit company that invests in R&D and marketing to increase</p><p>the long-term profitability of Australian woolgrowers) has invested substantially in</p><p>alternatives to mulesing and pain relief with mulesing (Lindon, 2016). While some</p><p>may argue that the industry is allowing these campaigns and boycotts to subside</p><p>over time, there are examples of changes. For example, in 2016, the local anaesthetic</p><p>Tri-Solfen was used for 73% of mulesed sheep (Lindon, 2016).</p><p>Mortality</p><p>Lamb mortality, particularly in extensive systems, can be relatively high. In Australia,</p><p>reported rates for lamb mortality may vary from 20% to 30%, with somewhat low-</p><p>er mortality in New Zealand where the reported rates are between 15% and 18%</p><p>(Ferguson et al., 2014). In Canada, reported figures in the years 2007–09 were 14%</p><p>(Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2012). In all cases, however,</p><p>mortality is of concern because of its welfare implications and the high economic cost</p><p>that it represents. Surprisingly, this has not been an issue that attracts public concern,</p><p>perhaps because there is little awareness in the community. However, a qualitative</p><p>study of a small sample of Australian sheep farmers (Elliott et al., 2011) found that</p><p>farmers had positive attitudes to reducing mortality rates. There was no general agree-</p><p>ment amongst these farmers on how to best achieve a reduction in mortality and there</p><p>was a belief that strategies would need to be tailored to individual farms. This suggests</p><p>that there may be a need for an industry-wide approach to advocate best practice in the</p><p>monitoring of lambs, especially to increase their survival rate. Without this, there is a</p><p>risk that public awareness of the issue will increase and it will become another threat</p><p>to the sheep industry.</p><p>44 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Confinement</p><p>Matthews (1996) reported that, in New Zealand, general public perceived that exten-</p><p>sive production systems provide better animal welfare standards than those provided</p><p>by more intensive systems. Stocking density, in general, has been shown to be of</p><p>greater concern for the general public compared to the farmers in Belgium (Vanho-</p><p>nacker et al., 2008). On a 5-point scale, stocking density was rated by the general</p><p>community as the most important of 16 housing and climate issues (mean = 4.28), but</p><p>rated as the 6th most important by farmers (mean = 3.53). However, available space</p><p>was rated equal the 2nd most important by the general community (mean = 4.16)</p><p>while farmers rated this issue similarly as the 3rd most important (mean = 3.69). It is</p><p>noticeable that while the rankings with regard to space were similar for farmers and</p><p>the general community, the mean for farmers was somewhat lower, possibly indicating</p><p>that, in absolute terms, farmers attach less importance to space allowance as compared</p><p>to the general community.</p><p>While these data generally focussed on livestock production, a similar issue faces</p><p>the sheep industry. Coleman et al. (2016a) found that, in Australia, public approval</p><p>of lamb housing decreased as the degree of confinement increased. Housing in large</p><p>paddocks was generally approved, while housing in outdoor pens was less approved</p><p>and housing in indoor pens generally disapproved. Interestingly, respondents from</p><p>urban areas, regional cities and rural town held similar views. This similarity between</p><p>respondents is important because it is inconsistent with the often expressed view that</p><p>the increase in public disapproval of aspects of livestock farming occurs because of</p><p>increasing urbanisation leading to people becoming more disengaged from farming</p><p>and farming practices (Jensen, 2006). According to Matthews, ‘An additional com-</p><p>plication arises from the comparative lack of knowledge in urban populations about</p><p>livestock and their ability to cope with natural variations in food supply and environ-</p><p>mental conditions. For example, the general public might not readily appreciate that</p><p>sheep, cattle and deer can survive well outdoors at sub-zero temperatures provided</p><p>adequate food and shelter is available’ (Matthews, 1996, p. 42).</p><p>Transport</p><p>In broad-scale sheep farming systems such as those in Australia and New Zealand,</p><p>lambs and sheep can be transported over long distances (Ferguson et al., 2014). Fer-</p><p>guson states ‘Anecdotally, most lambs destined for slaughter in Australia and New</p><p>Zealand would not be transported over long durations (</p><p>that guide transport, for example Meat and Livestock Australia’s</p><p>(MLA, 2012) ‘Is it fit to load?’, but these guidelines have no regulatory power. Similar</p><p>frameworks exist in other countries, for example in the European Union, there exists</p><p>the Welfare of Animals during Transport (DEFRA, 2007). Despite these regulatory</p><p>frameworks, an Australian study (Coleman et al., 2014) found that 24% of the general</p><p>Consumer and societal expectations for sheep products 45</p><p>public indicated low trust in workers involved in livestock transport on land and 41%</p><p>indicated low trust in workers involved in livestock transport by sea. The latter figure</p><p>may reflect a number of adverse events that might have been reported in the Australian</p><p>media with regard to live sheep export and strong criticism by the Australian animal</p><p>rights group, (Animals Australia, 2013) at the time of the survey.</p><p>Farmer attitudes</p><p>In Ireland, a comparison of the rated importance of a range of problems in Irish agri-</p><p>culture between farmers and the general public showed that animal welfare was ranked</p><p>second of the six issues by farmers and fourth by the general public (Howley et al., 2014).</p><p>Good on-farm practice can assist in controlling existing diseases, and on-farm biosecurity</p><p>can avoid the introduction or reintroduction and spread of the diseases not present within</p><p>a property and/or region. Toma et al. (2013) found that, in British sheep and beef farm-</p><p>ers, attitudes towards animal welfare was one of the key drivers of a range of biosecurity</p><p>behaviours. While a range of factors were considered, only the rated importance of bios-</p><p>ecurity practices had consistently higher loading in structural models for England, Wales</p><p>and Scotland that described the factors that predicted biosecurity behaviours.</p><p>As indicated earlier, when studying attitudes towards lamb finishing systems in</p><p>Australia, Coleman et al. (2016a) found that farmers expressed lower levels of con-</p><p>cern as compared to the general public on many welfare risks for the sheep on-farm.</p><p>Doughty et al. (2016) asked the general public, sheep producers, sheep industry-re-</p><p>lated scientists and service providers to provide their thoughts on the importance of</p><p>a range of sheep welfare issues and possible key indicators. All respondents thought</p><p>sheep welfare was adequate but improvement was desired. Issues perceived to cause</p><p>the most risk to sheep included flystrike (infestation of the sheep with blowfly mag-</p><p>gots), nutrition, environmental extremes and predation, while key indicators were re-</p><p>lated to nutrition, food availability, mortality/management, pain and fear and illness/</p><p>injuries. Beliefs about the extent to which husbandry practice was seen to compromise</p><p>sheep welfare were highest for the general public (mean = 3.83 on a 4-point scale) and</p><p>lowest for producers (mean = 2.73).</p><p>Licence to farm</p><p>Animal welfare issues, together with issues relating to climate change, water scarcity,</p><p>environmental degradation and declining biodiversity, threaten farmers’ social licence</p><p>to farm. Social licence to farm is defined by Martin and Shepheard as ‘…the lati-</p><p>tude that society allows to its citizens to exploit resources for their private purposes’</p><p>(Martin and Shepheard, 2011, p. 4). Social licence is granted when industries behave</p><p>in a manner that is consistent, not just with their legal obligations but also with com-</p><p>munity expectations (Arnot, 2009; Gunningham et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2007).</p><p>Failure to fulfil the obligations inherent to social licence can lead to increased liti-</p><p>gation, increased regulations and increasing consumer demands (Arnot, 2009). Ac-</p><p>cording to Martin and Shepheard (2011), working with the community, understanding</p><p>their opinions towards important issues like animal welfare and the environment and</p><p>46 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>in a manner indicative of cooperation rather than working against them in a defensive</p><p>manner, is the most successful means to addressing threats to social licence. In this</p><p>light, exploring public opinions towards the livestock animal industry is an important</p><p>first step towards engaging with the community.</p><p>Matthews (1996) argued that non-sustainable practices are ‘those in which the wel-</p><p>fare status of animals is poor and the level of acceptance by the public is low’ (p. 44).</p><p>It can be argued, however, that either, rather than both, of these conditions will impact</p><p>the sustainability of livestock farming. Poor welfare status can impact the productivity</p><p>of livestock as well the public’s attitude towards a particular practice. However, even</p><p>if the practice is characterised by low mortality and morbidity, good general health and</p><p>good productivity, public may still perceive the practice unfavourable.</p><p>Influence on regulators and legislators</p><p>Earlier examples were given of cases where public concerns about animal welfare</p><p>expressed by PETA led to Australian sheep industry responses in the management</p><p>of mulesing. However, this way of bringing about changes to industry practices or</p><p>codes of practice runs the risk of lacking coordination and may lead to changes that</p><p>are not based on good science, even if the original welfare concern is highly justi-</p><p>fied. Timoshanko (2015) has argued that a ‘market-based’ approach to animal welfare</p><p>regulation does not work. The market-based approach is based on the premise that an</p><p>individual can reflect his or her concerns and values about the treatment of animals</p><p>through his or her purchasing behaviour. Timoshanko states that the market-based</p><p>approach to regulation is actually a form of social control or influence, rather than an</p><p>industry- or government-prescribed set of rules. It assumes that ‘consumers are able</p><p>to control suppliers by using their purchasing power (through increased demand for</p><p>more humanely produced products) to influence the production systems of suppliers</p><p>of farm animal products’ (p. 518). As we know, healthiness, price and so on. drive</p><p>consumption, leading Timoshanko to conclude that ‘the market, political and social</p><p>considerations either override an individual’s animal welfare values due to necessity,</p><p>or, faced with the complex task of evaluating the ethics of each brand or product,</p><p>the consumer prioritises harmonious relationships with significant others over better</p><p>welfare for farm animals’ (p. 518). Thus, while public concerns may raise certain pos-</p><p>sible welfare issues, regulation and legislation need to be based on good science while</p><p>clearly taking into account the industry’s capacity to implement changes in practice.</p><p>Industry responses</p><p>Troy and Kerry (2010) have said ‘In general, there is a need for greater innovation</p><p>and knowledge utilisation to enhance consumer perception (both expected and experi-</p><p>enced) by the meat industry. The authors believe there has been much research carried</p><p>out at various institutes and universities which has not transferred or been adopted</p><p>by the industry. A number of reasons for this are evident. Firstly, the meat industry,</p><p>although global, is quite fragmented with limited research capability. Secondly, the</p><p>research and development investment by the industry is relatively small compared with</p><p>Consumer and societal expectations for sheep products 47</p><p>other sectors. Thirdly, most meat research is carried out by public entities often with</p><p>little intellectual “buy-in” from the industry. This creates a disconnect between the</p><p>research outputs and their utilisation by the industry’ (p. 223).</p><p>In fact, in Australia, the sheep meat industry has considerable research capability</p><p>through MLA; and this body funds welfare research, including social research, and</p><p>welfare is one of its research priorities. The wool industry also funds research through</p><p>the Australian Wool Innovation but the emphasis is on health and welfare, not on</p><p>welfare-related social science issues.</p><p>Generally speaking, in those countries where sheep welfare research is carried out,</p><p>the emphasis is on sheep health and disease, and social</p><p>research, other than market</p><p>research, does not appear in their priorities. This may reflect the relative recency of</p><p>licence to farm as a social issue and the absence of a clear strategy for the livestock</p><p>industries to engage in dialogue with the community on welfare issues.</p><p>In addition to commissioning relevant research, sheep industries need to com-</p><p>municate better with the community. Grandin (2014) has argued that the live-</p><p>stock industries need to be more transparent in communicating with the public</p><p>(Coleman, 2010). She cites several examples where industry sources have made</p><p>videos of practices available to the public or where public tours of farms have been</p><p>set up. Bad practices are those where the livestock industries seek to suppress their</p><p>practices. Grandin says that industries need to ask ‘Can I explain this to my guests</p><p>from the city?’ (p. 467).</p><p>Some scientists have already argued the need to integrate public opinions and</p><p>concerns in decision making about legislation, the development of welfare assurance</p><p>schemes and product differentiation (Boogaard et al., 2008; Sørensen and Fraser,</p><p>2010). The popularity of free-range systems fits with this idea, as it capitalises on the</p><p>public importance attached to natural living. A better understanding of public percep-</p><p>tions of animal welfare should also assist in reducing the discord between citizens and</p><p>other stakeholders in the supply chain and close the gap between public perceptions</p><p>and scientific facts (Vanhonacker and Verbeke, 2014, p. 157).</p><p>In all, an industry response to societal expressions of concern about sheep welfare</p><p>should include seeking to understand relevant public attitudes and beliefs, as well as</p><p>the knowledge base that underpins them. The way in which sheep farming can respond</p><p>to public perceptions needs to be a combination of practice change, where a current</p><p>practice has a traditional base that can no longer be justified and a public refutation</p><p>where the community concerns may not be justified when subjected to rigorous evalu-</p><p>ation or where viable alternatives have not been developed. Mulesing is a case where</p><p>public concern has led to these responses leading to a greater use of analgesics and</p><p>considerable research into alternatives.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Given the threats to social licence, there is a need to understand community expecta-</p><p>tions if sheep industries are to be sustainable both with regard to farming practices and</p><p>access to markets. Public opinions change over time; livestock animal welfare issues</p><p>48 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>thought to be particularly salient at one point in time can be superseded by another</p><p>animal welfare issue at another point in time. Responses by government in the form</p><p>of changes to regulations, industry responses and media exposure are the likely fac-</p><p>tors underlying these changes in opinion. It is therefore important to not only measure</p><p>current concerns of the community but also to monitor changes in opinion over time.</p><p>Knowledge of public perceptions towards the livestock industry and livestock animal</p><p>welfare can be used to inform the industry of possible changes in practice throughout</p><p>the supply chain and provide a basis for educating the public where this is desirable.</p><p>This knowledge will also allow industry and government to align their policies with</p><p>consumer and community perceptions and to assist in developing research policy on</p><p>animal welfare topics/risks and this, in turn, should lead to improved sheep welfare.</p><p>References</p><p>Agriculture Victoria, 2016. Progress on alternatives to mulesing. Available from: http://agri-</p><p>culture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/sheep/sheep-notes-newsletters/sheep-notes-au-</p><p>tumn-2015/progress-on-alternatives-to-mulesing</p><p>Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Org. Behav. Hum. Decision Proc. 50,</p><p>179–211.</p><p>Animals Australia, 2013. Ban Live Export. Available from: http://www.banliveexport.com/fea-</p><p>tures/timelines-of-cruelty.php</p><p>Arnot, C., 2009. Protecting our freedom to operate: earning and maintaining public trust and</p><p>our social license. In:Paper presented at the Southwest Nutrition and Management Confer-</p><p>ence, AZ, USA.</p><p>Australian Wool Innovation, 2016. AWI market Intelligence. Australian Wool Innovation Limit-</p><p>ed and the Woolmark Company. Available from: https://www.wool.com/globalassets/start/</p><p>market-intelligence/weekly-price-report/awi_weeklypricereport_2016_wk_24.pdf</p><p>Boogaard, K., Oosting, J., Bock, B., 2008. Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept:</p><p>citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 117 (1), 24–33.</p><p>Brennan, A., 2009. Wool industry hit by another mulesing boycott. Available from: http://www.</p><p>abc.net.au/news/2009-01-06/wool-industry-hit-by-another-mulesing-boycott/258304</p><p>Burnués, A., Olaizola, A., Corcoran, K., 2003. Labelling information demanded by European</p><p>consumers and relationships with purchasing motives, quality and safety of meat. Meat</p><p>Sci. 65, 1095–1106.</p><p>Clark, B., Stewart, G.B., Panzone, L.A., Kyriazakis, I., Frewer, L.J., 2016. A systematic review</p><p>of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours toward production diseases and associated</p><p>with farm animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 29, 455–478.</p><p>Colditz, I.G., Walkden-Brown, S.W., Daly, B.L., Crook, B.J., 2005. Some physiological re-</p><p>sponses associated with reduced wool growth during blowfly strike in Merino sheep. Aust.</p><p>Vet. J. 83, 695–699.</p><p>Coleman, G.J., 2010. Educating the public: information or persuasion? J. Vet. Med. Educ. 37,</p><p>74–82.</p><p>Coleman, G., Toukhsati, S., 2006. Consumer Attitudes and Behaviour Relevant to the Red Meat</p><p>Industry. Meat and Livestock Australia Limited, North Sydney, NSW.</p><p>Coleman, G., Rohlf, V., Toukhsati, S., Blache, D., 2014. Development of a Public Attitude</p><p>Monitoring Scheme. Australian Pork Limited final report 2012/0026.</p><p>Coleman, G.J., Jongman, E., Greenfield, L., Hemsworth, P.H., 2016a. Farmer and public at-</p><p>titudes towards lamb finishing systems. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 16, 1–12.</p><p>http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/sheep/sheep-notes-newsletters/sheep-notes-autumn-2015/progress-on-alternatives-to-mulesing</p><p>http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/sheep/sheep-notes-newsletters/sheep-notes-autumn-2015/progress-on-alternatives-to-mulesing</p><p>http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/sheep/sheep-notes-newsletters/sheep-notes-autumn-2015/progress-on-alternatives-to-mulesing</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0010</p><p>http://www.banliveexport.com/features/timelines-of-cruelty.php</p><p>http://www.banliveexport.com/features/timelines-of-cruelty.php</p><p>https://www.wool.com/globalassets/start/market-intelligence/weekly-price-report/awi_weeklypricereport_2016_wk_24.pdf</p><p>https://www.wool.com/globalassets/start/market-intelligence/weekly-price-report/awi_weeklypricereport_2016_wk_24.pdf</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0280</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0280</p><p>http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-06/wool-industry-hit-by-another-mulesing-boycott/258304</p><p>http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-06/wool-industry-hit-by-another-mulesing-boycott/258304</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0040</p><p>Consumer and societal expectations for sheep products 49</p><p>Coleman, G.J., Rohlf, V., Toukhsati, S.R., Blache, D., 2016b. Public attitudes predict commu-</p><p>nity behaviours relevant to the pork industry. Anim. Product. Sci..</p><p>Curtis, K.R., Cowee, M.W., Lewis, S.R., Harris, T.R., 2011. Consumer Preferences for Meat</p><p>Attributes. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension. Fact Sheet-08-11.</p><p>Defra, 2007. Welfare of Animals during Transport. Available from: http://assurance.redtractor.</p><p>org.uk/contentfiles/Farmers-5423.pdf</p><p>Doughty A.K., Coleman, G.J., Hinch, G.N., Doyle, R.E., 2016. Stakeholder perceptions of wel-</p><p>fare issues and indicators for extensively managed sheep.</p><p>Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S., 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch,</p><p>Orlando, FL.</p><p>Elliott, J., Sneddon, J., Lee, J.A., Blache, D., 2011. Producers have a positive attitude toward</p><p>improving lamb survival rates but may be influenced by enterprise factors and perceptions</p><p>of control. Livest. Sci. 140, 103–110.</p><p>Ferguson, D.M., Schreurs, N.M., Kenyon, P.R., Jacob, R.H., 2014. Balancing consumer and</p><p>societal requirements for sheep meat production: an Australian perspective. Meat Sci. 98,</p><p>477–483.</p><p>Font i Furnols, M., Guerrero, L., 2014. Consumer preference, behaviour and perception about</p><p>meat and meat products: an overview. Meat Sci. 98, 361–371.</p><p>Font i Furnols, M., Realin, C., Montossi, F., Sañudo, C., Campo, M.M., Oliver, M.A., Nute,</p><p>G.R., Guerrero, L., 2011. Consumer’s purchasing intention for lamb meat affected by</p><p>country of origin, feeding system and meat price: a conjoint study in Spain, France and</p><p>United Kingdom. Food Qual. Pref. 22, 443–451.</p><p>Gracia, A., 2013. The determinants of the intention to purchase animal welfare-friendly meat</p><p>products in Spain. Anim. Welf. 22, 255–265.</p><p>Grandin, T., 2014. Animal welfare and society concerns find the missing link. Meat Sci. 98,</p><p>461–469.</p><p>Grunert, K.G., 2006. Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption.</p><p>Meat Sci. 74, 149–160.</p><p>Gunningham, N., Kagan, R., Thornton, D., 2004. Social license and environmental protection:</p><p>why businesses go beyond compliance. Law Soc. Inq. 29 (2), 307–341.</p><p>Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., 2011. Human-livestock interactions. The Stockperson</p><p>and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals. CAB International,</p><p>Oxfordshire.</p><p>Howley, P., Yadav, L., Hynes, S., Donoghue, C.O., Nilee, S.O., 2014. Contrasting the attitudes</p><p>of farmers and the general public regarding the ’multifunctional’ role of the agricultural</p><p>sector. Land Use Policy 38, 248–256.</p><p>Hustvedt, G., Carroll, K.A., Bernard, J.C., 2013. Consumer ethnocentricity and preferences for</p><p>wool products by county of origin and manufacture. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 37, 498–506.</p><p>Jensen, H.H., 2006. Consumer issues and demand. Choices 21, 165–169.</p><p>Lee, M., The effects of product information on consumer attitudes and purchase intentions of</p><p>fashion products made of fur, leather, and wool. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Iowa</p><p>State University. Paper 13840.</p><p>Lindon, G., 2015. Latest R&D Breech Strike Prevention Sheep Updates WA. Available from:</p><p>http://www.wool.com/globalassets/start/on-farm-research-and-development/sheep-health-</p><p>welfare-and-productivity/sheep-health/breech-flystrike/latest-publications/latest_randd_</p><p>breech_strike_prevention_sheep_updates_wa_final-v27_8_15.pdf</p><p>Lindon, G., 2016. Australian Wool Innovation AWI Breech Strike R&D Technical Update. Avail-</p><p>able from: https://www.wool.com/globalassets/start/on-farm-research-and-development/</p><p>sheep-health-welfare-and-productivity/sheep-health/breech-flystrike/r-and-d-update/no_9_</p><p>awi_rd_breech_strike_update_overview_pain_releif_prod_revised_1.8.2.pdf?id=12546</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0045</p><p>http://assurance.redtractor.org.uk/contentfiles/Farmers-5423.pdf</p><p>http://assurance.redtractor.org.uk/contentfiles/Farmers-5423.pdf</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0075</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0075</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0085</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0085</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0105</p><p>http://www.wool.com/globalassets/start/on-farm-research-and-development/sheep-health-welfare-and-productivity/sheep-health/breech-flystrike/latest-publications/latest_randd_breech_strike_prevention_sheep_updates_wa_final-v27_8_15.pdf</p><p>http://www.wool.com/globalassets/start/on-farm-research-and-development/sheep-health-welfare-and-productivity/sheep-health/breech-flystrike/latest-publications/latest_randd_breech_strike_prevention_sheep_updates_wa_final-v27_8_15.pdf</p><p>http://www.wool.com/globalassets/start/on-farm-research-and-development/sheep-health-welfare-and-productivity/sheep-health/breech-flystrike/latest-publications/latest_randd_breech_strike_prevention_sheep_updates_wa_final-v27_8_15.pdf</p><p>50 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Macleod, C.M., 1998. Directed Forgetting. In: Golding, J.M., Macleod, C.M. (Eds.), Intentional</p><p>Forgetting: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.</p><p>Martin, P., Shepheard, M., 2011. What is meant by the social license? In: Williams, J., Martin, P.</p><p>(Eds.), Defending the Social License of Farming: Issues, Challenges and New Directions</p><p>for Agriculture. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC, Australia.</p><p>Matthews, L.R., 1996. Animal welfare and sustainability of production under extensive condi-</p><p>tions: a non-EU perspective. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 49, 41–46.</p><p>MLA, 2012. Is It Fit to Load? Meat and Livestock Australia Limited, North Sydney, NSW.</p><p>Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2012. Understanding Lamb Mortality.</p><p>Available from: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/sheep/facts/12-031.htm</p><p>Rokeach, M., 1973. The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New York, NY.</p><p>Roy Morgan Research, 2000. Animal Welfare Issue Survey. Meat and Livestock Australia Lim-</p><p>ited, North Sydney, NSW.</p><p>Sepúlveda, W.S., Maza, M.T., Mantecón, A.R., 2010. Factors associated with the purchase of</p><p>designation of origin lamb meat. Meat Sci. 85, 167–173.</p><p>Sepúlveda, W.S., Maza, M.T., Pardos, L., 2011. Aspects of</p><p>quality related to the consumption</p><p>and production of lamb meat: consumers versus producers. Meat Sci. 87, 366–372.</p><p>Shutt, D.A., Smith, A.I., Wallace, C.A., Connell, R., Fell, L.R., 1988. Effect of myiasis and</p><p>acute restraint stress on plasma levels of immunoreactive beta-endorphin, adrenocortico-</p><p>trophin (ACTH) and cortisol in sheep. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 41, 297–301.</p><p>Sneddon, J., Rollin, B., 2010. Mulesing and animal ethics. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 23, 371–386.</p><p>Sørensen, J.T., Fraser, D., 2010. On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: issues</p><p>and possible solutions. Livest. Sci. 131, 1–7.</p><p>Timoshanko, A.C., 2015. Limitations to the market-based approach to the regulation of farm</p><p>animal welfare. Univ. New South Wales Law J. 38, 514–543.</p><p>Toma, L., Stott, A.W., Heffernan, C., Ringrose, S., Gunn, G.J., 2013. Determinants of biosecu-</p><p>rity behaviour of British cattle and sheep farmers – a behavioural economic analysis. Prev.</p><p>Vet. Med. 108, 321–333.</p><p>Troy, D.J., Kerry, J.P., 2010. Consumer perception and the role of science in the meat industry.</p><p>Meat Sci. 86, 214–226.</p><p>Vanhonacker, G., Verbeke, W., 2014. Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food</p><p>products: challenges and opportunities. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 27, 153–171.</p><p>Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F.A.M., 2008. Do citizens and farmers</p><p>interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livest. Sci. 116 (1–3), 126–136.</p><p>Waitrose, 2016. Available from: http://www.waitrose.com/home/inspiration/about_waitrose.html</p><p>Walmart, 2015. Walmart U.S. Announces New Animal Welfare and Antibiotics Positions. Avail-</p><p>able from: http://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/2015/05/22/walmart-us-</p><p>announces-new-animal-welfare-and-antibiotics-positions</p><p>Wells, A.E.D., Sneddon, J., Lee, J.A., Blache, D., 2011. Farmer’s response to societal concerns</p><p>about farm animal welfare: the case of mulesing. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 24, 645–658.</p><p>Williams, P., Gill, A., Ponsford, I., 2007. Corporate social responsibility at tourism destinations:</p><p>toward a social license to operate. Tour. Rev. Int. 11 (2), 133–144.</p><p>Further reading</p><p>Coleman, G., Rohlf, V., Toukhsati, S., Blache, D., 2015. Public attitudes relevant to livestock</p><p>animal welfare policy. Farm Policy J. 12, 45–57.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0125</p><p>http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/sheep/facts/12-031.htm</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0175</p><p>http://www.waitrose.com/home/inspiration/about_waitrose.html</p><p>http://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/2015/05/22/walmart-us-announces-new-animal-welfare-and-antibiotics-positions</p><p>http://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/2015/05/22/walmart-us-announces-new-animal-welfare-and-antibiotics-positions</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0190</p><p>Consumer and societal expectations for sheep products 51</p><p>Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? J. Soc.</p><p>Issues 50, 19–45.</p><p>Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Buijs, S., Tuyttens, F.A.M., 2009. Societal con-</p><p>cern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livest.</p><p>Sci. 123 (1), 16–22.</p><p>Williams, J., Martin, P., 2011. Defending the Social Licence of Farming: Issues, Challenges and</p><p>New Directions for Agriculture. CSIRO Publishing, Australia.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00003-0/ref0205</p><p>Page left intentionally blank</p><p>Part Two</p><p>New Advances in Sheep</p><p>Welfare Assessment</p><p>4. Sheep cognition and its implications for welfare 55</p><p>5. New physiological measures of the biological cost of</p><p>responding to challenges 73</p><p>Page left intentionally blank</p><p>Advances in Sheep Welfare. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2</p><p>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p><p>Sheep cognition and its</p><p>implications for welfare</p><p>Rebecca E. Doyle</p><p>Animal Welfare Science Centre, University of Melbourne,</p><p>Melbourne, VIC, Australia</p><p>Cognition refers to mental action of acquiring and processing of information, and the</p><p>cognitive capacity of an individual organism is tightly tied to its evolution. Humans</p><p>and animals have evolved certain skills that help us acquire the resources needed to</p><p>survive, thrive and reproduce. Cognitive processing is energetically demanding, thus,</p><p>unless there is an evolutionary benefit, complex cognition is hypothesized to be det-</p><p>rimental to survival (a first example of this in nature: Evans et al., 2017). With this</p><p>in mind, we can view animal cognition in a different light. Both the existence and</p><p>absence of a cognitive skill are a reflection of the evolution of a species. Sheep re-</p><p>ceive a lot of poor press for being stupid or dim. They may well be the ultimate prey</p><p>species: their primary defence strategy is to group together or take flight, and that is</p><p>about them. As a result, they are very alert, and can be easily fearful and distressed, all</p><p>of which influence their cognition and behavioural reactions. They are also stoic by</p><p>nature and so it is not easy to see if they are experiencing negative or positive affective</p><p>states. They are however, exceptionally flexible and adaptable. They can be found in</p><p>the wild in Asia, Europe and North America, and domestically across all continents</p><p>(Dwyer, 2009a). Sheep are used in medical research, and are farmed in large numbers,</p><p>both, intensively and extensively and for milk, wool and meat.</p><p>In order to succeed in</p><p>such diverse situations, they require a significant degree of cognitive flexibility.</p><p>Our understanding of the cognitive capacities of sheep has grown substantially in re-</p><p>cent decades. This development is the result of a changing perspective on how we evalu-</p><p>ate animal intelligence, the broad use of sheep globally and the accompanying need to</p><p>understand their welfare. As we advance the ways we evaluate animal intelligence, we</p><p>are moving away from the traditional comparative approach where we measure an ani-</p><p>mal’s abilities against our own. Different species have evolved certain skills for a reason,</p><p>and comparing them to humans, with our vastly different anatomy, is restrictive. Rather</p><p>than looking at cognitive abilities as a comparison between us and them, or species</p><p>against species, we now consider the presence and absence of cognitive skills as evolved</p><p>abilities that allow different ecological niches to be occupied by different species.</p><p>Understanding and measuring the cognition of animals can give us insight into their</p><p>welfare and help us to care for them more effectively (Broom, 2010). The relationship</p><p>between cognition and emotion is bi-directional; cognition can influence the formation of</p><p>affective states (Desiré et al., 2002), and affective states can alter the processing of infor-</p><p>mation (Paul et al., 2005). As a result of this relationship, a better understanding of cogni-</p><p>tion can help us to understand how behaviours arise and what affective state they represent.</p><p>4</p><p>56 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Cognitive capacities of sheep</p><p>Insight into the cognitive capacities of sheep reveals that they have excellent spatial</p><p>and visual cognitive abilities, a strong social network that is geared around survival</p><p>and facilitates learning, and a reasonable degree of executive control functioning.</p><p>These findings show that they have a series of advanced cognitive abilities to a level</p><p>that has not been attributed to them in the past.</p><p>Spatial navigation</p><p>Sheep employ spatial cognition to increase foraging efficiency in broad and small-</p><p>scale foraging situations (Hewitson et al., 2005). Extensive research conducted to</p><p>measure these ecological cognitive traits has revealed that sheep can recall the location</p><p>of food sources in heterogeneous environments through developing comprehensive</p><p>spatial maps (Dumont and Hill, 2001; Dumont and Petit, 1998; Edwards et al., 1996).</p><p>This ability to map their environment goes hand in hand with strong visual senses, but</p><p>sheep also have good senses for hearing and olfaction. Chapter by Kendrick (2008) on</p><p>sheep cognition in The Welfare of Sheep (Dwyer, 2008) gives an excellent review of</p><p>the sensory abilities of sheep and how they utilise them.</p><p>These spatial abilities have been investigated in a variety of studies (Hosoi</p><p>et al., 1995; Hunter et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2012; Kendrick et al., 2001; Rush-</p><p>en, 1986) through the use of both Y mazes and more complex spatial mazes. While</p><p>many of these studies highlight the strong spatial abilities of sheep, some controlled</p><p>experiments have not been able to replicate the spatial skills sheep demonstrate in</p><p>natural settings. For example, Morris et al. (2010) demonstrated that sheep could</p><p>discriminate between two visual cues in a Y maze; however, they failed to detect a</p><p>directional audio cue (Morris et al., 2010), whereas it has been shown that ewes can</p><p>orientate and approach their lambs solely based on vocalisations (Searby and Jouven-</p><p>tin, 2003), which suggests that they can discriminate and spatially identify a noise.</p><p>This specific contrast between results from an experimental context and a biologically</p><p>relevant behaviour suggests that greater consideration is required in the design of ex-</p><p>periments focusing on spatial recognition.</p><p>Sheep are commonly observed to have lateralisation biases in Y mazes (Ander-</p><p>son and Murray, 2013; Johnson et al. 2012; Morris et al., 2010). Lateralisation is a</p><p>preference to perform behaviours by one side of the body, or to process information</p><p>differentially in the brain, and information processing by the right brain hemisphere</p><p>is associated with reactivity to novel stimuli and distraction (Rogers, 2010). Lateral</p><p>behaviour can skew results as individual sheep may exhibit a preference to take the left</p><p>or right arm of a Y maze, regardless of consequence. At the population level, sheep do</p><p>not display a predominance of one side (e.g. right) in their lateral preference across</p><p>breeds, but they do display their own individual biases. Studying these relationships</p><p>in sheep may give some useful insights into individual differences in cognitive perfor-</p><p>mance. Practically, this tendency to form biases needs to be considered in experimen-</p><p>tal designs. Pseudo-random sequences are commonly used to reduce the chances of</p><p>lateralised responses. The implementation of correction trials to prevent the formation</p><p>Sheep cognition and its implications for welfare 57</p><p>of lateralised biases, at least in situations where operant conditioning is being applied</p><p>(McBride et al., 2016), may also be valuable.</p><p>A more complex spatial maze developed by Lee et al. (2006) uses the evolutionary</p><p>motivations of sheep to test their spatial cognitive abilities (Fig. 4.1). Utilizing the</p><p>natural flocking behaviour as the motivation to transit the maze, most naive sheep</p><p>are able to traverse in less than 5 min. The maze assesses several aspects of cognition</p><p>with the total time to complete the maze and errors made on the first test providing an</p><p>indication of cognitive abilities, and the rate of improvement over three consecutive</p><p>days measuring spatial learning. Importantly, the maze requires no pre-training and</p><p>the majority of sheep can complete the task, and for animals that cannot complete the</p><p>task, information on errors and progress made can still be assessed. After three to four</p><p>exposures in the maze, sheep reach a plateau in performance, which is in line with</p><p>ecology-based foraging tasks by Dumont and Petit (1998). Sheep also retained or</p><p>improved performance in the maze 6 weeks later, allowing their long-term memory</p><p>to be tested. The maze has now been used to assess the impact of scopolamine (a</p><p>memory inhibiting drug) and tunicamycin (Lee et al., 2006), GnRH manipulation</p><p>(Hough et al., 2017; Wojniusz et al., 2013), prenatal stress (Coulon et al., 2011) and</p><p>acute stress (Doyle et al., 2014) on the cognitive performance of sheep. Stress and</p><p>scopolamine both impaired the spatial cognition of sheep, but in different ways. The</p><p>GnRH studies showed varied effects, despite the administration of the GnRH blocker</p><p>being at a similar time of maturation (around puberty). This suggests that spatial cog-</p><p>nition can be affected by a variety of factors, but that these influences are somewhat</p><p>variable or inconsistent.</p><p>Figure 4.1 Conspecifics provide the motivation for sheep to traverse the maze for testing</p><p>of cognition and learning.</p><p>Source: Original photo used with permission, courtesy Caroline Lee, CSIRO, Australia.</p><p>58 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Social cognition and learning</p><p>For social species, an ability to recognise individuals is described as the cornerstone</p><p>to complex society (De Waal and Tyack, 2009). Sheep do have the ability to recognise</p><p>individuals in their social group (Kendrick et al., 2001), and can use facial cues to</p><p>discriminate between different species, breeds and between sexes of the same breed</p><p>(Kendrick et al., 1995). In this study by Kendrick et al. (2001), sheep showed clear</p><p>recognition of individuals that had previously been in their social group, as well as the</p><p>faces of current members. Kendrick’s research indicated that sheep may utilize the</p><p>same neural encoding strategy to remember and respond emotionally to individuals</p><p>in their absence as humans do. Social affiliations in sheep are generally subtle and</p><p>difficult to distinguish, particularly in ewes and sub-adults, as agonistic interactions</p><p>and overt hierarchies are difficult to ascertain</p><p>(Fisher and Matthews, 2001). Sheep</p><p>break into smaller social groups for grazing within a larger home range (Boissy and</p><p>Dumont, 2002), but the structure of these smaller groups are not always consistent. In</p><p>grazing groups, sheep do display preferences for certain types of individuals but do</p><p>not consistently form stable sub-groups (Doyle et al., 2016). It may well be because of</p><p>these broad, flexible social structures that sheep have evolved the capacity to differen-</p><p>tiate between a number of individuals, and have a capacity to remember past members.</p><p>Flocking is the key defence strategy for sheep. While this is the primary driver for</p><p>close proximity of the mob, these complex social bonds and differentiation between in-</p><p>dividuals facilitate social learning. The strongest social learning is that which facilitated</p><p>through the ewe-lamb bond. Learning from example via maternal behaviour is the most</p><p>effective way to reduce neophobia in young sheep. Exposing lambs to novel feed before</p><p>weaning so they are able to learn from their mothers facilitates acceptance of new food</p><p>(Savage et al., 2008). This is not restricted to the close maternal bond; however, sheep</p><p>can also learn through social observation when in close proximity to a demonstrating</p><p>animal (McLean, 2001; Thorhallsdottir et al., 1990). Both of these examples display</p><p>social cognitive learning, and may be linked to the ability for individual recognition.</p><p>Executive decision-making</p><p>Some recent developments in the understanding of sheep cognition have arisen through</p><p>human medical research. Sheep are a popular animal model in neurological research for</p><p>conditions such as Huntington’s disease (McBride et al., 2016), and cognitive tests are</p><p>needed to assess symptoms for the model. From this research, new understanding of the</p><p>cognitive capacities of sheep, particularly their executive functioning, has been gained.</p><p>Executive control functioning describes cognitive processes that require an individ-</p><p>ual to adjust their behaviour in response to a change in a task (Banich, 2009). It reflects</p><p>the individual’s cognitive flexibility, set shifting (redirecting attention between tasks),</p><p>and attentional control. Essentially, executive control means that an animal can learn</p><p>associations between stimuli, actions and outcomes, and then adapt their behaviour to</p><p>environmental changes. Morton and Avanzo (2011) describe this need for executive</p><p>control as being fundamental to survival. They tested the capacity for executive func-</p><p>tioning of sheep in a series of step-wise experiments. The sheep had to discriminate ac-</p><p>cording to colour and shape, and were shown to be able to perform reversal learning and</p><p>Sheep cognition and its implications for welfare 59</p><p>attentional set shifting. The results also indicated that sheep learnt each discrimination</p><p>task faster as compared to the last. Sheep took longer to learn the reversal tasks at each</p><p>step, as compared to initial discrimination, but this improved with repeated exposures.</p><p>Once the sheep had been exposed to the concept of the task and of reversal learning</p><p>they were faster to adjust their behaviour the next time they experienced it. The effect</p><p>of experience on reversal learning has also been demonstrated in other studies in sheep</p><p>(Hunter et al., 2015), and reflects an adaptable learning and a capacity to generalise.</p><p>A more simplistic executive control task was used by McBride et al. (2016). In this</p><p>study, sheep rapidly learnt a visual discrimination task, and could demonstrate rever-</p><p>sal learning. Learning times were faster than those reported by Morton and Avanzo</p><p>(2011), and may be a reflection of the task being more simplistic. One other notable</p><p>feature of McBride’s study was the step-wise process to habituate and train the sheep</p><p>to the full task. A slow habituation and training process can be a particularly useful</p><p>strategy when training sheep to a cognitive task in isolation from conspecifics. This</p><p>may be another major contributing factor to the success of McBride’s test. Another</p><p>test using this step-wise habituation measured the ability of sheep to inhibit an already</p><p>started response (Knolle et al., 2017) and demonstrated that sheep can shift their re-</p><p>sponses when new information is received. These tests focus on ethologically salient</p><p>behaviours, which are key to unlocking the cognitive abilities of sheep. Together they</p><p>demonstrate that sheep have reasonable executive control functioning, indicating that</p><p>sheep have the capacity for flexible behaviour following information processing.</p><p>Inferential reasoning</p><p>Inferential reasoning is a complex cognitive skill, as it requires an individual to make</p><p>an association between a visible and an imagined event (Premack, 1995). The indi-</p><p>vidual must reach the correct conclusion, and exclude incorrect options, with only in-</p><p>direct information available. A comparative study by Nawroth et al. (2014) tested the</p><p>capacity for inferential reasoning of both sheep and goats. Using a test that is broadly</p><p>applied across taxa, they investigated whether sheep and goats could infer the location</p><p>of a food reward, from direct and indirect information. Animals learn that there is a</p><p>food reward located under one of two cups, and they have to select the correct one. In</p><p>the direct trials, the experimenter lifts the cup covering the food and covers it again.</p><p>In indirect trials, the experimenter lifts the empty cup. Evidence of inference demon-</p><p>strated if the animal selects the food reward in the indirect trials (above the frequency</p><p>of chance). The animal must apply the information (no food under this cup) to infer</p><p>that the food must be under the other cup.</p><p>Goats outperformed sheep in all test situations, as all sheep were unable to use indi-</p><p>rect information to obtain the reward. This result is thought to reflect species-specific</p><p>differences in feeding ecology. As sheep are non-selective grazers, the consequences of</p><p>making a wrong choice, or in biological terms, selecting a less nutritionally valuable</p><p>food patch, is not as significant to them as it is for goats. As a result, the need to use indi-</p><p>rect information to infer where food would likely be less important for sheep than goats.</p><p>The test result suggests a win-stay foraging strategy, when sheep are pre-disposed</p><p>to return to forage in places that were previously successful. This foraging strategy</p><p>60 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>has been proposed by Hosoi et al. (1995); however, other studies have demonstrated</p><p>that sheep display flexible foraging strategies based on the quality of the environment</p><p>(Hewitson et al., 2005). Win-stay strategies and spatial memory are dominant when</p><p>resources are plentiful, but win-shift strategies have also been recorded (Hewitson</p><p>et al., 2005; Johnson et al., 2012).</p><p>Sense of self</p><p>The capacity for spontaneous self-recognition using a mirror is a significant cognitive</p><p>ability, as it is associated with the capacity to experience self-identity. McBride et al.</p><p>(2015) showed that sheep demonstrated two of the three steps in typical mirror engage-</p><p>ment: exploration and contingency behaviour, but no self-directed behaviour. Similar</p><p>results were also found in pigs (Broom et al., 2009). Self-directed behaviour in the mir-</p><p>ror is not common, with only a handful of species demonstrating that level of investiga-</p><p>tion (Reiss and Marino, 2001), and has not been demonstrated in any livestock species.</p><p>Pigs, however, demonstrated a capacity for assessment awareness by using a mirror</p><p>to solve a task (Broom et al., 2009) that sheep failed to perform (McBride et al., 2015).</p><p>Sheep did not use mirror information to solve a task, although the task set in both stud-</p><p>ies differed and arguably, the task for sheep was more complicated than for pigs as it</p><p>required pre-training. As demonstrated in other studies, including those where lateral</p><p>biases are learnt, this shifting of behaviour away from a previously learnt task does not</p><p>come easily to sheep, although they are capable</p><p>of it (Morton and Avanzo, 2011). Mir-</p><p>ror use and recognition are not concrete evidence of consciousness. However, there is a</p><p>hypothesised link between the concept of self-awareness and consciousness. Therefore,</p><p>further research is required but in the study of consciousness or awareness of one’s self,</p><p>it should be done in ways that ensure species-specific nuances (Wemelsfelder, 1997).</p><p>Stress and cognitive processing</p><p>The section earlier highlights some of the key cognitive abilities sheep possess based</p><p>on our current understanding, but the role of stress and fear on the cognitive pro-</p><p>cessing of sheep is an important consideration when assessing task performance and</p><p>abilities. Impeded performance in problem solving, learning or memory formation,</p><p>and recall can all result from stress (Mendl, 1999). This is because in times of stress,</p><p>animals may default to a more automatic method of processing information, rather</p><p>than using cognitive control. As a result, their behaviour becomes more rigid and in-</p><p>flexible, preventing them from solving a problem effectively (Toates, 2006). A stressor</p><p>can be attention demanding; diverting focus away from the task and resulting in cog-</p><p>nitive overload. This attentional shifting can result in poorer task performance (Shet-</p><p>tleworth, 2001). When it comes to evaluating the effects of stress, the cause of this</p><p>reduced performance is hard to pin point, but the effects are clear.</p><p>Being a prey species, sheep are notoriously fearful of isolation, novel situations</p><p>or unfamiliar stimuli (Dwyer, 2009b). Because many of the situations we test sheep</p><p>in involve a component of novelty and/or isolation, they are likely to experience fear</p><p>Sheep cognition and its implications for welfare 61</p><p>and stress that can influence the cognitive performance. Step-wise habituation, as de-</p><p>scribed by McBride et al. (2016), and in the judgement bias section later, are examples</p><p>of ways to mitigate the impact of isolation/novelty stress in test situations. Starting</p><p>the habituation process with sheep in a group, using positive reinforcement, and then</p><p>progressing to isolation is the most effective strategy. Underlying factors of individ-</p><p>ual sheep can also contribute to task success. Research by Qiu (2015) highlighted</p><p>that calm temperament sheep have better reversal learning than reactive sheep, which</p><p>could be one reason for individual differences in trial learning.</p><p>There is a significant body of literature reporting the effects that maternal stressors</p><p>and management on the cognition and learning of offspring (just some examples in-</p><p>clude Erhard et al., 2004; Coulon et al., 2015; Hernandez et al., 2009), although effects</p><p>are not always consistent or persistent. Coulon et al. (2015) demonstrated that prenatal</p><p>stress can influence cognitive problem solving in the complex spatial maze described</p><p>earlier. Prenatally stressed lambs had poorer initial problem solving and poorer learn-</p><p>ing over the 3 days of the task, and lambs continued to perform worse in the recall test</p><p>2 weeks later. The persistence of these differences was not tested on a longer time scale,</p><p>but even if they are only present in the short term, the result provides important infor-</p><p>mation on how management can influence cognitive performance during development.</p><p>Traditional methods to move sheep to a new location usually involve negative rein-</p><p>forcement by fear-inducing stimuli. The most commonly used reinforcers are people,</p><p>noises and dogs. These stimuli are very effective if they are applied in a controlled</p><p>manner where the sheep have significant space, are in a group, and the stimulus is</p><p>being applied at a steady rate. However, if the reinforcers are not used in a controlled</p><p>fashion, the level of stress can escalate. Practically, this can be seen by sheep failing to</p><p>move through yards effectively or panicking and running into objects when isolated.</p><p>All of these behaviours contribute to the misconception that sheep are difficult and</p><p>frustrating to manage, or are ‘dumb’ animals. These sorts of behaviours arise, at least</p><p>in part, as a result of excessive stress inhibiting cognitive processing and subsequent</p><p>problem solving. In a scientific example of these commonly observed stress-induced</p><p>behaviours, problem solving in sheep was impaired when sheep were exposed to a</p><p>dog and novel (white) noise when tested in a spatial maze as demonstrated by a slower</p><p>overall completion time and more frequent errors (Doyle et al., 2014).</p><p>Stressful interactions where cognition is impaired may compromise the welfare of</p><p>sheep in the short term, and also increase the risk of injury to the animals when they</p><p>are panic. In the longer term, experiences of repeated negative handling and repeated</p><p>exposure to fear-inducing stimuli can be remembered by sheep and may influence</p><p>future behaviour making them more reactive and harder to move and handle. This has</p><p>been demonstrated experimentally such as avoidance of an arm of a Y-maze associ-</p><p>ated with aversive stimuli (Rushen, 1986) and reluctance to move through a raceway</p><p>associated with unpleasant situations (Hargreaves and Hutson, 1990).</p><p>The influence that stressors can have on sheep cognition and subsequent behaviour</p><p>are important to understand. Stress can impair cognitive processing of sheep at the</p><p>time, and sheep will learn from negative situations and this can make them difficult to</p><p>manage in the future. Moreover, management at critical time points, even prenatally,</p><p>can influence consequent cognitive flexibility. Simple changes to practices may have</p><p>62 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>significant benefits to both the welfare of sheep, and how they behave towards stock-</p><p>people. The role of stress is also critical to consider for future controlled cognitive</p><p>studies, and gradual step-wise habituation processes will increase the likelihood of</p><p>successfully training of the sheep and identifying their cognitive abilities.</p><p>Learning and expectations</p><p>The appraisal theory framework, developed from human cognitive psychology, pro-</p><p>poses that specific emotions are formed through the evaluation of stimuli or situations</p><p>and that this step-wise evaluation can be broken down into specific categories (Desiré</p><p>et al., 2002). The outcomes of these evaluations then lead to the formation of a short-</p><p>term emotion. Appraisal of the novelty, intrinsic pleasantness, relevance to the individ-</p><p>ual, implications for the individual’s own needs and expectations, coping potential, and</p><p>how the situation affects personal and social standards are the core components of this</p><p>framework. Each evaluative step involves cognitive components, and can give us insight</p><p>into both the information processing of sheep and the affective states they can experi-</p><p>ence. The body of work done in this area is particularly useful to helps us understand</p><p>how the expectations sheep form, and deviations from this, can influence their welfare.</p><p>Behavioural and cardiac changes indicate that sheep have emotional responses to the</p><p>predictability of a situation, which demonstrates that they have the ability to anticipate</p><p>future outcomes, and that being able to do so reduces the stressfulness of that outcome.</p><p>For example, Rushen (1986) showed that sheep have the ability to predict outcomes</p><p>and avoid aversive situations. In order to do this, the animal must have the ability to</p><p>recall memories and apply the recollection to both the current situation and likely future</p><p>events. In situations that cannot be avoided, sheep displays more muted behavioural and</p><p>physiological responses to negative events if they are preceded with a warning signal</p><p>(Greiveldinger et al., 2007). Furthermore, when lambs are able to control the occurrence</p><p>of a sudden event, they are less likely to avoid (or may even prefer) the test context and</p><p>are less stressed by the stimulus (Greiveldinger et al., 2009). Thus having the capacity to</p><p>exert control can reduce the negative perception of an ordinarily aversive event.</p><p>Further confirmation of the</p><p>ability of sheep to anticipate future outcomes is shown</p><p>by the capacity of lambs to evaluate a reward according to previous experience. This</p><p>means that lambs are able to form expectations, and when the anticipated reward is</p><p>below expectation it can be met with frustration. In contrast, when the reward exceeds</p><p>expectation it is associated with hyperactivity (Greiveldinger et al., 2011). Recent</p><p>work has further demonstrated that sheep have the capacity to anticipate positive out-</p><p>comes (Anderson et al., 2015). These results suggest that the lead up and the subse-</p><p>quent positive situation are associated with positive emotional states, characterised by</p><p>an increase in behavioural transitions and locomotor activity.</p><p>The ability of sheep to anticipate an outcome is anecdotally apparent when we see</p><p>sheep bleat and run towards a feed truck entering the paddock. Appraisal theory stud-</p><p>ies have provided a valuable framework to help us to understand the processes behind</p><p>these capacities. By considering the building blocks of appraisal of a situation we can</p><p>begin to pull apart complex behavioural responses, and start to understand the emo-</p><p>tional states that arise from them. In practical terms, understanding how sheep evaluate</p><p>Sheep cognition and its implications for welfare 63</p><p>specific components of a situation can help to predict how they respond to challenges</p><p>in the production system. Higher levels of social distress and reactivity to novelty</p><p>were both predictive of stress during slaughter (Deiss et al., 2009). These consistent</p><p>responses between the laboratory and the abattoir suggest a sheep’s responses to social</p><p>isolation and novelty are generalised across different situations.</p><p>Sheep are characteristically ‘stoic’ in nature (Roger, 2008). They have evolved to</p><p>hide signs of pain, illness, or weaknesses that would make them susceptible to pre-</p><p>dation. As a consequence, signs displayed by distressed sheep may be subtle to the</p><p>eye of the human observer. This makes it hard to clearly detect affective states, both</p><p>positive and negative, in sheep. As outlined by Boissy and Erhard (2014) and Veissier</p><p>et al. (2009), understanding the ways sheep evaluate events, and the emotional states</p><p>that follow, could be harnessed to provide opportunities for positive experience, and</p><p>so enhance welfare. These controlled experiments allow us to measure those subtle</p><p>behaviours and so objectively support the existence of a range of emotions in sheep.</p><p>These results demonstrate that sheep have the capacity to evaluate different situations</p><p>based on common characteristics of the situations, and that these evaluations lead to the</p><p>generation of affective states. The ability to respond to both negative and positive situ-</p><p>ations indicates that differently valenced events will generate different affective states</p><p>in sheep, and importantly, that they have the capacity to experience positive emotions.</p><p>Cognitive biases</p><p>Human studies have consistently shown that how an individual feels to influence their</p><p>cognitive processes, including attention, memory and judgement (Paul et al., 2005).</p><p>The judgement of ambiguous information is particularly insightful as it can provide</p><p>information about the valence (the positivity or negativity) and arousal of an affec-</p><p>tive state. If individuals are in a positive affective state, they are more likely to have a</p><p>more optimistic judgement, or greater expectation of a positive outcome. In contrast,</p><p>individuals in a negative affective state typically display a more pessimistic judgement</p><p>and show greater expectation of a negative outcome. Attention biases are commonly</p><p>characterised by an increased tendency to direct attention towards threatening stimuli</p><p>when in more anxious affective states, and they also possess the ability to discriminate</p><p>between the affect based on valence and arousal. The measurement of affective states</p><p>using cognitive biases in sheep is still in its infancy, but interesting and unique insights</p><p>have been developed from current work.</p><p>Judgement bias</p><p>Interest in the cognitive processing of animals as a tool to assess welfare growth sig-</p><p>nificantly with the first judgement bias study in rats in 2004 (Harding et al., 2004).</p><p>Following the first study in sheep (Doyle et al., 2010), sheep have been one of the</p><p>most studied species. Despite it being a relatively new topic, there have been several</p><p>recent reviews on judgement biases (seven reviews in 7 years). This is largely to do</p><p>with both the novelty and complexity of the topic, and the benefits and limitations for</p><p>the design and analysis of judgement bias studies have been reviewed most recently</p><p>64 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>by Baciadonna and McElligott (2015) and Roelofs et al. (2016). Thirteen studies con-</p><p>ducted to date on judgement bias of sheep have demonstrated that this methodology</p><p>can give insight into positive and negative affective states. Judgement bias research in</p><p>sheep can be grouped into three different types of studies: long-term treatments, short-</p><p>term treatments, and neurobiological investigations.</p><p>Long-term treatments</p><p>Long-term unpredictable housing and frequent negative husbandry have been demon-</p><p>strated to generate pessimistic biases in sheep (Destrez et al., 2013; Doyle et al., 2011b).</p><p>Of these studies, Destrez et al. (2013) imposed these treatments for longer (9 weeks vs.</p><p>3 weeks) and saw a more pronounced treatment effect than Doyle et al. (2011b), sug-</p><p>gesting that duration increases the negative affect experienced by sheep. While duration</p><p>has an impact, it was the presence of husbandry practices that contributed substantially</p><p>to this negative affective state. By comparison, research by both Vögeli et al. (2014) and</p><p>Guldimann et al. (2015) managed sheep in conditions of ongoing mild unpredictability</p><p>without negative husbandry interventions. While longer in duration (∼5 months), sig-</p><p>nificant differences in judgement biases were not found. This indicates that the presence</p><p>of repeated negative handling and husbandry, not simply an unpredictable environment,</p><p>contributes significantly to the formation of negative affective states in sheep.</p><p>Two other studies using this unpredictable housing and negative husbandry chal-</p><p>lenge provide additional insights into the impacts of ongoing negative affective states</p><p>in sheep. Coulon et al. (2015) identified judgement bias differences in the offspring</p><p>of ewes subjected to the negative housing and husbandry treatment, confirming that</p><p>the treatment was a significant stressor to the ewes, and importantly provides new in-</p><p>sights on the impacts of stress on the affective state of offspring. Destrez et al. (2014)</p><p>delivered 4 weeks of short, positive interventions to sheep while they were exposed to</p><p>the same housing/husbandry challenge. These positive interventions, which included</p><p>brushing, positive human interactions and anticipation of food, counterbalanced the</p><p>negative effect, leading to more optimistic judgements compared to sheep that had</p><p>experienced the housing and husbandry challenge only. This suggests that the effect of</p><p>negative management can be offset by the provision of positive experiences.</p><p>These studies suggest that the long-term affective state of sheep can be influenced</p><p>by routine practices, and this can compromise welfare. It is important to note, how-</p><p>ever, that some of the conditions used in the experiments are not situations that sheep</p><p>would commonly experience in production. The provision of food and water at un-</p><p>predictable times would occur frequently on farm, but as discussed, they seem to have</p><p>limited impact on the affective state of sheep. The negative husbandry practices were</p><p>all common, but the frequency with which they are delivered, particularly in Destrez’s</p><p>studies, are not common on farm. Further investigation of the impact of production</p><p>practices that sheep would normally experience on farm would be valuable if we want</p><p>to understand affective states in a more relevant production setting.</p><p>Frequent negative</p><p>interventions would be more common in intensive conditions, particularly in labora-</p><p>tory environments, so these results may be particularly pertinent to the affective states</p><p>of sheep in these conditions.</p><p>Sheep cognition and its implications for welfare 65</p><p>Short-term treatments</p><p>Contrary to expectations, both a 6 h restraint and isolation treatment (Doyle</p><p>et al., 2010) and shearing (Sanger et al., 2011) induced in more optimistic judgement</p><p>biases in sheep. This suggests that despite both of these short-term negative treatments</p><p>generating a physiological response indicative of acute stress, they positively altered</p><p>the affective state of the sheep. It may be that these results are a scenario of positive</p><p>contrast, where the removal of a stress leads to a feeling of ‘relief’, or a motivation</p><p>to offset a negative with reward (a potential food reward in the case of the Doyle and</p><p>Sanger studies). It could also reflect a heightened state of arousal, the other component</p><p>of affect that led to a greater engagement with the task. Regardless of the cause of the</p><p>positive judgement, both studies indicate that, once removed, sheep either recover</p><p>from acute stressful situations quickly, or their affective states were not affected in the</p><p>first place. A third study in sheep has also identified optimistic biases in response to</p><p>a challenge. Using social companionship as a positive reinforcer, rather than food, in</p><p>the judgement bias test, Verbeek et al. (2014a) showed that despite weight loss, nutri-</p><p>tional restriction in sheep led to a more optimistic judgement bias. While the type of</p><p>treatment applied was different to the acute physical treatments of Doyle et al. (2010)</p><p>and Sanger et al. (2011), this same optimistic judgement in the face of a short-term</p><p>negative situation was evident.</p><p>Cognitive judgement biases are commonly used to measure mood disorders, and so</p><p>it is reasonable that this method does not detect short-term changes in affective state</p><p>(Paul et al., 2005). This is supported by a variety of studies (Hernandez et al., 2015)</p><p>and reviewed by Roelofs et al. (2016). However, social isolation of short durations</p><p>(5 min and 60 min) generated the hypothesised pessimistic judgement biases in chicks</p><p>(Salmeto et al., 2011). Sheep display clear behavioural indicators of fear, anxiety and</p><p>pain, making their capacity to experience these affective states evident. They actively</p><p>avoid negative handling situations, and find isolation distressing. It’s unlikely that the</p><p>two treatments used by Doyle et al. (2010) and Sanger et al. (2011) did not impact their</p><p>affective states. At least superficially, this optimism after experiencing stress may be</p><p>unique to sheep. Investigating this concept in other grazing animals, and measuring the</p><p>effect of other short stressors on sheep would help to understand this phenomenon fur-</p><p>ther. In the meantime, it suggests that sheep recover, affectively at least, from negative</p><p>situations once they cease. Furthermore, providing opportunity for positive reinforce-</p><p>ment following a negative situation may be valuable from a management perspective</p><p>(Boissy and Lee, 2014), with the opportunity to obtain a reward being a possible cause</p><p>of the optimistic judgement following stress.. This result complements the findings of</p><p>Destrez et al. (2014), where positive opportunities during a long-term negative situation</p><p>had a positive impact on affective state. It seems that positive situations and experiences</p><p>are valuable and can offset negative affective states, to a degree at least, in sheep.</p><p>Neurobiological investigations</p><p>Significant developments in the understanding of judgement bias as a welfare tool</p><p>have been developed from research in sheep. A variety of work out of the group led by</p><p>Caroline Lee in CSIRO, Armidale, Australia and another study from Alain Boissy’s</p><p>66 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>group at INRA, Clermont-Ferrand, France, have used pharmacological treatments to</p><p>demonstrate that: (1) reduced brain serotonin was associated with negative judgement</p><p>biases in sheep (Doyle et al., 2011a), (2) that pharmacologically-induced states of</p><p>calmness with Diazepam administration result in more optimistic judgement biases</p><p>(Destrez et al., 2012), and (3) that the opioid agonist, Morphine, can play a important</p><p>role in positive affective states in sheep (Verbeek et al., 2014b). These studies indicate</p><p>that neuroendocrine pathways that are well-understood to elicit negative and positive</p><p>affective states in people and other animals also do so in sheep. This provides impor-</p><p>tant insight into the level of complexity of the affective state of sheep. Reduced brain</p><p>serotonin, investigating physical situations that influence these pathways can give</p><p>insight into the best ways to manage sheep and provide them with opportunities to</p><p>experience positives and reduce chronic negatives. Another important pattern is that</p><p>these pharmacological studies have resulted in findings consistent with predictions,</p><p>whereas short, and to a lesser extent long term, stress treatments have not.</p><p>Existing issues and future directions</p><p>While judgement bias tests in other species include a variety of techniques, including ac-</p><p>tive choice task and natural behaviour tasks, all judgment bias work in sheep has focused</p><p>on the go/no-go paradigm. Adapted from Burman et al. (2008), this test was selected due</p><p>to the ease of training sheep to perform the task. As a result of their strong spatial senses,</p><p>sheep learn the spatial test readily, but even then, it takes weeks to train experimental ani-</p><p>mals and a significant portion of the sheep still fail to reach the learning criteria. An under-</p><p>pinning factor for these issues is the fact that sheep are isolated in the test context. Having</p><p>them in isolation for the test may create a problem of adaptation in the first place, or makes</p><p>them hyper-reactive to small stressors in the testing system. A slow, step-wise habitua-</p><p>tion process significantly facilitates learning. Modifying the task to enable the sheep to</p><p>have company with conspecifics would overcome the issues associated with isolation and</p><p>provide opportunities for a natural behaviour task to enable more rapid training of sheep.</p><p>Attention bias</p><p>Another type of cognitive bias that is less well-studied in animals is attention bias. Spe-</p><p>cifically, this is when humans and animals display increased attention towards threats</p><p>when they are in an increased state of anxiety. Attention bias offers advantages over</p><p>judgement bias as it does not require previous training, does not exclude animals, is</p><p>rapid and more practical to apply. An attention bias test has been developed and phar-</p><p>macologically validated as a measure of anxiety in sheep (Lee et al., 2016). This test</p><p>measured the response of the sheep to a threat of a dog and demonstrated that sheep</p><p>showed increased attention towards the dog when they were in a pharmacologically</p><p>induced anxious state compared to a calm state (Fig. 4.2). In a further study, Monk</p><p>et al. (2015) reported that the test could be refined by eliminating the need for prior</p><p>training and reducing the duration to 45 s which makes it more practical to apply in an</p><p>on-farm situation. While it has been confirmed that the attention bias test in sheep can</p><p>indicate increased and decreased states of short-term negative affect (anxiety), further</p><p>studies to determine if attention bias testing can identify long-term affective states such</p><p>Sheep cognition and its implications for welfare 67</p><p>as depression and positive states are needed. Research applying tests of attention bias</p><p>to assess the impact of housing and husbandry practices would also be of value.</p><p>Implications for welfare</p><p>Sheep have comprehensive spatial and social cognition, along with the ability to dem-</p><p>onstrate executive decision-making. These cognitive abilities reflect the natural en-</p><p>vironments they have evolved in and give sheep the capacity to adapt to the diverse</p><p>environments in which</p><p>farmed, and examines the welfare impacts</p><p>of key production and husbandry practices. It then examines how these welfare risks</p><p>and impacts can be mitigated or minimized through advancements in animal breeding</p><p>and/or management strategies. This book includes a focus on recent developments in</p><p>our understanding of sheep welfare, particularly through the lens of new methodolo-</p><p>gies to assess welfare, including animal affective states (feelings). The role of the con-</p><p>sumer and society in shaping and influencing the welfare debate and animal farming</p><p>xvi Introduction</p><p>practices are also explored. The welfare of sheep used in research is also given a</p><p>detailed consideration. In the final chapter, we aim to take a forward-looking perspec-</p><p>tive and examine how and why sheep industries will need to take a more proactive</p><p>approach to achieve the dual aim of improving animal welfare on-farm and meeting</p><p>the expectations of consumers and society in general.</p><p>Part One</p><p>Introduction to Sheep Welfare</p><p>1. Understanding the natural behaviour of sheep 03</p><p>2. Overview of sheep production systems 19</p><p>3. Consumer and societal expectations for sheep products 37</p><p>Page left intentionally blank</p><p>Advances in Sheep Welfare. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7</p><p>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p><p>Understanding the natural</p><p>behaviour of sheep</p><p>Geoffrey N. Hinch</p><p>University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia</p><p>The domesticated sheep (Ovis aries) has a diversity of genotypes that are adapted to</p><p>a wide variety of environments ranging from the tropics to the extreme seasonality of</p><p>the high latitudes and from deserts to high rainfall areas. This diversity of genotypes</p><p>(with over 2000 breeds) means that the species is highly adaptable to environmental/</p><p>climate extremes, and to some degree this adaptability is also expressed in variation</p><p>in the expression of natural behaviours. However, there are a suite of behaviours that</p><p>have been comprehensively described both for domestic and wild/feral breeds (Grubb</p><p>and Jewell, 1974; Lynch et al., 1992) that represent the key behaviours of this species.</p><p>There are several books on the behaviour and ethology of animals that include</p><p>sections or chapters on domestic sheep behaviour (Arnold and Dudzinski, 1978;</p><p>Fraser, 1985; Hafez, 1975; Lynch et al., 1992). These reviews outline the key be-</p><p>haviours in detail and in some cases discuss the underlying biological controls. It is</p><p>not the intention in this chapter to re-examine these behaviours in detail, but rather</p><p>to capture an overall impression of the unique behavioural characteristics of the</p><p>species, a knowledge of which is essential in the consideration of the welfare of</p><p>individual sheep.</p><p>The species has been described as a fearful, gregarious/flocking ruminant and as</p><p>such organisation and daily expression of behaviours are relatively predictable even</p><p>though there are a range of adaptations required in different environments. These char-</p><p>acteristics are closely aligned with a grazing/ranging species whose natural behaviours</p><p>are aligned with the need to cover large areas to gather food and whose social organi-</p><p>sation facilitates avoidance of predation through formation of large groups. Interest-</p><p>ingly, these behaviours are linked with behaviours that facilitate not only movement</p><p>but also the establishment of close links between mother and precocial offspring.</p><p>The main wild Ovis species are found in mountainous and high plain regions of the</p><p>world, and it is thought that domestication of the mouflon (Ovis musimon) occurred</p><p>more than 7000 years ago. If we speculate on why this species was domesticated, there</p><p>are a number of possibilities, including:</p><p>• The diversity of products produced (wool, meat and milk).</p><p>• The biological adaptability (capable of adapting to extremes of heat and cold, and to fibrous</p><p>diets and exhibiting large variation in disease resistance) to move to new environments with</p><p>nomadic herders.</p><p>• Behavioural characteristics that facilitate ease of husbandry and management (highly selec-</p><p>tive herbivores, gregarious, follower behaviours, precocial young, promiscuous mating pat-</p><p>terns with dominant male and a body size and low agility that facilitate ease of husbandry).</p><p>1</p><p>4 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>It could be considered that the fearful nature of the species would have hindered</p><p>the domestication process with large flight distances making individual identification</p><p>and care difficult. However, it is likely that some selection pressure may have been</p><p>‘applied’ to retain the animals that could be most easily habituated to human handling.</p><p>The behavioural characteristics identified earlier seem to have been largely retained</p><p>in modern sheep breeds (Lynch et al., 1992). Breed selection has created variation</p><p>particularly in the levels of gregariousness, which may also be related in some way</p><p>to fearfulness and thus potentially to the adaptability of the species to more inten-</p><p>sive management and confinement. Generally, the behaviours listed before are still</p><p>the major determinants that shape the interactions between sheep and humans. If these</p><p>behaviours are understood and considered during handling of sheep, then compromise</p><p>to well-being is less likely. We will now look more closely at these behaviours and</p><p>how these characteristics may be challenged in modern production systems where</p><p>animals may experience greater restrictions on movement, diet and group interactions.</p><p>Highly selective herbivores</p><p>Like most herbivorous animals, feed gathering is the dominant behaviour of sheep in</p><p>their natural environment and considerable periods of time each day are allocated to</p><p>the behavioural sequences associated with the identification and gathering of food.</p><p>Other components of the ethogram of the sheep play a far less dominant role, although</p><p>social components interact with the food gathering process. The importance of food</p><p>gathering to the sheep is possibly best illustrated by the fact that when food avail-</p><p>ability is restricted, or the diet is nutritionally unbalanced, sheep can spend very large</p><p>proportions of their day in food ‘harvesting’ mode. In a recent study on the motivation</p><p>of sheep to travel for food, it was shown that they will travel distances of more than</p><p>12 km to meet energy requirements (Doughty et al., 2016) and this may take all of 10 h</p><p>per day (Bown, 1971).</p><p>Most herbivores used in farming exhibit a circadian pattern of feeding that includes</p><p>a major ‘meal’ at, or soon after sunrise. Other meals are then spread throughout the day</p><p>with the pattern primarily dependent not only on feed availability but also on weather</p><p>conditions, topography and social factors. Dudzinski and Arnold (1979) reported dif-</p><p>ferences between sheep breeds in grazing patterns exhibited in hot Australian condi-</p><p>tions with Cheviot and Suffolk ewes commencing grazing earlier in the morning and</p><p>evening than the Merino. Such differences in feeding patterns may reflect differences</p><p>in physiological adaptive responses and highlight the difficultly of defining what is</p><p>normal in this highly adaptable species. Forbes (1995) has provided a detailed dis-</p><p>cussion of the patterns of feeding bouts/meals, but the description of Bown (1971)</p><p>captures the key elements:</p><p>During the early part of the grazing season the sheep left the bed ground before or</p><p>just after daylight. At daybreak the ewes stood up, collected their lambs and then</p><p>moved off. The animals left together in a large group, separating into smaller groups</p><p>as they fed.</p><p>Understanding the natural behaviour of sheep 5</p><p>Factors reported to influence foraging behaviour include geographical charac-</p><p>teristics such as vegetation type, soils, slope and weather conditions, which influ-</p><p>ence the distribution of sheep and their habitat choice. Sheep tend to be irregularly</p><p>distributed over the land area available resulting from the integration of the factors</p><p>aforementioned. The management of this variability along with sheep</p><p>they are kept. Their ability to evaluate different stimuli shows</p><p>they have a capacity to experience affective states, and these affective states can influ-</p><p>ence their cognitive processing.</p><p>Importantly, negative affective states can significantly impact cognitive processing</p><p>when sheep are stressed, but they can recover readily once the stress is removed, or</p><p>habituated to. The impact of negative affective states on sheep may also be modulated</p><p>by short positive situations. This seems to be the case for both long-term stressors,</p><p>and short-term stressors. This concept should be cautiously investigated further, as</p><p>prolonged negative situations or environments or acute and persistent treatments (like</p><p>surgical husbandry procedures) have not been tested.</p><p>We know less about management or environmental practices that generate posi-</p><p>tive affective states; however, we do know that situations that are predictable and</p><p>relatively frequent can have a positive impact on affect. Their abilities and capacity to</p><p>experience affective states suggest that cognitive enrichment would be a useful tool</p><p>for the management of sheep. While this is not necessary for extensively managed</p><p>sheep, these tools would be extremely valuable to sheep in medical research settings</p><p>or intensive production systems.</p><p>Figure 4.2 Sheep in the attention bias test arena being exposed to the threat of a dog.</p><p>Source: Original photo used with permission, courtesy Caroline Lee, CSIRO, Australia.</p><p>68 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>References</p><p>Anderson, D.M., Murray, L.W., 2013. Sheep laterality. Laterality Asymm. Body Brain Cogn.</p><p>18, 179–193.</p><p>Anderson, C., Yngvesson, J., Boissy, A., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Lidfors, L., 2015. Behavioural ex-</p><p>pression of positive anticipation for food or opportunity to play in lambs. Behav. Processes</p><p>113, 152–158.</p><p>Baciadonna, L., McElligott, A., 2015. The use of judgement bias to assess welfare in farm</p><p>livestock. Anim. Welf. 24 (1), 81–91.</p><p>Banich, M.T., 2009. Executive function: the search for an integrated account. Curr. Dir. Psychol.</p><p>Sci. 18, 89–94.</p><p>Boissy, A., Dumont, B., 2002. Interactions between social and feeding motivations on the graz-</p><p>ing behaviour of herbivores: sheep more easily split into subgroups with familiar peers.</p><p>Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 79, 233–245.</p><p>Boissy, A., Erhard, H.W., 2014. How studying interactions between animal emotions, cognition,</p><p>and personality can contribute to improve farm animal welfare. Genet. Behav. Domestic</p><p>Anim. 2.</p><p>Boissy, A., Lee, C., 2014. How assessing relationships between emotions and cognition can</p><p>improve farm animal welfare. Revue scientifique et technique 33, 103–110.</p><p>Broom, D.M., 2010. Cognitive ability and awareness in domestic animals and decisions about</p><p>obligations to animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 126, 1–11.</p><p>Broom, D.M., Sena, H., Moynihan, K.L., 2009. Pigs learn what a mirror image represents and</p><p>use it to obtain information. Anim. Behav. 78, 1037–1041.</p><p>Burman, O.H.P., Parker, R., Paul, E.S., Mendl, M., 2008. A spatial judgement task to determine</p><p>background emotional state in laboratory rats. Anim. Behav. 76, 801–809.</p><p>Coulon, M., Hild, S., Schroeer, A., Janczak, A., Zanella, A., 2011. Gentle vs. aversive han-</p><p>dling of pregnant ewes: II. Physiology and behavior of the lambs. Physiol. Behav. 103,</p><p>575–584.</p><p>Coulon, M., Nowak, R., Andanson, S., Petit, B., Lévy, F., Boissy, A., 2015. Effects of prenatal</p><p>stress and emotional reactivity of the mother on emotional and cognitive abilities in lambs.</p><p>Dev. Psychobiol. 57, 626–636.</p><p>2009. Cause/induced motion: Intention/spontaneous motion. In: De Waal, F.B., Tyack, P.L.</p><p>(Eds.), Animal Social Complexity: Intelligence, Culture, and Individualized Societies.</p><p>Harvard University Press.</p><p>Deiss, V., Temple, D., Ligout, S., Racine, C., Bouix, J., Terlouw, C., Boissy, A., 2009. Can</p><p>emotional reactivity predict stress responses at slaughter in sheep? Appl. Anim. Behav.</p><p>Sci. 119, 193–202.</p><p>Desiré, L., Boissy, A., Veissier, I., 2002. Emotions in farm animals: a new approach to animal</p><p>welfare in applied ethology. Behav. Process. 60, 165–180.</p><p>Destrez, A., Deiss, V., Belzung, C., Lee, C., Boissy, A., 2012. Does reduction of fearfulness</p><p>tend to reduce pessimistic-like judgment in lambs? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 139, 233–241.</p><p>Destrez, A., Deiss, V., Lévy, F., Calandreau, L., Lee, C., Chaillou-Sagon, E., Boissy, A., 2013.</p><p>Chronic stress induces pessimistic-like judgment and learning deficits in sheep. Appl.</p><p>Anim. Behav. Sci. 148, 28–36.</p><p>Destrez, A., Deiss, V., Leterrier, C., Calandreau, L., Boissy, A., 2014. Repeated exposure to</p><p>positive events induces optimistic-like judgment and enhances fearfulness in chronically</p><p>stressed sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 154, 30–38.</p><p>Doyle, R.E., Fisher, A.D., Hinch, G.N., Boissy, A., Lee, C., 2010. Release from restraint gener-</p><p>ates a positive judgement bias in sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 122, 28–34.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref9015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref9015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref9020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref9020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref9020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0075</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0075</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0085</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0085</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0085</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0090</p><p>Sheep cognition and its implications for welfare 69</p><p>Doyle, R.E., Hinch, G.N., Fisher, A.D., Boissy, A., Henshall, J.M., Lee, C., 2011a. Administra-</p><p>tion of serotonin inhibitor p-Chlorophenylalanine</p><p>induces pessimistic-like judgement bias</p><p>in sheep. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36, 279–288.</p><p>Doyle, R.E., Lee, C., Deiss, V., Fisher, A.D., Hinch, G.N., Boissy, A., 2011b. Measuring judge-</p><p>ment bias and emotional reactivity in sheep following long-term exposure to unpredictable</p><p>and aversive events. Physiol. Behav. 102, 503–510.</p><p>Doyle, R.E., Freire, R., Cowling, A., Knott, S.a., Lee, C., 2014. Performance of sheep in a</p><p>spatial maze is impeded by negative stimuli. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 151, 36–42.</p><p>Doyle, R.E., Broster, J.C., Barnes, K., Browne, W.J., 2016. Temperament, age and weather</p><p>predict social interaction in the sheep flock. Behav. Process. 131, 53–58.</p><p>Dumont, B., Hill, D.R., 2001. Multi-agent simulation of group foraging in sheep: effects of</p><p>spatial memory, conspecific attraction and plot size. Ecol. Modell. 141, 201–215.</p><p>Dumont, B., Petit, M., 1998. Spatial memory of sheep at pasture. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 60,</p><p>43–53.</p><p>Dwyer, C. (Ed.), 2008. The Welfare of Sheep, vol. 6, Springer Science & Business Media, The</p><p>Netherlands.</p><p>Dwyer, C., The behaviour of sheep and goats. The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An</p><p>Introductory Text, second ed. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, 2009a,</p><p>pp. 161–176.</p><p>Dwyer, C., 2009b. Welfare of sheep: providing for welfare in an extensive environment. Small</p><p>Rumin. Res. 86, 14–21.</p><p>Edwards, G.R., Newman, J.A., Parsons, A.J., Krebs, J.R., 1996. The use of spatial memory by</p><p>grazing animals to locate food patches in spatially heterogeneous environments: an exam-</p><p>ple with sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 50, 147–160.</p><p>Erhard, H.W., Boissy, A., Rae, M.T., Rhind, S.M., 2004. Effects of prenatal undernutrition on</p><p>emotional reactivity and cognitive flexibility in adult sheep. Behav. Brain Res. 151, 25–35.</p><p>Evans, L.J., Smith, K.E., Raine, N.E., 2017. Fast learning in free-foraging bumble bees is nega-</p><p>tively correlated with lifetime resource collection. Sci. Rep. 7, 496.</p><p>Fisher, A.D., Matthews, L., 2001. The social behaviour of sheep. In: Keeling, L.J., Gonyou,</p><p>H.W. (Eds.), Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. CABI Publishing, New York.</p><p>Greiveldinger, L., Veissier, I., Boissy, A., 2007. Emotional experience in sheep: predictability</p><p>of a sudden event lowers subsequent emotional responses. Physiol. Behav. 92, 675–683.</p><p>Greiveldinger, L., Veissier, I., Boissy, A., 2009. Behavioural and physiological responses of</p><p>lambs to controllable vs. uncontrollable aversive events. Psychoneuroendocrinology 34,</p><p>805–814.</p><p>Greiveldinger, L., Veissier, I., Boissy, A., 2011. The ability of lambs to form expectations and</p><p>the emotional consequences of a discrepancy from their expectations. Psychoneuroendo-</p><p>crinology 36, 806–815.</p><p>Guldimann, K., Vögeli, S., Wolf, M., Wechsler, B., Gygax, L., 2015. Frontal brain deactivation</p><p>during a non-verbal cognitive judgement bias test in sheep. Brain Cogn. 93, 35–41.</p><p>Harding, E.J., Paul, E.S., Mendl, M., 2004. Cognitive bias and affective state. Nature 427, 312.</p><p>Hargreaves, A., Hutson, G., 1990. The stress response in sheep during routine handling proce-</p><p>dures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 26, 83–90.</p><p>Hernandez, C.E., Harding, J.E., Oliver, M.H., Bloomfield, F.H., Held, S.D.E., Matthews, L.R.,</p><p>2009. Effects of litter size, sex and periconceptional ewe nutrition on side preference and</p><p>cognitive flexibility in the offspring. Behav. Brain Res. 204, 82–87.</p><p>Hernandez, C.E., Hinch, G., Lea, J., Ferguson, D., Lee, C., 2015. Acute stress enhances sensi-</p><p>tivity to a highly attractive food reward without affecting judgement bias in laying hens.</p><p>Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 163, 135–143.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0105</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0105</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref9025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref9025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0185</p><p>70 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Hewitson, L., Dumont, B., Gordon, I.J., 2005. Response of foraging sheep to variability in the</p><p>spatial distribution of resources. Anim. Behav. 69, 1069–1076.</p><p>Hosoi, E., Swift, D.M., Rittenhouse, L.R., Richards, R.W., 1995. Comparative foraging</p><p>strategies of sheep and goats in a T-maze apparatus. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 44, 37–45.</p><p>Hough, D., Bellingham, M., Haraldsen, I., McLaughlin, M., Rennie, M., Robinson, J., Solbakk,</p><p>A., Evans, N., 2017. Spatial memory is impaired by peripubertal GnRH agonist treatment</p><p>and testosterone replacement in sheep. Psychoneuroendocrinology 75, 173–182.</p><p>Hunter, D.S., Hazel, S.J., Kind, K.L., Liu, H., Marini, D., Owens, J.A., Pitcher, J.B., Gatford,</p><p>K.L., 2015. Do I turn left or right? Effects of sex, age, experience and exit route on maze</p><p>test performance in sheep. Physiol. Behav. 139, 244–253.</p><p>Johnson, T.B., Stanton, M.E., Goodlett, C.R., Cudd, T.A., 2012. T-maze learning in weanling</p><p>lambs. Dev. Psychobiol. 54, 785–797.</p><p>Kendrick, K., 2008. Sheep senses, social cognition and capacity for consciousness. The Welfare</p><p>of Sheep. Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 135–157</p><p>Kendrick, K.M., Atkins, K., Hinton, M.R., Broad, K.D., Fabrenys, C., Keverne, B., 1995. Facial</p><p>and vocal discrimination in sheep. Anim. Behav. 49, 1665–1676.</p><p>Kendrick, K.M., da Costa, A.P., Leigh, A.E., Hinton, M.R., Peirce, J.W., 2001. Sheep don’t</p><p>forget a face: the discovery of remarkable memory shows that sheep are not stupid after</p><p>all. Nature 414, 165–166.</p><p>Knolle, F., McBride, S.D., Stewart, J.E.,</p><p>Goncalves, R.P., Morton, A.J., 2017. A stop-signal task</p><p>for sheep: introduction and validation of a direct measure for the stop-signal reaction time.</p><p>Anim. Cogn., 1–12.</p><p>Lee, C., Colgate, S., Fisher, A.D., 2006. Development of a maze test and its application to assess</p><p>spatial learning and memory in Merino sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 96, 43–51.</p><p>Lee, C., Verbeek, E., Doyle, R.E., Bateson, M., 2016. Attention bias indicates anxiety differences</p><p>in animals. Biol. Lett. 12 (6), 20150977.</p><p>McBride, S.D., Perentos, N., Morton, A.J., 2015. Understanding the concept of a reflective</p><p>surface: can sheep improve navigational ability through the use of a mirror? Anim. Cogn.</p><p>18, 361–371.</p><p>McBride, S.D., Perentos, N., Morton, A.J., 2016. A mobile, high-throughput semi-automated</p><p>system for testing cognition in large non-primate animal models of Huntington disease.</p><p>J. Neurosci. Methods 265, 25–33.</p><p>McLean, A.N., 2001. Cognitive abilities—the result of selective pressures on food acquisition?</p><p>Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 71, 241–258.</p><p>Mendl, M., 1999. Performing under pressure: stress and cognitive function. Appl. Anim. Behav.</p><p>Sci. 65, 221–244.</p><p>Monk, L., Belson, S., Doyle, R.E., Small, A., Cronin, G.M., Lee, C., 2015. Development of</p><p>an attention bias test to measure anxious states in Merino sheep. International Ethology</p><p>Conference, Cairns, Australia, August 10–14.</p><p>Morris, J.E., Fisher, A.D., Doyle, R.E., Bush, R.D., 2010. Determination of sheep learning</p><p>responses to a directional audio cue. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 13, 347–360.</p><p>Morton, J., Avanzo, L., 2011. Executive decision-making in the domestic sheep. PLoS One 6,</p><p>e15752.</p><p>Nawroth, C., von Borell, E., Langbein, J., 2014. Exclusion performance in dwarf goats (Capra</p><p>aegagrus hircus) and sheep (Ovis orientalis aries). PLoS One 9, e93534.</p><p>Paul, E.S., Harding, E.J., Mendl, M., 2005. Measuring emotional processes in animals: the</p><p>utility of a cognitive approach. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 29, 469–491.</p><p>Premack, D., 1995. In: Changeux, J.-P., Chavaillon, J. (Eds.), Origins of the Human Brain.</p><p>Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, New York, NY, US, pp. 286–309.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0210</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0210</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0215</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0215</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0225</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0225</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0225</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0230</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0230</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0405</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0405</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0235</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0235</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0235</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0250</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0250</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0255</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0255</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0260</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0260</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0265</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0265</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0270</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0270</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref9030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref9030</p><p>Sheep cognition and its implications for welfare 71</p><p>Qui, Z., 2015. Gene polymorphisms associated with temperament in Merino sheep. Doctoral</p><p>dissertation, PhD thesis. University of Western Australia.</p><p>Reiss, D., Marino, L., 2001. Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: a case of cognitive</p><p>convergence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98, 5937–5942.</p><p>Roelofs, S., Boleij, H., Nordquist, R.E., van der Staay, F.J., 2016. Making decisions under</p><p>ambiguity: judgment bias tasks for assessing emotional state in animals. Front. Behav.</p><p>Neurosci. 10, 119.</p><p>Roger, P., 2008. The impact of disease and disease prevention on sheep welfare. Small Rumin.</p><p>Res. 76, 104–111.</p><p>Rogers, L., 2010. Relevance of brain and behavioural lateralization to animal welfare. Appl.</p><p>Anim. Behav. Sci. 27, 1–11.</p><p>Rushen, J., 1986. Aversion of sheep for handling treatments: paired-choice studies. Appl. Anim.</p><p>Behav. Sci. 16, 363–370.</p><p>Salmeto, A.L., Hymel, K.A., Carpenter, E.C., Brilot, B.O., Bateson, M., Sufka, K.J., 2011.</p><p>Cognitive bias in the chick anxiety-depression model. Brain Res. 1373, 124–130.</p><p>Sanger, M.E., Doyle, R.E., Hinch, G.N., Lee, C., 2011. Sheep exhibit a positive judgement</p><p>bias and stress-induced hyperthermia following shearing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 131,</p><p>94–103.</p><p>Savage, D., Ferguson, D., Fisher, A., Hinch, G., Mayer, D., Duflou, E., Lea, J., Baillie, N., Raue,</p><p>M., 2008. Preweaning feed exposure and different feed delivery systems to enhance feed</p><p>acceptance of sheep. Anim. Product. Sci. 48, 1040–1043.</p><p>Searby, A., Jouventin, P., 2003. Mother-lamb acoustic recognition in sheep: a frequency coding.</p><p>Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 270, 1765–1771.</p><p>Shettleworth, S.J., 2001. Animal cognition and animal behaviour. Anim. Behav. 61, 277–286.</p><p>Thorhallsdottir, A.G., Provenza, F.D., Balph, D., 1990. Ability of lambs to learn about novel</p><p>foods while observing or participating with social models. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 25,</p><p>25–33.</p><p>Toates, F., 2006. A model of the hierarchy of behaviour, cognition and consciousness. Conscious</p><p>Cogn. 15, 75–118.</p><p>Veissier, I., Boissy, A., Desiré, L., Grivendinger, L., 2009. Animals’ emotions: studies in sheep</p><p>using appraisal theories. Anim. Welfare 18, 347–354.</p><p>Verbeek, E., Ferguson, D., Lee, C., 2014a. Are hungry sheep more pessimistic? The effects of</p><p>food restriction on cognitive bias and the involvement of ghrelin in its regulation. Physiol.</p><p>Behav. 123, 67–75.</p><p>Verbeek, E., Ferguson, D., Quinquet de Monjour, P., Lee, C., 2014b. Generating positive</p><p>affective states in sheep: the influence of food rewards and opioid administration. Appl.</p><p>Anim. Behav. Sci. 154, 39–47.</p><p>Vögeli, S., Lutz, J., Wolf, M., Wechsler, B., Gygax, L., 2014. Valence of physical stimuli, not</p><p>housing conditions, affects behaviour and frontal cortical brain activity in sheep. Behav.</p><p>Brain Res. 267, 144–155.</p><p>Wemelsfelder, F., 1997. The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal wel-</p><p>fare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 53, 75–88.</p><p>Wojniusz, S., Ropstad, E., Evans, N., Robinson, J., Solbakk, A.-K., Endestad, T., Haraldsen,</p><p>I.R.H., 2013. Sex-specific development of spatial</p><p>orientation is independent of peripubertal</p><p>gonadal steroids. Psychoneuroendocrinology 38, 1709–1716.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0275</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0275</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0280</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0280</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0280</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0285</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0285</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0295</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0295</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0310</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0310</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0310</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0315</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0315</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0320</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0325</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0325</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0325</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0330</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0330</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0335</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0335</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0340</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0340</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0340</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0345</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0345</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0345</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0350</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0350</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0350</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0355</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0355</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0360</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0360</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00004-2/ref0360</p><p>Page left intentionally blank</p><p>Advances in Sheep Welfare. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4</p><p>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p><p>New physiological measures of</p><p>the biological cost of responding</p><p>to challenges</p><p>Dominique Blache, Shane K. Maloney</p><p>The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia</p><p>Introduction</p><p>The way that an animal responds to an applied challenge is pivotal to the physiologi-</p><p>cal assessment of welfare. In response to various events during life, animals adjust</p><p>morphologically, physiologically and behaviourally. In sheep, the most spectacular</p><p>example is the reproductive cycle during which the reproductive organs, as well as</p><p>several other systems, adapt to the requirements associated with producing and rais-</p><p>ing an offspring. Under ideal circumstances, ewes will not be negatively affected</p><p>by the demands of the predictable life events that are part of the reproductive cycle.</p><p>However, when challenged with unpredictable life events, either from external en-</p><p>vironmental influences such as nutrition or internal environmental influences such</p><p>as poor health, the ewe may experience negative effects. To assess the welfare of</p><p>animals, it is essential to know when the predictable or unpredictable challenges that</p><p>occur in life become threatening enough to disrupt, prevent or abolish the capacity</p><p>of the animal to adjust to the events. The capacity of an animal, or any of its physi-</p><p>ological functions, to adjust to challenging events or stimuli can be illustrated by</p><p>the classical strain response to a physical challenge used in mechanical engineering</p><p>(Fig. 5.1). This graph is not intuitive to biologists because, in terms of cause and</p><p>effect, the axes are transposed; however, it illustrates well the different phases and</p><p>problems that animals (or functions) face when an imposed stress increases and the</p><p>strain developed in response to the stress increases (Fig. 5.1).</p><p>The strain of the response as described before is the summation of different costs,</p><p>including the processing of information and the regulatory responses that are acti-</p><p>vated to maintain homeostasis in the impacted functions (Fig. 5.2). It is important</p><p>to reiterate that life events or challenges can originate from both the internal envi-</p><p>ronment (increase in body temperature during activity, decrease in blood pressure,</p><p>etc.) and the external environment (handling, high ambient temperature, social and</p><p>olfactory signals, etc.). The genetics of the animal, its previous experience and its</p><p>capacity to perceive a challenge define whether a given challenge is predictable</p><p>or unpredictable. For example, in sheep breeds naturally found in a marked pho-</p><p>toperiodic environment, reproduction is controlled predominantly by day length,</p><p>while sheep breeds from a Mediterranean climate will not respond to changes in day</p><p>5</p><p>74 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Figure 5.1 Different relationships between stress and strain as defined in mechanical</p><p>engineering. The different curves represent different individuals, but could also represent</p><p>different relationships within an individual at different times or/and exposed to different</p><p>environmental circumstances. For the average curve black (dark blue in the web version),</p><p>from the origin to point ‘a’ (the point called the yield strength or elastic limit), the system</p><p>is plastic and there is no deformation when the stress is removed. When the strain is greater</p><p>than point ‘b’ (the point called the tensile strength), the system can recover from the stress,</p><p>but it is submitted to some degree of deformation because the strain has exceeded the elastic</p><p>limit. Point ‘c’ denotes the fracture or breakpoint, and denotes when the system fails and</p><p>recovery is not possible (as when glass breaks). The position of these three points varies for</p><p>each other curve. Arrow 1 illustrates the principle of ‘use it or lose it’ meaning that, with</p><p>no or little stimulation, a biological function is not being used and will possibly be lost.</p><p>Arrow 2 illustrates the notion of ‘wear and tear’, and the variability in strain in response to</p><p>an allostatic overload. The top bar aligns the chain of events as described in Moberg (2000)</p><p>with the concept of stress and strain in mechanical engineering. Each of the different levels</p><p>of strain in the response to stress coincides with a part of the stress–strain curve. (b) Variation</p><p>in the shape of the stress–strain curve according to different values of the three parameters of</p><p>strength, ductility and toughness. In biology, the x and y axes would be reversed because, by</p><p>convention, the dependent variable (the response that varies as a function of the stimulus or</p><p>independent variable) is always presented on the y-axis, while the independent variable would</p><p>be presented on the x-axis.</p><p>Source: Adapted from Blache, D., Maloney, S.K., Terlouw, E.M.C., 2011. Physiology.</p><p>In: Appleby, M.C., Hughes, B.O., Mench, J.A., Olsson, A. (Eds.), Animal Welfare. CAB</p><p>International, Wallingford, UK; Swaab, D.F., Swaab, D.F., 1991. Brain aging and alzheimer’s</p><p>disease, “wear and tear” versus “use it or lose it”. Neurobiol. Aging 12, 317–324; Korte, S.M.,</p><p>Olivier, B., Koolhaas, J.M., 2007. A new animal welfare concept based on allostasis.</p><p>Physiol.</p><p>Behav. 92, 422–428; Ellis, B.J., Del Giudice, M., 2014. Beyond allostatic load: rethinking the</p><p>role of stress in regulating human development. Dev. Psychopathol. 26, 1–20.</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 75</p><p>length, but their reproductive function shows a predictable response to changes in</p><p>nutrition (Martin et al., 1999, 2002).</p><p>The brain processes incoming information according to the emotional status of</p><p>the animal, and aligns the challenge or event along a continuum anchored between</p><p>positive to negative valence. The personality of the animal, and its emotional status,</p><p>will also affect this valuation. Following this processing of information, the response</p><p>generally is mediated by the brain using three different biological pathways; the au-</p><p>tonomic nervous system (ANS), the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and</p><p>feed forward systems that control specific functions such as the reproductive axis. In</p><p>response to the array of signals sent by the brain, each biological pathway will modify</p><p>Figure 5.2 Schematic representation of the processing and response to life events by</p><p>animals. The initiation of a response by the brain depends on (1) the characteristics of the</p><p>event that can be perceived as environmental information or challenge (stress) and (2) the</p><p>perception of the events according to the emotional status and the influence of moderating</p><p>factors such as life history (memory or physiological status) and genes. The response either</p><p>includes ‘general syndrome’ type that includes the activation of the hypothalamo-pituitary</p><p>axis and the sympatho-adrenal axis in response to an applied stress, or specific feed-forward</p><p>systems such as the reproductive axis. These feed-forward systems include the ANS and the</p><p>HPA in the control of the response of the biological functions. Each physiological response</p><p>triggers the production of mediators and non-signalling compounds that can affect other</p><p>physiological systems. The mediators also exert negative feedback on the brain at both</p><p>the level of perception and also of signal production. Depending on the amount of strain,</p><p>additional energy will be required that can come from the catabolism of energy reserves or</p><p>an increased intake of energy. The possibility to match the energy requirements during the</p><p>response to exposure to a stressor will depend on the capacity of the organism to find adequate</p><p>sources of energy in its environment. If the energy available is restricted, then the organism</p><p>will experience a greater strain. ANS, Autonomic nervous system; HPA, hypothalamo-</p><p>pituitary-adrenal.</p><p>76 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>specific gene expression and adjust biological function, producing mediators that will</p><p>exert feedback on the brain at both level of the process, by acting on the ‘emotional</p><p>brain’, and at the level of the elaboration of the responses.</p><p>The aforementioned description of the strain response to varying degrees of chal-</p><p>lenge and of the pathways involved in the response can be used to indicate when the</p><p>welfare of an animal is compromised. But they do not help to identify what would be</p><p>the best physiological indicators to decide when the function or the organism is no</p><p>longer able to adjust or adapt. Classical mediators of the response have been used to</p><p>indicate the progression from coping to being unable to cope. The outcomes might be</p><p>more relevant than the mediators to assess welfare, as pointed out by Moberg (2000,</p><p>p. 8) ‘It is the change in biological function that is important to welfare, not the mecha-</p><p>nism that induces the change’. Experimentally, it is useful to consider the outcomes</p><p>that can be identified when the animal is already experiencing a large amount of strain:</p><p>the pathological state in Moberg’s chain of events, although, by then, the welfare of</p><p>the animal is certainly compromised. The other approach is to measure mediators, and</p><p>once the limits of the regulatory systems that can maintain homeostasis are known,</p><p>then deviations from these limits can be considered as indicators of decreased wel-</p><p>fare. That approach seems logical, but, unfortunately, mediators outside of the normal</p><p>range do not necessarily indicate a decrease in welfare, as these can occur during</p><p>preparation for predictable future demands, events such as reproduction or migration.</p><p>In the two paragraphs aforementioned, the overview of the central and peripheral</p><p>physiological mechanisms that describe the cascade of steps that occur in responses</p><p>to ‘life events’ illustrates the importance of emotional processing of the challenge and</p><p>the role of mediators. Therefore, indicators of the emotional state are paramount to the</p><p>assessment of animal welfare. However, indicators of the integrated response are more</p><p>relevant than the measurement of single mediators. Moberg (2000, p. 7) suggested</p><p>that ‘…the changes in biological function during stress result in a shift of biological</p><p>resources away from biological activities occurring before the stressor’. So, indicators</p><p>of energy flow within the organism could be the best measure of the overall cost of the</p><p>response or strain (Fig. 5.2).</p><p>The capacity to support strain is dependent on the energy demand of the response</p><p>and the energy available to mount the response. All the organs and functions in the</p><p>body require energy and nutrients. Even though energy is required to build complex</p><p>molecules out of primary molecules such as amino acids or carbohydrates, the energy</p><p>alone is not sufficient, but it is the limiting factor (Kafri et al., 2016). The strain of the</p><p>response will be driven by the capacity of the systems or functions to mobilise energy</p><p>and use it to mount the appropriate response. As organisms have a limited amount of</p><p>energy available at any time, the consumption of energy by different biological func-</p><p>tions will reflect the strain. The organism can increase it’s energy intake and either</p><p>catabolise the excess into reserves or anabolise the reserves if there is energy shortage.</p><p>A measure of the amount of reserves, and importantly a measure of the partitioning</p><p>of energy between biological functions, could be one of the best, or possibly the best,</p><p>indicator of welfare.</p><p>To summarise, welfare could be assessed by measuring indicators of the emotional</p><p>processing of the life event(s), the central outputs, including the HPA, the ANS and</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 77</p><p>specific feed forward pathways that are activated by the central processing. The brain-</p><p>derived signals control biological functions, which also produce mediators that or-</p><p>chestrate the integrated response between functions, feedback to the central controls</p><p>and often manage energy. However, some guidelines or decision-making is needed to</p><p>gauge when the responses to life events have a negative impact on the welfare of the</p><p>animals, a state that was once defined as an animal being in distress (Moberg, 2000).</p><p>Numerous theories have been proposed to understand the biological response to</p><p>stress from the early concept of homeostasis, the ‘general adaptation syndrome’, to</p><p>the most recent theories such as allostasis. The first theories such as ‘fight or flight’</p><p>(Cannon, 1914), general syndrome of adaptation (Selye, 1936) and the most recent</p><p>concepts of stress such as the psychoneuroendocrine hypothesis (Hennessy and Lev-</p><p>ine, 1979), the adaptive biological responses (Levine and Ursin, 1991) and the threat-</p><p>ened homeostasis (Chrousos and Gold, 1992) have been reviewed elsewhere (Blache</p><p>et al., 2011). Here we will focus on the allostasis theory that offers an interesting</p><p>framework to help define both positive and negative welfare states. Allostasis has been</p><p>described as stability through change; a cryptic definition that sometimes has hindered</p><p>the adoption of the theory. Allostasis theory says that each system or organism can</p><p>sustain an allostatic load (strain) and cope with it using systems of feed forward</p><p>and</p><p>feedback as described earlier. The allostatic load can be positive or negative. If the</p><p>load is negative, the particular functions are not used much or even not used at all;</p><p>a state named ‘lose it or use it’ by some authors (up to point ‘a’ in Fig. 5.1). The al-</p><p>lostatic load can be positive (up to point ‘b’) and can increase further. Beyond point</p><p>‘b’ the function experiences an allostatic overload, meaning that the response is no</p><p>longer adequate to compensate for the stimulus, and the function is not able to gener-</p><p>ate a reversible adjustment. Some authors refer to this state as ‘wear and tear’ (Korte</p><p>et al., 2007; Swaab and Swaab, 1991).</p><p>Some features of the allostatic theory make the concept very relevant to the assess-</p><p>ment of animal welfare. The allostatic load includes the load on the brain, emotions</p><p>and even the strain from past challenges and future predicted challenges. All of these</p><p>inputs, as well as phenotypic programming of the animal, can change the position of</p><p>the breaking points (a, b and c in Fig. 5.1). Changes in the position of these points</p><p>will result in an animal being either better at adjusting to the challenge, or weaker</p><p>and breaking down sooner when faced with the same challenge. Energy is central to</p><p>the concept of allostasis (McEwen and Wingfield, 2010). Allostasis theory is very</p><p>integrative and not constrained to the normality of the response, and can account for</p><p>both predictable and unpredictable life events. Allostasis and the allostatic model have</p><p>been proposed as a useful concept to help assess animal welfare (Korte et al., 2007). In</p><p>the last few years, allostasis has become popular in the health sciences and has proven</p><p>itself a solid theory to help understand and predict the outcomes of exposure to stress-</p><p>ors in relation to the life history of the subject, including early life experience (Olson</p><p>et al., 2015), a very interesting feature in terms of animal welfare.</p><p>Some of the limitations of allostasis include (1) the relevance and difficulty of</p><p>measuring energy balance to assess allostatic load, (2) the assumption that an in-</p><p>crease in glucocorticoids is associated with an increase in energy expenditure, (3)</p><p>the assumption that a response to a challenge will increase energy consumption and</p><p>78 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>(4) the reliance on glucocorticoid effects (Romero et al., 2009). Given these limita-</p><p>tions, some new concepts have been proposed that are equally relevant to the assess-</p><p>ment of animal welfare. One attempt to combine homeostasis and allostasis has led</p><p>to a more heuristic model, known as the reactive scope model, that aims ‘to retain</p><p>the benefits of the concepts of homeostasis and allostasis while at the same time</p><p>removing some of the weaknesses identified in the current formulation of allostasis’</p><p>(Romero et al., 2009). The model has been tested to predict the survival of iguanas</p><p>(Romero, 2012), suggesting that this model could have value in the assessment of</p><p>animal welfare. The adaptive role of the stress response in changing developmental</p><p>pathways has been conceptualised in the adaptive calibration model, which includes</p><p>long-term adaptive changes, or calibration of systems such as the autonomic, neu-</p><p>roendocrine, metabolic or immune systems, to match new environmental conditions</p><p>(Ellis and Del Giudice, 2014). Similarly, the concept of stress resilience has emerged</p><p>from studies that have demonstrated the flexibility of the brain, both structurally and</p><p>functionally, due to gene expression and epigenetic factors (McEwen et al., 2015;</p><p>Oken et al., 2015).</p><p>Regardless of the degree of complexity of the concepts used to measure strain, a</p><p>quantitative and scientific assessment of the response to stress and, therefore animal</p><p>welfare, requires the use of physiological measurements. In the next sections, we will</p><p>discuss two classical pathways that are involved in the response to challenge, the HPA</p><p>and the ANS. From the discussion before, rather than listing mediators that are, or</p><p>could be, used to assess the welfare of sheep, it is more useful to focus on novel in-</p><p>dicators that are likely to have relevance in the future assessment of animal welfare.</p><p>Ideally, the indicators should:</p><p>1. be integrative and assess the output (rather than mediators),</p><p>2. reflect the emotional component of sheep welfare,</p><p>3. reflect the cost of the response to the challenge and</p><p>4. have the potential to be used in the field or on-farm.</p><p>Using these criteria in the next sections, we discuss ‘classical’ physiological indi-</p><p>cators that have been extensively used to assess the welfare of sheep (section, ‘The</p><p>Classical Responses to Challenge and the Associated Indicators of Welfare’) and then</p><p>some new and proposed future indicators (section, “New Physiological Indicators”).</p><p>While specific to sheep, some examples are taken from others species to demonstrate</p><p>the value that such measures could have in sheep.</p><p>The classical responses to challenge and the associated</p><p>indicators of welfare</p><p>The hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis</p><p>Glucocorticoid (GC) secretion, in sheep that is cortisol, is the most commonly used</p><p>physiological measure of an animal’s response to stress and therefore is seen as pivotal</p><p>in the assessment of sheep welfare (Hemsworth et al., 2015; Ralph and Tilbrook, 2016).</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 79</p><p>Briefly, the activation of the HPA can be identified by the production of GCs by the</p><p>adrenals (for structure of the HPA, see review by Turner et al., 2012).</p><p>In sheep, changes in the production of cortisol and its metabolites can be meas-</p><p>ured in different biological media such as blood, saliva (Yates et al., 2010), wool or</p><p>hair (Stubsjøen et al., 2015a), urine and faeces (Berman et al., 1980), each media</p><p>having advantages and limitations. Stress associated with the method of collection</p><p>(venepuncture) or the handling associated with sampling (restraint, fearfulness of hu-</p><p>man) potentially confounds the results. Training the sheep to blood collection and/or</p><p>using sheep with jugular cannulae reduces the stress (Rietema et al., 2015). Cortisol</p><p>response to acute challenges will be detected in blood samples, while chronic chal-</p><p>lenges can be measured in urine, faeces and fibre.</p><p>In sheep, the HPA-axis is part of the physiological response to a perceived stressor,</p><p>or related to the level of feed and water intake, temperature or activity of the immune</p><p>system. The HPA response, which spans both acuteand chronic responses to stress</p><p>(Moberg and Mench, 2000), is dependent on many factors, for example, the type of</p><p>stressor, the duration of exposure, the genetic background of the animal and the differ-</p><p>ence between expected and actual outcomes of a physiological response, as discussed</p><p>in the previous section.</p><p>Compromised welfare status has been proposed to start when the levels of GC</p><p>exceed the ‘non-beneficial stress of activation’ (e.g. an increase of 40% in the concen-</p><p>tration of plasma GCs from the baseline; Barnett and Hemsworth, 1990). Such thresh-</p><p>olds have been questioned because the HPA-axis activity (1) does not always increase</p><p>in response to apparent negative life events, (2) increases to apparently pleasurable</p><p>stimuli such as mating, (3) does not necessarily have a negative effect on the biology</p><p>of the individual (Sapolsky et al., 2000) and (4) is influenced by factors unrelated to</p><p>stress such as age, gender and physiological status (Turner et al., 2012), and displays</p><p>an ultradian and circadian rhythm (Fulkerson and Tang, 1979; Rietema et al., 2015)</p><p>with rapid increases in concentration and a slow return to baseline levels (pulse last-</p><p>ing about 90 min) (Rietema et al., 2015). Regardless of the relevance, it is preferable</p><p>to use statistical validations to quantify physiological changes from baseline or in</p><p>response to treatment such as when changes are scaled against the standard deviation</p><p>of the reference period (Blache and Martin, 1999).</p><p>The measure of GC</p><p>can also reflect emotional stress, as shown in lambs (Moberg</p><p>et al., 1980). Increases in plasma cortisol concentrations in sheep have been re-</p><p>corded in response to unpleasant treatment (Hild et al., 2011), housing conditions</p><p>(Caroprese, 2008), cognitive bias (Doyle et al., 2011b), isolation (Tilbrook et al., 2008),</p><p>injury, heat stress (Caroprese et al., 2014), cold stress (Berman et al., 1980), food dep-</p><p>rivation (Parrott et al., 1996) with gender affecting some of these responses (for review,</p><p>see Turner et al., 2012). The response of the HPA to a given stimulus varies between in-</p><p>dividual sheep and can be affected by emotional reactivity (Hawken et al., 2012, 2013).</p><p>The interpretation of the HPA response thus needs to be considered in a broader con-</p><p>text of time and consequences (Mormède et al., 2007). Moberg proposed that activa-</p><p>tion of the HPA-axis that leads to a pre-pathological state is indicative of a decrease in</p><p>animal welfare (Moberg and Mench, 2000). While difficult to interpret, glucocorticoid</p><p>data provide a reflection of the integrated brain response to exposure to life</p><p>80 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>events. Unfortunately, the valence and the amplitude of the response are not always</p><p>correlated to a decrease in welfare, as discussed before.</p><p>The sympatho-adrenal system</p><p>Activation of the sympatho-adrenal system in response to challenges can be assessed</p><p>via the measurement of plasma catecholamines (adrenaline and noradrenaline, also</p><p>called epinephrine and norepinephrine) (Lowe et al., 2005). An indirect measure can</p><p>be obtained via measurement of heart rate and its variability, which vary directly with</p><p>the plasma level of catecholamines (section, ‘New Physiological Indicators’). The cat-</p><p>echolamines are released within 1–2 s after the perception of a threatening stimulus,</p><p>and are metabolised rapidly (McCarty, 1983). Therefore, the timing of their measure-</p><p>ment dictates their relevance to welfare. Variations in adrenaline and/or noradrenaline</p><p>have been measured in sheep after restraint (Niezgoda et al., 1993), chronic pain due</p><p>to lameness (Ley et al., 1992), road transport (Parrott et al., 1998), exposure to cold</p><p>(Thompson et al., 1978) or heat (Sasaki et al., 1973), isolation (Tilbrook et al., 2008)</p><p>and audio-visual stimuli (Turner et al., 2002). The concentration of catecholamines in</p><p>biological fluids provides an index of the level of activation of the ANS. The changes</p><p>are short term and reflect the integrative role of the brain in the initiation of pathways</p><p>responsible for the keeping the milieu interieur within the homeostatic range. There-</p><p>fore, the measurement of the activity of the ANS is non-specific and provides limited</p><p>information on the level of strain experienced by sheep.</p><p>New physiological indicators</p><p>In this section, we will discuss new indicators and avenues to develop future indica-</p><p>tors that reflect the key criteria stated before. For each indicator, the methodology, the</p><p>known applications and the limitations are discussed.</p><p>Thermal-based markers</p><p>Body temperature</p><p>Body temperature is a good indicator of stress and health. Core body temperature in</p><p>homeotherms is very well regulated and its maintenance is essential for the optimal</p><p>functioning of biochemical reactions at the cellular level. In sheep, the average tem-</p><p>perature ranges between 38.3 and 39.9°C and is affected by breed (Blaxter, 1967).</p><p>Therefore, any deviations from this range potentially provide a very good indicator of</p><p>exposure to challenges. Sheep core temperature responds to a range of specific chal-</p><p>lenges, including thermal (Cruz Júnior et al., 2015), psychological (Pedernera-Romano</p><p>et al., 2010, 2011; Sanger et al., 2011) and nutritional (Maloney et al., 2007, 2013).</p><p>In addition to possible changes in the mean daily core temperature, the ultradian and</p><p>circadian rhythms around a set point rhythm (Fig. 5.3) can be affected by challenges.</p><p>While the rhythm can be impacted by environmental influences (Lowe et al., 2001),</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 81</p><p>the underlying daily rhythm of core temperature is not driven by external cues such as</p><p>ambient temperature, as the daily rhythm is sustained in sheep that are kept indoors</p><p>and exposed to constant temperature and hygrometry (Maloney et al., 2007, 2013).</p><p>Body temperature can be measured using a hand-held thermometer, thermal probes</p><p>or loggers inserted in the ears, rectum, vaginal or abdominal cavity or on the skin sur-</p><p>face or the ear-pinna. Values of body temperature obtained from within the body are</p><p>more reliable than skin or ear-pinna temperature because the latter are more sensitive</p><p>to external parameters that do not necessarily change the internal temperature such as</p><p>wind speed and radiation (Lowe et al., 2001). A single measure of body temperature</p><p>Figure 5.3 Nychthemeral pattern of temperature in sheep. Top panel shows the</p><p>parameters that can be extracted from a sinusoid curve: mesor (mean), minimum, maximum,</p><p>amplitude (from mesor to minimum or maximum) and acrophase of the signal (time of day</p><p>of maximum). Bottom panel shows sinusoid curves [black (blue in the web version) trace]</p><p>fitted to raw temperature data [grey (red in the web version) trace] collected every minute in</p><p>a weather feed at three different levels of energy intake over 3 periods of 12 days each (0.7,</p><p>1.0 and 1.5 times the maintenance requirement). The sinusoid curves were obtained using</p><p>a cosinor analysis of the raw data. Note the change in amplitude, mesor and minimum in</p><p>response to the different levels of intake. Spikes of temperature (around 0.5–0.8°C) can be</p><p>clearly observed in the morning at feeding time when the animal was fed below maintenance</p><p>(first period) and then the spikes are masked by the background noise.</p><p>Source: Data adapted from Maloney, S.K., Meyer, L., Blache, D., Fuller, A., 2013. Energy</p><p>intake and the circadian rhythm of core body temperature in sheep. Physiol. Rep. 1, e00118</p><p>1–e00118 9.</p><p>82 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>provides limited information that is difficult to interpret, as body temperature exhibits</p><p>a diurnal variation. Changes in mean body temperature can be used to assess cold stress</p><p>(Ellis et al., 1985; Nixon-Smith, 1968) or heat stress in sheep (Marai et al., 2007). The</p><p>mean body temperature should be considered with:</p><p>1. the behavioural components of thermoregulatory responses such as panting or search for</p><p>shade, orientation towards solar radiation or wind speed and direction;</p><p>2. in woolly sheep such as the Merino, the length (as well as the density) of wool carried by the</p><p>animal because of the insulation capacity of wool;</p><p>3. the nychthemeral profile of body temperature, since this pattern can present an amplitude of</p><p>0.1–0.8°C (Maloney et al., 2007, 2013), so the timing of measurement and the number of</p><p>time points might influence the daily mean value.</p><p>Rather than an isolated single core temperature value, the analysis of the daily pat-</p><p>tern could provide an integrative measure of the impact of some stressors (Fig. 5.3).</p><p>Recent studies have shown that the amplitude of the daily sinusoidal rhythm of core</p><p>temperature is affected by nutrition (Maloney et al., 2013).</p><p>Infrared thermography (IRT)</p><p>The techniques described before provide a reading of the body-core temperature</p><p>and are either immediate (hand thermometer), lagged (loggers) or impractical (hand</p><p>thermometer and loggers). Infrared thermography (IRT) potentially provides an an-</p><p>swer to some of these limitations. IRT is a non-destructive and non-invasive im-</p><p>aging technique that measures the radiation emitted in the infrared spectrum dur-</p><p>ing heat loss by radiation using an infrared camera or a laser infrared thermometer</p><p>(Incropera, 2007). IRT offers instantaneous readings of temperature of different parts</p><p>of the body, including the eyes, udder, ears, axillae and flanks (Fig. 5.4). IRT gener-</p><p>ates a false-colour image of the surface temperature in which ranges of temperature</p><p>are</p><p>colour coded (Fig. 5.4). The accuracy of IRT has increased with improvements</p><p>in both image capture and image processing (for review, see McManus et al., 2016).</p><p>IRT can be used almost anywhere as long as one is aware of the environmental</p><p>factors that can interfere with the surface temperature such as wind drafts, sunlight</p><p>or the presence of hair and dirt on the animals (McManus et al., 2016). Since the</p><p>first use of IRT to assess the health of horses in the early 1980s (Purohit and</p><p>McCoy, 1980), IRT has received much interest as an assessment tool of animal</p><p>welfare (Stewart et al., 2005).</p><p>The temperature of the inner canthus of the eye can be used as an index of the core</p><p>temperature, to assess the response to stress in farm animals, including sheep. Eye IRT</p><p>is highly correlated to vaginal temperature (r = 0.93) and rectal temperature (r = 0.82),</p><p>in non-febrile and febrile hair sheep (George et al., 2014). In sheep infected with</p><p>the bluetongue virus, eye IRT discriminated between febrile and non-febrile sheep</p><p>with a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 97% (Pérez de Diego et al., 2013). How-</p><p>ever, eye IRT is not very sensitive when it is used to detect pain in sheep (Stubsjøen</p><p>et al., 2009). While very promising, IRT of the eye is very sensitive to environmental</p><p>factors such as humidity, wind speed and radiation exposure, as well as presence of</p><p>tears in humans (Tan et al., 2009).</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 83</p><p>In sheep, IRT can help to detect mastitis by measuring udder temperature (Castro-</p><p>Costa et al., 2014; Martins et al., 2013), foot lesions by assessing inter-digital space</p><p>temperature (Talukder et al., 2015), testicular heat tolerance (Cruz Júnior et al., 2015)</p><p>or testicular cooling capacity (Capraro et al., 2008) from the heat radiation from</p><p>the surface of the scrotum, the impact of shearing on capacity to thermoregu-</p><p>late (Al-Ramamneh et al., 2011) or the heat tolerance of different breeds of lambs</p><p>(McManus et al., 2015). IRT could be used as a diagnostic tool for udder infection</p><p>allowing early detection of infection, as suggested by data obtained in cattle 1 h after</p><p>the injection of bacterial cell wall extracts (Scott et al., 2000).</p><p>Stress-induced hyperthermia</p><p>The core temperature can increase by a few tenths of a degree within minutes follow-</p><p>ing the exposure to an emotional stimulus, a phenomenon termed stress-induced hy-</p><p>perthermia (SIH) (Kleitman and Jackson, 1950; Renbourn, 1960). Sheep exhibit SIH</p><p>during shearing (Sanger et al., 2011), and during an open field test (Pedernera-Romano</p><p>et al., 2011). The repeatability of the SIH over multiple exposures to the open field is af-</p><p>fected by breed (Pedernera-Romano et al., 2011). The increase in core temperature starts</p><p>soon after the events (4–14 min; Sanger et al., 2011) similar to the fever response ob-</p><p>served after immune challenge, but lasts a shorter time (Bouwknecht et al., 2007). SIH</p><p>could be a good indicator of exposure to emotional stimuli in sheep, but the valence of</p><p>Figure 5.4 Schematic representation of the surface temperature of a sheep carrying</p><p>few centimetres of wool and exposed to room temperature, as it would be measured by</p><p>thermography. The elevated temperature in the limbs, the nose, ears and skin patches of the</p><p>axilla indicate the area of the body used for thermoregulation.</p><p>84 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>the emotion is not necessarily negative, as sheep offered food also present a brief increase</p><p>in core temperature, which does not seem to be associated with a negative experience</p><p>(Maloney et al., 2013 and see Fig. 5.3). In fact, in sheep, genetic selection for behavioural</p><p>reactivity affects the shape of the post-prandial increase in both core and retroperitoneal</p><p>fat temperatures in response to meal anticipation and fasting (Henry et al., 2010).</p><p>Physiological indicators of brain activity</p><p>As aforementioned, measuring and understanding the activity of the brain is essential</p><p>to understand the perception, the integration and the allostatic load following exposure</p><p>to stressors. Alongside classical measures and techniques that target neurochemical</p><p>signals from either within the brain or in the periphery, a new array of physiologi-</p><p>cal measures is becoming available to investigate the emotional responses of sheep</p><p>(Boissy et al., 2007). In this section, we will discuss indicators of welfare based on</p><p>specific mediators such as brain chemical signals. Then we will discuss non-invasive</p><p>techniques that are either currently used, or are developing at a great speed, to meas-</p><p>ure: (1) the integrative role of the brain by the measurement of heart rate as a proxy</p><p>for the activation of the autonomic nervous system and (2) the processing role of the</p><p>brain by assessing the activity of regions, or of the whole brain, using measures of</p><p>electrical activity (electroencephalography), hemodynamic response (functional near</p><p>infrared spectroscopy), blood oxygen levels (functional magnetic resonance imaging)</p><p>or metabolic activity (positron emission tomography). Importantly, these techniques</p><p>have excellent potential and relevance in the investigation of the affective component</p><p>of sheep welfare (Buller, 2014; Yeates and Main, 2008). However, some of these imag-</p><p>ing techniques are not yet practical such as positron emission tomography, or are only</p><p>available in a research laboratory environment. Rapid technical developments could</p><p>bring them to the field in the future.</p><p>Neurochemical signals</p><p>Interrogating brain processes directly by measuring changes in neurochemical sig-</p><p>nals would be a powerful way to assess welfare. In sheep, the concentration of some</p><p>neurotransmitters has been measured in samples of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) col-</p><p>lected either from the lateral ventricle or in the third ventricle of the brain (Fabre-Nys</p><p>et al., 1991) or in neuronal tissue using micro-dialysis (Fabre-Nys et al., 1994). An is-</p><p>sue is that the measurement of substances in the CSF is not as routine as that of plasma</p><p>sampling (Vaessen et al., 2015). In sheep, opioidergic and GABAergic [gamma ami-</p><p>no-4-butyric acid (GABA)] pathways are activated in the somatosensory cortex dur-</p><p>ing nociception and their activation is dependent on the group social structure (Cook</p><p>et al., 1996). Psychological stress, such as exposure to predator, increases GABA in</p><p>the amygdala (Cook, 2004). In addition, the sight and ingestion of food increases</p><p>GABA in the zona incerta of sheep (Kendrick et al., 1991), suggesting that GABA is</p><p>involved in some cognitive and hedonistic aspect of food intake in sheep.</p><p>Within the brain, dopaminergic pathways are activated during the acute and chronic</p><p>responses to stressors (Tielbeek et al., 2016; Vaessen et al., 2015) and they might also</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 85</p><p>be involved in the regulatory impact of emotion on the response to stressors (Qiu</p><p>et al., 2016). Endorphins have been linked to nociception in sheep and other species</p><p>(Broom and Johnson, 1993). An interesting neurotransmitter is serotonin because it is</p><p>involved in a myriad of functions, and when activated, it is a reflection of positive wel-</p><p>fare such as appetite, mood, temperature, sleep cycles, sexual behaviour and nocicep-</p><p>tion (Mohammad-Zadeh et al., 2008). In sheep, serotonin has been associated with the</p><p>HPA response to restraint (Frey and Moberg, 1980), appetite and positive mood status</p><p>(Doyle et al., 2011a). The release of oxytocin, amino acids and monoamines has been</p><p>measured during parturition and suckling (Kendrick et al., 1988, 1992). These studies</p><p>have suggested that oxytocin, glutamate and GABA are involved in mood adapta-</p><p>tion in the periparturient ewe, a physiological state associated with decreased anxi-</p><p>ety (Lonstein et al., 2014). Brain oxytocin also responds to heat exposure (Kendrick</p><p>et al., 1989). In fact, in other species, it has been proposed that oxytocin could have a</p><p>role in stress resilience</p><p>(Walker et al., 2017). These results suggest that oxytocin and</p><p>serotonin are the most promising candidates as more heuristic indicators of welfare.</p><p>However, while neurotransmitters are responsive to stressors, their pathways are quite</p><p>complex and not well understood in sheep, making the interpretation and the relevance</p><p>of the measures to welfare difficult at present.</p><p>Heart rate and heart rate variability</p><p>The activity of the cardiac branches of both the sympathetic and the parasympathetic</p><p>nervous systems affect heart rate (von Borell et al., 2007), and variation in the balance</p><p>between sympathetic and the parasympathetic input has been used to assess the wel-</p><p>fare of sheep. Rather than heart rate (HR), heart rate variability (HRV) parameters are</p><p>alternative indicators of the balance between the activities of the two branches of the</p><p>autonomic nervous system. HRV increases with parasympathetic stimulation and de-</p><p>creases as sympathetic input increases (Crawford et al., 1999). In some circumstances,</p><p>such as predator avoidance in a prey species including sheep, changes in behaviour</p><p>will be coincident with changes in autonomic function, and therefore with changes in</p><p>HRV. But in many other situations, when the behavioural response develops over time</p><p>such as shade seeking on a hot day, the HR and HRV will illustrate the early response</p><p>of the animal to exposure to stressors since changes in cardiac function are apparent</p><p>before any alteration of behaviour (von Borell et al., 2007). HRV seems to be a better</p><p>indicator of animal welfare than HR because HRV seems to be more sensitive. Some</p><p>situations induce a change in HRV but not in average HR (von Borell et al., 2007).</p><p>In sheep, heart rate has been measured using electrodes glued or held using a belt</p><p>on the skin surface, connected to either a transmitter sending data to a remote monitor-</p><p>ing unit located in the vicinity of the animals (e.g. LifeScope, Nihon Kodhen, Japan;</p><p>Désiré et al., 2006), or to a logger as used in humans (Modular Digital Holter Re-</p><p>corder, Lifecard CF, DelMar Reynolds GmbH, Switzerland; Reefmann et al., 2009b)</p><p>and horses (Polar heart rate monitor RS800, Polar Electro Oy, Helsinki, Finland; Stub-</p><p>sjøen et al., 2009). HRV can be measured by calculating different parameters, in-</p><p>cluding the variability in the time interval between consecutive heart beats [inter-beat</p><p>interval (IBI), i.e. the interval between subsequent R waves of the QRS complex on a</p><p>86 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>standard electrocardiogram], the standard deviation of all inter-beat intervals (SDNN)</p><p>and the root mean square of successive R–R intervals (RMSSD). Lately, HRV has</p><p>been analysed using fractal analysis (detrended fluctuation analysis) to extract infor-</p><p>mation from the heart rate recording that is not illustrated by IBI, SDNN or RMSSD</p><p>(Stubsjøen et al., 2010).</p><p>In sheep, HR has been shown to be a reliable indicator of cold stress (Berman</p><p>et al., 1980), heat stress (McManus et al., 2015), road transport stress (Wickham</p><p>et al., 2012) and fear responses such as isolation or exposure to a sudden or unpre-</p><p>dictable stimuli (Désiré et al., 2004, 2006). HRV varies when sheep experience pain</p><p>(Stubsjøen et al., 2010), sea transport motion (Santurtun et al., 2014), chronic stress in</p><p>response to an infection (Stubsjøen et al., 2015b), chronic stress in response to psycho-</p><p>logical stressors (Destrez et al., 2013), emotional reactions to human contact and iso-</p><p>lation (Tallet et al., 2006) and positive and negative emotions (Reefmann et al., 2009a;</p><p>Coulon et al., 2015). Depending on the nature of the stressor and on the animal history</p><p>and genetics, HRV can either increase or decrease, possibly as a function of the ani-</p><p>mal’s interpretation of a stressor (von Borell et al., 2007) and the animal’s capacity to</p><p>exert control over the situation (Greiveldinger et al., 2009).</p><p>While HR and HRV can give us a great insight into the processing and response to</p><p>stressors that is occurring in the brain, caution is paramount because HR is affected</p><p>by a large number of factors, some not necessarily related to welfare such as exercise</p><p>(Lowe et al., 2005) and feeding and digestion (Animut et al., 2006). In addition, it is</p><p>essential to obtain baseline values, when the animal is stationary and not exposed to</p><p>any challenge, and to take into account circadian variation, season, age and metabolic</p><p>state of the animal (von Borell et al., 2007).</p><p>Electroencephalography</p><p>Electroencephalography (EEG) is the measurement over time of cortical electric ac-</p><p>tivity using electrodes located at specific locations either on the surface of the skull</p><p>or around the brain within the cranial cavity. In sheep, while EEGs were recorded in</p><p>the 1960’s (Baldwin and Bell, 1963), there are no standardised methods to implant or</p><p>locate the electrodes around the brain. Some authors have described the use of surface</p><p>electrodes that are only connected to the bones skull after insertion under the skin</p><p>(Cwynar et al., 2014). The electrical activity of the brain is amplified and a typical</p><p>electroencephalogram will comprise of eight traces that illustrate the variations in</p><p>potential between the different electrodes over time. The interpretation of these traces</p><p>is not simple but, as the locations of the electrodes are constant, the expected traces</p><p>should be constant. Changes in the EEG traces reflect changes in brain activity and</p><p>therefore, the EEG is a very useful technique to assess the impact of psychological and</p><p>physiological challenges on brain function.</p><p>EEGs have been used mainly in confined environments because of the necessity</p><p>to capture the information from the electrodes that are wired into amplifiers and re-</p><p>cording devices. With the development of telemetry (Létourneau and Praud, 2003),</p><p>wireless technology and miniaturisation of devices for data storage, it is becoming</p><p>possible to record EEG on free-moving sheep (Perentos et al., 2017). Furthermore,</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 87</p><p>less invasive methods for the implantation of electrodes are being developed. A very</p><p>promising method is the use of ‘stent-electrodes’ implanted in venous networks dis-</p><p>tributed on the surface of the cortex (Oxley et al., 2016). The stent-electrodes can be</p><p>located with precision within the now well-described ovine cerebral venous system</p><p>(Hoffmann et al., 2014) and can remain in place for 190 days in the brain of a free-</p><p>moving sheep (Oxley et al., 2016). Right now, this technology is used for research</p><p>only but it could become widely available, as the use of stents has expanded in human</p><p>cardiac therapy. In addition, new algorithms, such as ‘fuzzy logic systems for spike</p><p>detection’ (Abbasi et al., 2014), are being developed to extract more reliable data out</p><p>of the complex pattern of the electroencephalograms.</p><p>EEG could also be used to assess the effect of fatigue and sleep deprivation in sheep,</p><p>as has been done in cattle (Ternman et al., 2012). Furthermore, EEG has been used to</p><p>assess pain in animals (Murrell and Johnson, 2006). In sheep, changes in EEG traces</p><p>have been related to behavioural activity and noxious stimulation either induced by</p><p>electric shock (Ong et al., 1997) or by castration, tail docking or mulesing (Jongman</p><p>et al., 2000). These EEG responses to noxious stimuli may reflect cognitive pain, as</p><p>described in humans. Therefore, the EEG could be used to study the emotional reac-</p><p>tions of sheep, but this application has been limited by technical restrictions such as</p><p>confinement, or EEG artifacts due, for example to rumination (Cwynar et al., 2014).</p><p>Recently, EEG has been used for the early detection of disease by analysis of the sleep</p><p>EEG (Perentos et al., 2016) or the EEG traces linked to rumination (Nicol et al., 2016).</p><p>Since neurons require oxygen to function, EEG is sensitive to reduction in blood</p><p>flow (Baldwin and Bell, 1963) and hypoxia and therefore, provides a good indica-</p><p>tion of the level of oxygenation</p><p>to the brain. EEG is also a good indicator of con-</p><p>sciousness and unconsciousness (Verhoeven et al., 2015); consciousness is defined</p><p>as the presence of recordable neuronal activity of the cortex. The EEG has been</p><p>used extensively to define the onset of consciousness in the unborn lamb (Mellor</p><p>and Diesch, 2006) or the cause of distress to unborn lambs (Wang et al., 2014). EEG</p><p>activity has been used to (1) study the loss of consciousness at slaughter (Black-</p><p>more and Newhook, 1982; Newhook and Blackmore, 1982), (2) develop the best</p><p>methods of electric stunning (Lambooy, 1982) and (3) investigate the efficiency of</p><p>stunning practices in meat animals, including sheep (Sánchez-Barrera et al., 2014).</p><p>EEG data have helped to develop an ethical position (Nakyinsige et al., 2013) and</p><p>accelerated the acceptance of stunning in sheep by consumers of halal and kosher</p><p>products (Velarde et al., 2014).</p><p>Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission</p><p>tomography (PET)</p><p>Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography</p><p>(PET) may provide valuable information on the involvement of brain areas in the</p><p>response to challenges. fMRI is a non-invasive technique that measures the blood-</p><p>oxygenation-level-dependent (BOLD) endogenous contrast, providing spatiotempo-</p><p>ral patterns of regional brain activation in response to external stimulation. fMRI</p><p>does not require the use of radiolabelled chemicals (Lee et al., 2015). By contrast,</p><p>88 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>PET imaging is based on the injection of specifically labelled molecules such as</p><p>water, dopamine, serotonin or opioids to measure the activation of specific pathways</p><p>(Leknes and Tracey, 2008). The production of labelled molecules for PET scanning</p><p>requires the proximity of a cyclotron facility, limiting the use of PET to specific</p><p>research facilities. Importantly, fMRI and PET can measure different aspects of the</p><p>affective response. fMRI may help to understand the cognitive component of the</p><p>emotional response because it can measure rapid changes in response to a challenge</p><p>and also target cortical structures (Burgdorf and Panksepp, 2006). PET can measure</p><p>long term changes in activity in sub-neocortical brain regions, which are thought</p><p>to be an elaboration of affect and possibly of the emotional status (Burgdorf and</p><p>Panksepp, 2006).</p><p>fMRI and PET are both routinely used in humans during clinical investigations and</p><p>research. The techniques require controlled conditions (Hudson, 2005), which can</p><p>be adapted for use in animals, although the animals must be restrained in a large and</p><p>expensive scanner (Olsen Alstruo and Winterdahl, 2009). The technical requirements</p><p>and limitations on the use of imaging techniques in large animals, including sheep,</p><p>have been discussed in Olsen Alstruo and Winterdahl (2009). The basic tools that will</p><p>assist in the use of fMRI and PET in adult sheep are being developed. Detailed three-</p><p>dimensional atlases of the sheep brain (Ella et al., 2017; Nitzsche et al., 2015) are</p><p>essential to identify the structures activated and detected by fMRI.</p><p>There is great potential for the use of fMRI alone or in combination with PET</p><p>to study the functional neuroanatomy of emotion (see studies in human; Phan</p><p>et al., 2002). The use of fMRI to visualise central pathways that are activated in re-</p><p>sponse to noxious stimuli has increased our knowledge of the physiological differenc-</p><p>es and similarities between humans and other animals in sensations such as pain and</p><p>pleasure (Leknes and Tracey, 2008). However, there are drawbacks to the use of fMRI</p><p>to study emotions, including: (1) the imaging of large animals requires the animal to</p><p>be anaesthetised and therefore, unconscious, and (2) that the expression of emotions</p><p>are often time dependent (Burgdorf and Panksepp, 2006). Because of these limita-</p><p>tions, fMRI and PET have been used only in neonatal sheep (i.e. small). However, the</p><p>study of brain activity in anesthetised sheep following visual and tactile stimulations</p><p>has shown that fMRI can be used to study brain processing (Lee et al., 2015).</p><p>Functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNRS or fNIRS)</p><p>Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is a neuroimaging technology</p><p>that can be used for the mapping of functioning of the cortex. fNIRS is a non-</p><p>invasive optical technique that measures the absorption of NIR light (spectral</p><p>window 650–1000 nm) by pigmented compounds (chromophores) in the brain.</p><p>Near-infrared spectroscopy has a very high time resolution (ms) and good spatial</p><p>resolution (cm) (Wolf et al., 2002). The newest fNIRS technology measures the</p><p>cortical haemodynamic ratio of the concentration of oxygenated and deoxygenated</p><p>hemoglobin (Ferrari and Quaresima, 2012), providing an indication of oxygen use</p><p>and by logical extension, of neuronal activation. The main advantage of fNIRS is</p><p>that the subject does not need to be restrained (as it does with fMRI and PET) or</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 89</p><p>injected with exogenous tracer (as in PET). In humans, the reproducibility of the</p><p>location and quantity of signals is excellent at a group level (96%) but is medio-</p><p>cre within an individual (as low as 36%; Plichta et al., 2006) possibly because of</p><p>motion artefacts and physiological and psychological changes between sessions</p><p>(Plichta et al., 2006). There are many commercially available fNIRS technologies</p><p>and special equipment has been developed for sheep. The fNIRS technology has</p><p>been miniaturised, and can be powered by lithium batteries providing for 180 min</p><p>of data collection. This enables fNIRS to be used in freely behaving animals</p><p>(Muehlemann et al., 2008).</p><p>Probably, because the fNIRS method is easy to use and does not require an-</p><p>aesthesia or restraint, the technology has been developed and validated for the</p><p>study of emotion and mood in sheep (Gygax et al., 2013; Schroeter et al., 2004).</p><p>fNIRS has revealed differences in neuronal activation, interpreted as subtle differ-</p><p>ences in emotion, in response to housing conditions and grooming (Muehlemann</p><p>et al., 2011). However, the results of fNIRS are not very discriminative between</p><p>stimuli valence when sheep are exposed to stimuli that are presumably of negative,</p><p>intermediate or positive valences, although a stimulus with presumably negative</p><p>valence (prickling) induced the strongest decrease in concentrations of deoxyhae-</p><p>moglobin (Vögeli et al., 2014). Supporting these findings, frontal cortical deacti-</p><p>vation was induced when a visual emotional stimulus was delivered, especially if</p><p>the stimulus was negative (Guldimann et al., 2015). On the other hand, the level of</p><p>predictability in the previous housing conditions can modulate the frontal activa-</p><p>tion to a negative stimulus (Vögeli et al., 2015). Aside from the study of emotional</p><p>reactivity in sheep, fNIRS has been used to investigate the impact of hypoxemia in</p><p>preterm lambs (Van Os et al., 2005), and on neuronal function and the capacity of</p><p>near-term lambs to respond to somatosensory stimulation (Nakamura et al., 2016).</p><p>Theoretically, fNIRS should allow the investigation of the impact of any feed-</p><p>forward and feedback mechanisms on brain activity (Gygax and Vögeli, 2016).</p><p>Metabolic indicators</p><p>As the strain of any response to an imposed challenge is ultimately energetically</p><p>costly, mediators and outcomes related to the regulation of metabolism are po-</p><p>tentially very good markers of animal welfare. There is a similarity between the</p><p>concept of stress and the regulation of energy resources in that, past, current and</p><p>future events are integrated in both concepts. At any given time, the energy avail-</p><p>able to support the strain of a response is dependent on the amount of energy</p><p>available from three compartments; first, the energy (in the form of volatile fatty</p><p>acids) from the digestion and absorption of nutrients from the gastrointestinal</p><p>tract; second, the capacity of the organism to increase energy availability</p><p>protection</p><p>has, in many cultures, been the responsibility of the shepherd. A book edited by</p><p>Meuret and Provenza (2014) documents how shepherds can use an understanding</p><p>of the various factors mentioned before. It is clear from these case studies of sheep</p><p>management in the French alps that shepherd decision-making is based on an under-</p><p>standing of the geographical and other factors influencing sheep social organisation</p><p>and movement.</p><p>The distribution of grazing animals often correlates well with vegetation type. The</p><p>vegetation types, which appear to be the most preferred by grazing species and partic-</p><p>ularly by sheep, are moisture-loving grasslands commonly found in the riparian zone.</p><p>These plants provide green feed and moisture at times when it is not available else-</p><p>where. Such influences are particularly apparent in arid areas of Australia (Dudzinski</p><p>et al., 1969; Muller et al., 1976) and in areas with heterogeneous vegetation cover,</p><p>there are clear preferences for the higher quality feed areas. There is also evidence</p><p>that animals are more likely to return to these areas in later days, for example sheep</p><p>grazing plant communities in Morocco (El Aich and Rittenhouse, 1988) visited areas</p><p>with high resource levels more frequently than other sites, but visited and sampled</p><p>feed from all areas of a 50-ha paddock.</p><p>The distribution of sheep may also be influenced by the location of water and the</p><p>distances they are willing to travel between preferred food sources and water. These</p><p>influences can be major determinants of the distribution of animals in drier range-</p><p>lands, for example sheep forced to walk to water reduced grazing time on the day of</p><p>walking (El Aich et al., 1991) but compensated by increasing grazing time during the</p><p>following 24 h. Sheep have been reported to travel for distances of up to 25 km per</p><p>day in rangeland conditions and much of the distance travelled in such situations may</p><p>not be directly associated with food gathering but rather movement between preferred</p><p>‘patches’ and a source of water. In semi-arid conditions in Australia, Merino sheep are</p><p>normally found within 3 km of a watering site, although greater distances are covered</p><p>in cool conditions (James et al., 1999).</p><p>Shelter also influences spatial distribution of sheep whether it is shelter protection</p><p>from heat or cold. The effects are most apparent for newly shorn animals, but sheep do</p><p>show high levels of motivation to avoid high temperatures. It seems that while sheep</p><p>are able to physiologically adapt to high heat loads, they are also willing to work hard</p><p>to achieve conditions in a more thermo-neutral zone. Studies by Taylor et al. (2011)</p><p>showed that even at relatively low ambient temperatures sheep will seek out shade</p><p>and that spatial distribution of animals in a large paddock can be largely determined</p><p>by shade access. It is interesting to contemplate how important the ability to control</p><p>heat and cold is to the sheep. For instance, Fisher et al. (2008) were able to show that</p><p>animals were highly motivated to escape from high temperature conditions even at</p><p>ambient temperatures of around 25°C. Within the period of 4 weeks post shearing,</p><p>sheep will normally seek shelter from the wind in cold weather (Lynch et al., 1980)</p><p>6 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>and the results reported by Lynch and Alexander (1977) suggested Merino sheep use</p><p>the shelter as a night camp site and during the day in inclement weather.</p><p>Sheep prefer to camp on hilltops near their grazing areas, and McDaniel and</p><p>Tiedman (1981) noted that sheep favoured ridges for grazing and camping, but were</p><p>willing to utilise slopes of up to 40 degree for grazing. In a detailed analysis of the</p><p>factors influencing distribution they identified slope, soil surface characteristics such</p><p>as the percentage of bare ground as more important than vegetation variables at least</p><p>on hilly country. Sheep often establish overnight camp areas that are in upper-slope</p><p>positions normally facing the early morning sun (Taylor and Hedges, 1984).</p><p>Social factors</p><p>Social factors are extremely important determinants of many of the behaviours of gre-</p><p>garious species and as such could be predicted to have a large impact on the feeding</p><p>behaviour of sheep. The impact of associations between members of a flock on animal</p><p>distribution has been reviewed (Lynch et al., 1992). The formation of bachelor herds</p><p>and the impact of sexual behaviours are likely to influence spatial distributions, as is</p><p>the association between ewes and lambs and also the associations between conspecif-</p><p>ics. Such associations can also impact group size and the home range areas occupied.</p><p>This is likely to be reflected in the transfer of feeding/spatial information via traditions</p><p>of the maternal line where associations are potentially maintained for a number of</p><p>generations (Lawrence and Wood-Gush, 1988).</p><p>The concepts of territory and home range are widely used in behavioural literature</p><p>to describe the areas routinely defended or frequented by animals and in the case of</p><p>sheep, where aggression levels tend to be minimal (except for males during the mat-</p><p>ing season), the concept of defended territory is rarely relevant. However, the concept</p><p>of a home-range area, the area over which the animals will naturally range, fits well</p><p>for the species. Home-range areas have been well described for sheep grazing in the</p><p>Scottish highlands (Lawrence and Wood-Gush, 1988). These workers found that the</p><p>home-range size of Scottish Blackface ewes varied between 25 and 50 ha depending</p><p>on season. Similar home-range areas in hill country were observed for groups of South</p><p>Cheviot ewes (Hunter and Milne, 1963). In contrast, studies of Merino ewes in a semi-</p><p>arid environment in Australia could find no defined home range for this breed (Lynch</p><p>et al., 1992), with animals forming sub-groups and ranging over areas measured in</p><p>square kilometres. In the latter case, the location of water may have been an important</p><p>determinant of the distances travelled.</p><p>Rebanks (2015) in his telling of the story of sheep farmers in the Lake District of</p><p>England has reflected on some aspects of the home range of sheep.</p><p>….. so in theory our sheep could wander right across the Lake District. But they</p><p>don’t because they are ‘hefted’ – taught their sense of belonging by their mothers as</p><p>lambs - an unbroken chain of learning that goes back thousands of years.</p><p>He provides a definition of the local term ‘heft’—an area of upland pasture to</p><p>which a sheep/flock has become attached/accustomed. Interestingly, the origins of the</p><p>Understanding the natural behaviour of sheep 7</p><p>term seem to be Old Norse with the meaning of a tradition—spatial knowledge passed</p><p>on from generation to generation. It seems sheep have not altered aspects of grazing</p><p>behaviour over millennia; spatial knowledge of a grazing area can be passed from dam</p><p>to offspring through generations.</p><p>It is very difficult to predict or generalise about the size of ‘home-range’ areas,</p><p>as this seems to be influenced by a large number of variables. For example studies</p><p>of both wild sheep and goats show that the formation of male and female groups in</p><p>the non-breeding season impacts the size of the home range occupied, as do seasonal</p><p>changes in food quantity and quality (Hunter and Milne, 1963). To a large degree,</p><p>shepherding practices take account of these changes in the annual cycles of manage-</p><p>ment for grazing animals.</p><p>The total feeding time of herbivores is, to a large extent, dependent on availability</p><p>and characteristics of the feed on offer. Sheep have grazing times that can last between</p><p>4 and 14 h, and this is determined by feed availability and also factors such as physi-</p><p>ological state (Arnold and Dudzinski, 1978). These authors reported grazing time of</p><p>ewes in late pregnancy was similar to non-pregnant animals, but that eating rate was</p><p>higher, reflecting the increased food requirements of pregnancy. The grazing time of</p><p>lactating ewes on grass/clover pastures</p><p>by in-</p><p>creasing the intake of nutrients and third, the amount of energy available from</p><p>glycogen stores (muscle and liver) and through catabolism of fat. The capacity to</p><p>sustain any amount of strain by any physiological system, including the brain, will</p><p>be limited by the ability of the individual to manage the partitioning and replenish-</p><p>ment of these three compartments. In addition, the energy available to support a</p><p>90 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>strain response will be dependent on the energy used to satisfy any other strain in</p><p>addition to the basic functions associated with maintenance.</p><p>In sheep, the regulation of intake and metabolism in ruminants involves a large</p><p>number of hormonal signals that are produced by different organs and tissues, includ-</p><p>ing the gastrointestinal tract, fat, and the brain and neuronal pathways that link the</p><p>brain to the peripheral organs (for review, see Roche et al., 2008). Amongst the myriad</p><p>of mediators secreted by all the organs playing a role in metabolism, two hormones,</p><p>insulin and leptin, are quite integrative making them good candidates for a heuristic</p><p>measurement of energy availability. In sheep, both hormones are sensitive to the level</p><p>of intake, as well as the mass of fat, and the rate of energy expenditure. Both act at the</p><p>brain level to control intake, and their receptors are present in most tissues, suggest-</p><p>ing a role in coordinating the function of those systems such as reproduction (Blache</p><p>et al., 2006). However, it is not known when the plasma concentrations of insulin or</p><p>leptin are indicative of good or poor welfare. Knowledge of the level of catabolism or</p><p>anabolism, as measured by the concentrations of non-esterified fatty acids and volatile</p><p>fatty acids in plasma, would assist this decision.</p><p>Indicators from the immune system</p><p>The immune system is a very good indicator of the welfare of an animal because:</p><p>(1) it responds to exposure to stressors, (2) its activation in response to the presence</p><p>of foreign organisms or molecules is energetically costly (Colditz, 2008a) and (3) its</p><p>response is affected by the emotional status. In sheep, a major welfare issue is the gas-</p><p>trointestinal parasite load that is associated with a high-energy cost (Colditz, 2008b).</p><p>As described before, fever and an increase in heart rate provide an indication that the</p><p>immune system has been activated, and therefore is demanding more energy (Marais</p><p>et al., 2011). The markers of the level of activation of the immune system can be</p><p>divided into two categories, the mediators of the immune response and the indirect</p><p>mediators that are affected by the activation of the immune response. The mediators</p><p>of the immune response are natural killer cell activity, peripheral white blood cells,</p><p>salivary immunoglobulin-A concentrations, as well as interleukin (IL)-2 and IL-3 and</p><p>decreases in IL-6 and tumour necrosis factor (Colditz, 2008b). IL-6 and tumour ne-</p><p>crosis factor both have a role in inducing the fever response that can be detected by the</p><p>thermal techniques described before. It has to be noted that, as is the case in humans,</p><p>the response of most of the factors listed earlier to immune challenge can be affected</p><p>by emotional state (Colditz, 2008b). It is then possible to consider that the mediators</p><p>of immune system activation could represent some integrated measure of welfare.</p><p>Biomechanical markers</p><p>The maintenance of postural balance is energetically costly and, therefore, a measure</p><p>of balance and the efficiency of locomotion could be considered as indicators of sheep</p><p>welfare. The technology for biomechanical measurements was developed originally for</p><p>use in sport science and motor-developmental studies in humans, and has only recently</p><p>been used in animals. The study of horse biomechanics has been intense because the</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 91</p><p>optimisation of the biomechanical cost of movement improves the performance of race</p><p>horses (Buchner et al., 2000; Clayton and Nauwelaerts, 2014). But techniques for other</p><p>species have been developed, including studies of locomotion and the detection of motor</p><p>problems in dogs (Gillette and Angle, 2008). Assessing the biomechanics of balance and</p><p>of movement can be achieved using several techniques that measure acceleration in two or</p><p>three dimensions. The most relevant technology to welfare is the use of three-dimensional</p><p>accelerometers that produce data that can be translated into directional forces, directional</p><p>workload or total workload and therefore energy use (Gillette and Angle, 2008). These</p><p>accelerometers can be attached to an animal’s limbs and measure the gait. The same type</p><p>of accelerometers can be inserted between two solid (non-deformable) plates to measure</p><p>the ground reaction forces generated by a body standing on or moving across it (Fig. 5.5).</p><p>Figure 5.5 Schematic representation of a force plate system comprising of two non-</p><p>deformable plates (in blue and orange) with triaxial actometers or accelerometers (black</p><p>cylinder) located between the two plates at the four corners of the plate. The accelerometers</p><p>record acceleration along the three-dimensional axis. Specific algorithms can visualise the pattern</p><p>of ground reaction forces produced by a 2-month-old lamb during a walk through the force plate</p><p>system (left bottom panel) or when standing on the force plate system in a stressful situation</p><p>(isolation, right bottom panel). The raw data from the walk (left bottom panel) were converted</p><p>into vertical force [z; top black trace (blue in the web version)] and fore-aft force [x: bottom grey</p><p>trace (red in the web version)]. The raw data obtained while the lamb was standing (left bottom</p><p>panel) were converted into vertical force [z; top black trace (blue in the web version)] and fore-aft</p><p>[x: bottom grey trace (red in the web version)] and medio-lateral force [y: middle grey trace (green</p><p>in the web version)]. The forces exerted and the work produced by the limbs can be calculated for</p><p>each axis, as well as their variation over time. The weight distribution between the fore and back</p><p>limbs, and the displacement of the centre of gravity can also be calculated.</p><p>92 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Special algorithms can calculate the displacement of the centre of gravity during a walk</p><p>or stationary period providing a measure of the balance and the total force required for</p><p>maintaining balance. The data collected from force plates can also be used to determine</p><p>the partitioning of weight between the forelimbs and hindlimbs, as well as the force and</p><p>the work produced in each of the three dimensions (Fig. 5.5).</p><p>Biomechanics is a rather new and somewhat under-developed method to as-</p><p>sess welfare but has a very promising future. In dairy cattle and sows, it has been</p><p>shown that force measurement can be used to predict lameness (Conte et al., 2014;</p><p>Dunthorn et al., 2015; Grégoire et al., 2013; Pluym et al., 2013). Force plate tech-</p><p>nology could be used to detect slight changes in posture or muscular effort induced</p><p>by external or internal injury. Data obtained recently also suggest that, in sheep,</p><p>emotional reactivity could influence the work output produced by lambs when</p><p>they are isolated. Standing lambs born with a high emotional reactivity (Beausoleil</p><p>et al., 2008) do more mechanical work than lambs born with a low emotional re-</p><p>activity, when they are kept in isolation (22.78 ± 6.80 J/kg vs. 6.83 ± 1.71 J/kg;</p><p>P</p><p>conceal behavioural expressions of pain</p><p>(Molony and Kent, 1997). The use of this technology could also help to measure</p><p>fatigue in sheep and vigour in lambs, for which there is presently no standardised</p><p>quantitative measure.</p><p>Interpreting physiological indicators</p><p>The new indicators of welfare, even if they are still experimental, offer the potential</p><p>to provide a more integrated approach to welfare and, importantly, to include assess-</p><p>ments of affective state, to better reflect the energy cost of the response. However, like</p><p>any welfare indicator, having a methodology to interpret physiological indicators is</p><p>essential to conclude if animals have compromised welfare (and by how much) or that</p><p>they are experiencing a positive welfare state.</p><p>First and foremost, indicators need to be validated. Methods used to collect and</p><p>analyse indicators need to be validated against known challenging situations. The in-</p><p>tensity of the situation should be varied to validate the sensitivity of the indicators.</p><p>These validations would also help to understand the relevance of the indicators to</p><p>welfare. As previously discussed, even classical indicators such as glucocorticoid con-</p><p>centrations in biological fluids are not always relevant to welfare in sheep (Ralph and</p><p>Tilbrook, 2016). Moreover, the changes in indicators should be interpreted against val-</p><p>ues obtained in a relaxed or neutral situation, when the animal is experiencing minimal</p><p>strain. A large number of classical physiological indicators have been developed and</p><p>used extensively to assess the welfare of sheep that are exposed to different production</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 93</p><p>environments or stressors. The nature of the challenge in these different environments</p><p>is quite variable (Kilgour et al., 2008) and the consequences on the physiology of</p><p>the animals are equally variable between environments and between individuals. This</p><p>complexity is not surprising since sheep have been domesticated for a long time and</p><p>the perception of challenges can be affected by genetic traits, as well as memory or</p><p>experience (Fig. 5.2).</p><p>We have stressed that the time of the collection of physiological data can lead to</p><p>misinterpretation (see the discussion of the use of fMRI technology vs. PET scan in</p><p>the study of affective states). Similarly, IRT data are impacted by the thermal environ-</p><p>ment and emotional status, as suggested by the stress-induced hyperthermia response.</p><p>The best data would be that collected live and in real-time. In sheep, kept in extensive</p><p>conditions, telemetry is becoming a very important tool in the collection of physiolog-</p><p>ical measures (Samson et al., 2011) and is even experimentally possible in newborn</p><p>lambs (Létourneau and Praud, 2003).</p><p>The interpretation of physiological data can be difficult because there are several</p><p>facets to the response to stressors and a lack of universal agreement on when strain</p><p>increases to the level of welfare concern. As discussed throughout this chapter, any</p><p>physiological data to assess strain should be interpreted in concert with other physi-</p><p>ological and/or behavioural parameters, while at the same time taking into account the</p><p>genetic, environmental and temporal contexts. In sheep, the rather good understanding</p><p>of the relationship between the external and internal environments, the physiologi-</p><p>cal responses and the emotional state of an animal should be capitalised to develop</p><p>integrated approaches to the assessment of welfare. This is not to say that we have to</p><p>measure everything and then try to make sense of it, but rather to use this knowledge to</p><p>build up a composite index of welfare. Theoretical frameworks such as allostasis, can</p><p>help to build an index of welfare. Biomarkers of allostatic load have been proposed</p><p>(Juster et al., 2010) and used to calculate an allostatic load index associated with</p><p>‘burnout’ symptoms in humans (Juster et al., 2011). Similar approaches could be used</p><p>to assess the welfare of sheep.</p><p>Indicators and indexes of welfare are still post-hoc and might serve to change the</p><p>way we treat, interact with and keep animals. However, there is no such thing as a</p><p>perfect production system, and the level of human control of the environment can,</p><p>especially with free-range systems and extensive sheep production systems, have</p><p>both positive and negative impact on sheep welfare (Blache et al., 2016; Villalba</p><p>et al., 2016). In addition, there is a strong argument that welfare should be measured</p><p>at the level of the individual, rather than at the group or farm level (Mellor, 2016).</p><p>The development of predictive tools will need strong algorithms that can integrate,</p><p>simplify and project the future course of not only physiological but also behavioural</p><p>data. Such algorithms, that address large data sets and analyse global networks of</p><p>information, have been developed and are still being developed and will provide ex-</p><p>cellent tools to assess multiple data sets over time periods in an objective way so that</p><p>the flexibility of the system can be assessed. Quite importantly, these algorithms,</p><p>as complex as they will be, will perform better if they are seeded with more reliable</p><p>and sophisticated data, therefore the pursuit of integrative or even isolated indicators</p><p>is still necessary.</p><p>94 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>In this chapter, we have stressed that brain processing is based on complex neuronal</p><p>circuitry that involves the processing of the information from life events, and also</p><p>from the emotional state of the animal, including the input from memories (impact,</p><p>positive or negative, of the past), the programming of the animal (preparation for fu-</p><p>ture needs) and the current feedback from biological functions (present physiologi-</p><p>cal status). Having integrated this information, the brain generates outputs that are</p><p>either specific or general. All these responses require energy; some require very little</p><p>(emotion building), while some responses require more energy such as the response</p><p>to thermal challenge. We have described some integrative indicators, ranging from</p><p>temperature patterns that could reflect energy balance to brain imaging that could</p><p>provide insights into the processing of information. At present, for sheep, while we</p><p>have accumulated a decent amount of knowledge in ‘stress’ physiology and emotional</p><p>states, we still do not have universal tools to help us decide if the welfare of a sheep is</p><p>right or compromised in any production environment. As explained in the last section,</p><p>for each indicator, we need to quantify the baseline and to understand the relationship</p><p>between the indicators and the timeframe of their interconnectivity. Finally and most</p><p>importantly, we need indicators that are predictive rather than descriptive of the ‘post</p><p>impact’ or adaptive response to life events.</p><p>References</p><p>Abbasi, H., Unsworth, C.P., Mckenzie, A.C., Gunn, A.J., Bennet, L., 2014. Published. Using</p><p>type-2 fuzzy logic systems for spike detection in the hypoxic ischemic EEG of the preterm</p><p>fetal sheep. In: Proceedings of 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE</p><p>Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 938–941. Available from: https://doi.</p><p>org/10.1109/EMBC.2014.6943746</p><p>Al-Ramamneh, D., Gerken, D.M., Riek, A., 2011. Effect of shearing on water turnover and ther-</p><p>mobiological variables in german blackhead mutton sheep1. J. Anim. Sci. 89, 4294–4304.</p><p>Animut, G., Goetsch, A.L., Aiken, G.E., Puchala, R., Detweiler, G., Krehbiel, C.R., Merkel,</p><p>R.C., Sahlu, T., Dawson, L.J., Johnson, Z.B., Kiesler, D.H., 2006. Performance by goats</p><p>and sheep consuming a concentrate-based diet subsequent to grazing grass/forb pastures at</p><p>three stocking rates. Small Rumin. Res. 66, 92–101.</p><p>Baldwin, B.A., Bell, F.R., 1963. The effect of temporary reduction in cephalic blood flow on the</p><p>EEG of sheep and calf. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 15, 465–473.</p><p>Barnett, J.L., Hemsworth, P.H., 1990. The validity</p><p>of physiological aned behavioural measures</p><p>of animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 25, 177–187.</p><p>Beausoleil, N., Blache, D., Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., Noble, A.D.L., 2008. Exploring the basis</p><p>of divergent selection for ‘temperament’ in domestic sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 109,</p><p>261–274.</p><p>Berman, D.G., Johnson, D.E., Phillips, R.W., Barry, B.P., 1980. Physiological and urinary me-</p><p>tabolite responses to cold shock and confinement of sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 50, 713–722.</p><p>Blache, D., Maloney, S.K., Terlouw, E.M.C., 2011. Physiology. In: Appleby, M.C., Hughes, B.O.,</p><p>Mench, J.A., Olsson, A. (Eds.), Animal Welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2014.6943746</p><p>https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2014.6943746</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0040</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 95</p><p>Blache, D., Martin, G.B., 1999. Day length affects feeding behaviour and food intake in adult</p><p>male emus (dromaius novaehollandiae). Br. Poultry Sci. 40, 573–578.</p><p>Blache, D., Vercoe, P.E., Martin, G.B., Revell, D.K., 2016. Integrated and innovative livestock</p><p>production in drylands. In: Farooq, M., Siddique, K.H.M. (Eds.), Innovations in Dryland</p><p>Agriculture. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.</p><p>Blache, D., Zhang, S., Martin, G.B., 2006. Dynamic and integrative aspects of the regulation of</p><p>reproduction by metabolic status in male sheep. Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 46, 379–390.</p><p>Blackmore, D.K., Newhook, J.C., 1982. Electroencephalographic studies of stunning and</p><p>slaughter of sheep and calves—part 3: the duration of insensibility induced by electrical</p><p>stunning in sheep and calves. Meat Sci. 7, 19–28.</p><p>Blaxter, K.L., 1967. The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants. Hutchinson, London, UK.</p><p>Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M.B., Moe, R.O., Spruijt, B., Keeling, L.J., Winckler, C., Fork-</p><p>man, B., Dimitrov, I., Langbein, J., Bakken, M., Veissier, I., Aubert, A., 2007. Assessment of</p><p>positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiol. Behav. 92, 375–397.</p><p>Bouwknecht, A.J., Olivier, B., Paylor, R.E., 2007. The stress-induced hyperthermia paradigm as</p><p>a physiological animal model for anxiety: a review of pharmacological and genetic studies</p><p>in the mouse. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 31, 41–59.</p><p>Broom, D.M., Johnson, K.G., 1993. Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall, London.</p><p>Buchner, H.H.F., Obermüller, S., Scheidl, M., 2000. Body centre of mass movement in the</p><p>sound horse. Vet. J. 160, 225–234.</p><p>Buller, T.O.M., 2014. Animal minds and neuroimaging. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 23, 173–181.</p><p>Burgdorf, J., Panksepp, J., 2006. The neurobiology of positive emotions. Neurosci. Biobehav.</p><p>Rev. 30, 173–187.</p><p>Cannon, W.B., 1914. The emergency function of the adrenal medulla in pain and the major emo-</p><p>tions. Am. J. Physiol. 33, 356–372.</p><p>Capraro, G.A., Coughlin, B.F., Mader, T.J., Smithline, H.A., 2008. Testicular cooling associated</p><p>with testicular torsion and its detection by infrared thermography: an experimental study in</p><p>sheep. J. Urol. 180, 2688–2693.</p><p>Caroprese, M., 2008. Sheep housing and welfare. Small Rumin. Res. 76, 21–25.</p><p>Caroprese, M., Ciliberti, M.G., Annicchiarico, G., Albenzio, M., Muscio, A., Sevi, A., 2014.</p><p>Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activation and immune regulation in heat-stressed</p><p>sheep after supplementation with polyunsaturated fatty acids. J. Dairy Sci. 97, 4247–4258.</p><p>Castro-Costa, A., Caja, G., Salama, A.a.K., Rovai, M., Flores, C., Aguiló, J., 2014. Thermo-</p><p>graphic variation of the udder of dairy ewes in early lactation and following an Escherichia</p><p>coli endotoxin intramammary challenge in late lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 97, 1377–1387.</p><p>Chrousos, G.P., Gold, P.W., 1992. The concepts of stress and stress system disorders. Overview</p><p>of physical and behavioral homeostasis. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 267, 1244–1254.</p><p>Clayton, H.M., Nauwelaerts, S., 2014. Effect of blindfolding on centre of pressure variables in</p><p>healthy horses during quiet standing. Vet. J. 199, 365–369.</p><p>Colditz, I.G., 2008a. Allocation of resources to immune responses. In: Rauw, W. (Ed.), Resource</p><p>Allocation Theory Applied to Farm Animal Production. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.</p><p>Colditz, I.G., 2008b. Six costs of immunity to gastrointestinal nematode infections. Parasit.</p><p>Immunol. 30, 63–70.</p><p>Conte, S., Bergeron, R., Gonyou, H., Brown, J., Rioja-Lang, F.C., Connor, L., Devillers, N.,</p><p>2014. Measure and characterization of lameness in gestating sows using force plate, kin-</p><p>ematic, and accelerometer methods. J. Anim. Sci. 92, 5693–5703.</p><p>Conte, S., Bergeron, R., Gonyou, H., Brown, J., Rioja-Lang, F.C., Connor, M.L., Devillers, N.,</p><p>2015. Use of an analgesic to identify pain-related indicators of lameness in sows. Livest.</p><p>Sci. 180, 203–208.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0075</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0075</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0075</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0900</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0085</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0105</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0145</p><p>96 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Cook, C.J., 2004. Stress induces CRF release in the paraventricular nucleus, and both CRF and</p><p>GABA release in the amygdala. Physiol. Behav. 82, 751–762.</p><p>Cook, C.J., Maasland, S.A., Devine, C.E., 1996. Social behaviour in sheep relates to behaviour</p><p>and neurotransmitter responses to nociceptive stimuli. Physiol. Behav. 60, 741–751.</p><p>Coulon, M., Nowak, R., Peyrat, J., Chandèze, H., Boissy, A., Boivin, X., 2015. Do lambs per-</p><p>ceive regular human stroking as pleasant? Behavior and heart rate variability analyses.</p><p>PLoS One 10, e0118617.</p><p>Crawford, M.H., Bernstein, S.J., Deedwania, P.C., Dimarco, J.P., Ferrick, K.J., Garson, A.,</p><p>Green, L.A., Greene, H.L., Silka, M.J., Stone, P.H., Tracy, C.M., 1999. Acc/aha guidelines</p><p>for ambulatory electrocardiography: executive summary and recommendations. Circula-</p><p>tion 100, 886–893.</p><p>Cruz Júnior, C.A., Lucci, C.M., Peripolli, V., Tanure, C.B., Ribeiro, L.M.C.S., Barbosa, T.M.,</p><p>Ramos, A.F., Louvandini, H., McManus, C., 2015. Laser and thermographic infrared tem-</p><p>peratures associated with heat tolerance in adult rams. Small Rumin. Res. 132, 86–91.</p><p>Cwynar, P., Kołacz, R., Walerjan, P., 2014. Electroencephalographic recordings of physiologi-</p><p>cal activity of the sheep cerebral cortex. Polish J. Vet. Sci. 17, 613–623.</p><p>Désiré, L., Veissier, I., Despres, G., Boissy, A., 2004. On the way to assess emotions in animals:</p><p>do lambs (Ovis aries) evaluate an event through its suddenness, novelty, or unpredictabil-</p><p>ity? J. Comp. Psychol. 118, 363–374.</p><p>Désiré, L., Veissier, I., Desprès, G., Delval, E., Toporenko, G., Boissy, A., 2006. Appraisal pro-</p><p>cess in sheep (Ovis aries): interactive effect of suddenness and unfamiliarity on cardiac</p><p>and behavioral responses. J. Comp. Psychol. 120, 280–287.</p><p>Destrez, A., Deiss, V., Leterrier, C., Boivin, X., Boissy, A., 2013. Long-term exposure to</p><p>unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events alters fearfulness in sheep. Animal</p><p>7, 476–484.</p><p>Doyle, R.E., Hinch, G.N., Fisher, A.D., Boissy, A., Henshall, J.M., Lee, C., 2011a. Administra-</p><p>tion of serotonin inhibitor p-chlorophenylalanine induces pessimistic-like judgement bias</p><p>in sheep. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36, 279–288.</p><p>Doyle, R.E., Lee, C., Deiss, V., Fisher, A.D., Hinch, G.N., Boissy, A., 2011b. Measuring judge-</p><p>ment bias and emotional reactivity in sheep following long-term exposure to unpredictable</p><p>and aversive events. Physiol. Behav. 102, 503–510.</p><p>Dunthorn, J., Dyer, R.M., Neerchal, N.K., Mchenry, J.S., Rajkondawar, P.G., Steingraber, G.,</p><p>Tasch, U., 2015. Predictive models of lameness in dairy cows achieve high sensitivity and</p><p>specificity with force measurements in three dimensions. J. Dairy Res. 82, 391–399.</p><p>Ellis, T., Bradley, A., Watson, F., Elliot, K., Smith, G., Mcgrath, M., Dolling, M., 1985. Protec-</p><p>tion of recently shorn sheep against adverse weather using plastic coats. Aust. Vet. J. 62,</p><p>213–218.</p><p>Ella, A., Delgadillo, J.A., Chemineau, P., Keller, M., 2017. Computation of a high-resolution</p><p>MRI 3D stereotaxic atlas of the sheep brain. J. Comp. Neurol. 525, 676–692.</p><p>Ellis, B.J., Del Giudice, M., 2014. Beyond allostatic load: rethinking the role of stress in regu-</p><p>lating human development. Dev. Psychopathol. 26, 1–20.</p><p>Fabre-Nys, C., Blache, D., Kendrick, K., Hinton, M., 1994. Microdialysis measurement of neu-</p><p>rochemical changes in the mediobasal hypothalamus of ovariectomized ewes during oes-</p><p>trus. Brain Res. 649, 282–296.</p><p>Fabre-Nys, C., Blache, D., Lavenet, C., 1991. A method for accurate implantation in the sheep</p><p>brain. In: Greenstein, B.D. (Ed.), Neuroendocrine Research Methods: Implantation and</p><p>Transfection Procedures. Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, Switzerland.</p><p>Ferrari, M., Quaresima, V., 2012. A brief review on the history of human functional near-infrared</p><p>spectroscopy (fNIRS) development and fields of application. Neuroimage 63, 921–935.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0995</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0995</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0995</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0995</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0210</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0210</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0215</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0215</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0225</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0225</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0225</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0230</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0230</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 97</p><p>Frey, M.J., Moberg, G.P., 1980. Effect of intraventricular serotonin on the plasma cortisol re-</p><p>sponse to restraint stress in unanesthetized sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 51, 380–385.</p><p>Fulkerson, W.J., Tang, B.Y., 1979. Ultradian and circadian rhythms in the plasma concentration</p><p>of cortisol in sheep. J. Endocrinol. 81, 135–141.</p><p>George, W.D., Godfrey, R.W., Ketring, R.C., Vinson, M.C., Willard, S.T., 2014. Relationship</p><p>among eye and muzzle temperatures measured using digital infrared thermal imaging and</p><p>vaginal and rectal temperatures in hair sheep and cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 92, 4949–4955.</p><p>Gillette, R.L., Angle, T.C., 2008. Recent developments in canine locomotor analysis: a review.</p><p>Vet. J. 178, 165–176.</p><p>Grégoire, J., Bergeron, R., D’allaire, S., Meunier-Salaün, M.C., Devillers, N., 2013. Assess-</p><p>ment of lameness in sows using gait, footprints, postural behaviour and foot lesion analy-</p><p>sis. Animal 7, 1163–1173.</p><p>Greiveldinger, L., Veissier, I., Boissy, A., 2009. Behavioural and physiological responses of lambs</p><p>to controllable vs. uncontrollable aversive events. Psychoneuroendocrinology 34, 805–814.</p><p>Guldimann, K., Vögeli, S., Wolf, M., Wechsler, B., Gygax, L., 2015. Frontal brain deactivation</p><p>during a non-verbal cognitive judgement bias test in sheep. Brain Cogn. 93, 35–41.</p><p>Gygax, L., Reefmann, N., Wolf, M., Langbein, J., 2013. Prefrontal cortex activity, sympatho-</p><p>vagal reaction and behaviour distinguish between situations of feed reward and frustration</p><p>in dwarf goats. Behav. Brain Res. 239, 104–114.</p><p>Gygax, L., Vögeli, S., 2016. Reactions of sheep towards three sets of emotional stimuli: (in)</p><p>consistency in respect to stimulus valence and sheep identity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 174,</p><p>51–57.</p><p>Hawken, P.A., Fiol, C., Blache, D., 2012. Genetic differences in temperament determine wheth-</p><p>er lavender oil alleviates or exacerbates anxiety in sheep. Physiol. Behav. 105, 117–1123.</p><p>Hawken, P.A., Luckins, N., Tilbrook, A.J., Fiol, C., Martin, G.B., Blache, D., 2013. Genetic</p><p>selection for temperament affects behaviour and the secretion of adrenal and reproductive</p><p>hormones in sheep subjected to stress. Stress 16, 130–142.</p><p>Hemsworth, P.H., Mellor, D.J., Cronin, G.M., Tilbrook, A.J., 2015. Scientific assessment of</p><p>animal welfare. N. Z. Vet. J. 63, 24–30.</p><p>Hennessy, J.W., Levine, S., 1979. Stress, arousal, and the pituitary adrenal system: a psychoen-</p><p>docrine hypothesis. Prog. Psychobiol. Physiol. Psychol. 8, 133–178.</p><p>Henry, B.A., Blache, D., Rao, A., Clarke, I.J., Maloney, S.K., 2010. Disparate effects of feeding</p><p>on core body and adipose tissue temperatures in animals selectively bred for nervous and</p><p>calm temperament. Am. J. Physiol. 299, R907–R917.</p><p>Hild, S., Coulon, M., Schroeer, A., Andersen, I.L., Zanella, A.J., 2011. Gentle vs. aversive han-</p><p>dling of pregnant ewes: I. Maternal cortisol and behavior. Physiol. Behav. 104, 384–391.</p><p>Hoffmann, A., Stoffel, M.H., Nitzsche, B., Lobsien, D., Seeger, J., Schneider, H., Boltze, J.,</p><p>2014. The ovine cerebral venous system: comparative anatomy, visualization, and implica-</p><p>tions for translational research. PLoS One 9, e92990.</p><p>Hudson, M., 2005. The welfare and scientific advantages of non-invasive imaging of animals</p><p>used in biomedical research. Anim. Welfare 14, 303–317.</p><p>Incropera, F.P., 2007. Introduction to Heat Transfer, sixth ed. Wiley, Hobokenm, NJ.</p><p>Jongman, E.C., Morris, J.P., Barnett, J.L., Hemsworth, P.H., 2000. EEG changes in 4-week-old</p><p>lambs in response to castration, tail docking and mulesing. Aust. Vet. J. 78, 339–343.</p><p>Juster, R.-P., Mcewen, B.S., Lupien, S.J., 2010. Allostatic load biomarkers of chronic stress and</p><p>impact on health and cognition. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 35, 2–16.</p><p>Juster, R.-P., Sindi, S., Marin, M.-F., Perna, A., Hashemi, A., Pruessner, J.C., Lupien, S.J., 2011.</p><p>A clinical allostatic load index is associated with burnout symptoms and hypocortisolemic</p><p>profiles in healthy workers. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36, 797–805.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0235</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0235</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0250</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0250</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0255</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0255</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0255</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0260</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0260</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0265</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0265</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0270</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0270</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0270</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0275</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0275</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0275</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0280</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0280</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0285</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0285</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0285</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0295</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0295</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0310</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0310</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0310</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0315</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0315</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0320</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0325</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0325</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0330</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0330</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0335</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0335</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0335</p><p>98 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Kafri, M., Metzl-Raz, E., Jona, G., Barkai, N., 2016. The cost of protein production. Cell Rep.</p><p>14, 22–31.</p><p>Kendrick, K.M., De La Riva, C., Hinton, M., Baldwin, B.A., 1989. Microdialysis measurement</p><p>of monoamine and amino acid release from the medial preoptic region of the sheep in</p><p>response to heat exposure. Brain Res. Bull. 22, 541–544.</p><p>Kendrick, K.M., Hinton, M.R., Baldwin, B.A., 1991. GABA release in the zona incerta</p><p>of the sheep in response to the sight and ingestion of food and salt. Brain Res. 550,</p><p>165–168.</p><p>Kendrick, K.M., Keverne, E.B., Chapman, C., Baldwin, B.A., 1988. Intracranial dialysis meas-</p><p>urement of oxytocin monoamine and uric acid release from the olfactory bulb and sub-</p><p>stantia nigra of sheep during parturition suckling separation from lambs and eating. Brain</p><p>Res. 439, 1–10.</p><p>Kendrick, K.M., Keverne, E.B., Hinton, M.R., Goode, J.A., 1992. Oxytocin, amino acid and</p><p>monoamine release in the region of the medial preoptic area and bed nucleus of the stria</p><p>terminalis of the sheep during parturition and suckling. Brain Res. 569, 199–209.</p><p>Kilgour, R.J., Waterhouse, T., Dwyer, C.M., Ivanov, I.D., 2008. Farming systems for sheep pro-</p><p>duction and their effect of welfare. In: Dwyer, C.M. (Ed.), The Welfare of Sheep. Springer,</p><p>Berlin.</p><p>Kleitman, N., Jackson, D.P., 1950. Body temperature and performance under different routines.</p><p>J. Appl. Physiol. 3, 309–328.</p><p>Korte, S.M., Olivier, B., Koolhaas, J.M., 2007. A new animal welfare concept based on allosta-</p><p>sis. Physiol. Behav. 92, 422–428.</p><p>Lambooy, E., 1982. Electrical stunning of sheep. Meat Sci. 6, 123–135.</p><p>Lee, W., Lee, S.D., Park, M.Y., Foley, L., Purcell-Estabrook, E., Kim, H., Yoo, S.-S., 2015.</p><p>Functional and diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of the sheep brain. BMC Vet.</p><p>Res. 11, 262.</p><p>Leknes, S., Tracey, I., 2008. A common neurobiology for pain and pleasure. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.</p><p>9, 314–320.</p><p>Létourneau, P., Praud, J.-P., 2003. A radiotelemetry system for polysomnographic recordings in</p><p>lambs. Methods 30, 115–121.</p><p>Levine, S., Ursin, H., 1991. What is stress? In: Brown, M.R., Koob, G.F., Rivier, C. (Eds.),</p><p>Stress: Neurobiology and Neuroendocrinology. Dekker, New York, NY.</p><p>Ley, S.J., Livingston, A., Waterman, A.E., 1992. Effects of clinically occurring chronic lame-</p><p>ness in sheep on the concentrations of plasma noradrenaline and adrenaline. Res. Vet. Sci.</p><p>53, 122–125.</p><p>Lonstein, J.S., Maguire, J., Meinlschmidt, G., Neumann, I.D., 2014. Emotion and mood adapta-</p><p>tions in the peripartum female: complementary contributions of GABA and oxytocin. J.</p><p>Neuroendocrinol. 26, 649–664.</p><p>Lowe, T.E., Cook, C.J., Ingram, J.R., Harris, P.J., 2001. Impact of climate on thermal rhythm in</p><p>pastoral sheep. Physiol. Behav. 74, 659–664.</p><p>Lowe, T.E., Cook, C.J., Ingram, J.R., Harris, P.J., 2005. Changes in ear-pinna temperature as a</p><p>useful measure of stress in sheep (Ovis aries). Anim. Welfare 14, 35–42.</p><p>Maloney, S.K., Mitchell, D., Blache, D., 2007. The contribution of carotid rete variability to</p><p>brain temperature variability in sheep in a thermoneutral environment. Am. J. Physiol.</p><p>292, R1298–R1305.</p><p>Maloney, S.K., Meyer, L., Blache, D., Fuller, A., 2013. Energy intake and the circadian rhythm</p><p>of core body temperature in sheep. Physiol. Rep. 1, e00118.1–e00118.9.</p><p>Marai, I.F.M., El-Darawany, A.A., Fadiel, A., Abdel-Hafez, M.a.M., 2007. Physiological traits</p><p>as affected by heat stress in sheep: a review. Small Rumin. Res. 71, 1–12.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0340</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0340</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0345</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0345</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0345</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0350</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0350</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0350</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0355</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0355</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0355</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0355</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0360</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0360</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0360</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0365</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0365</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0365</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0370</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0370</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0375</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0375</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0380</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0385</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0385</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0385</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0390</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0390</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0395</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0395</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0400</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0400</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0405</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0405</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0405</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0410</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0410</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0410</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0415</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0415</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0420</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0420</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0425</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0425</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0425</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0430</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0430</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0435</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0435</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 99</p><p>Marais, M., Maloney, S.K., Gray, D.A., Marais, M., Maloney, S.K., Gray, D.A., 2011. The</p><p>metabolic cost of fever in pekin ducks. J. Therm. Biol. 36, 116–120.</p><p>Martin, G.B., Hötzel, M.J., Blache, D., Walkden-Brown, S.W., Blackberry, M.A., Boukliq, R.,</p><p>Fisher, J.A., Miller, D.W., 2002. Determinants of the annual pattern of reproduction in</p><p>mature male merino and suffolk sheep: modification of response to photoperiod by annual</p><p>cycle of food supply. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 14, 165–175.</p><p>Martin, G.B., Tjondronegoro, S., Boukhliq, R., Blackberry, M.A., Briegel, J.R., Blache, D.,</p><p>Fisher, J.A., Adams, N.R., 1999. Determinants of the annual pattern of reproduction in ma-</p><p>ture male merino and suffolk sheep: modification of endogenous rhythms by photoperiod.</p><p>Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 11, 355–366.</p><p>Martins, R.F.S., Do Prado Paim, T., De Abreu Cardoso, C., Stéfano Lima Dallago, B., De Melo,</p><p>C.B., Louvandini, H., McManus, C., 2013. Mastitis detection in sheep by infrared ther-</p><p>mography. Res. Vet. Sci. 94, 722–724.</p><p>McCarty, R., 1983. Stress, behavior and experimental hypertension. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.</p><p>7, 493–502.</p><p>Mcewen, B.S., Gray, J.D., Nasca, C., 2015. Recognizing resilience: learning from the effects of</p><p>stress on the brain. Neurobiol. Stress 1, 1–11.</p><p>McEwen, B.S., Wingfield, J.C., 2010. What is in a name? Integrating homeostasis, allostasis</p><p>and stress. Hormones Behav. 57, 105–111.</p><p>McManus, C., Bianchini, E., Paim, T.D.P., Lima, F.G.D., Neto, J.B., Castanheira, M., Esteves,</p><p>G.I.F., Cardoso, C.C., Dalcin, V.C., 2015. Infrared thermography to evaluate heat tolerance</p><p>in different genetic groups of lambs. Sensors 15, 17258–17273.</p><p>McManus, C., Tanure, C.B., Peripolli, V., Seixas, L., Fischer, V., Gabbi, A.M., Menegassi,</p><p>S.R.O., Stumpf, M.T., Kolling, G.J., Dias, E., Costa, Jr., J.B.G., 2016. Infrared thermogra-</p><p>phy in animal production: an overview. Comput. Electron. Agric. 123, 10–16.</p><p>Mellor, D., 2016. Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond the “five freedoms” to-</p><p>wards “a life worth living”. Animals 6, 21.</p><p>Mellor, D.J., Diesch, T.J., 2006. Onset of sentience: the potential for suffering in fetal and new-</p><p>born farm animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 100, 48–57.</p><p>Moberg, G.P., 2000. Biological response to stress: implications for animal welfare. In: Moberg,</p><p>G.P., Mench, J.A. (Eds.), The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic Principles and Implications</p><p>for Animal Welfare. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.</p><p>Moberg, G.P., Mench, J.A. (Eds.), 2000. The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic Principles and</p><p>Implications for Animal Welfare. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.</p><p>Moberg, G.P., Anderson, C.O., Underwood, T.R., 1980. Ontogeny of the adrenal and behavioral</p><p>responses of lambs to emotional stress. J. Anim. Sci. 51, 138–142.</p><p>Mohammad-Zadeh, L.F., Moses, L., Gwaltney-Brant, S.M., 2008. Serotonin: a review. J. Vet.</p><p>Pharmacol. Ther. 31, 187–199.</p><p>Molony, V., Kent, J.E., 1997. Assessment of acute pain in farm animals using behavioral and</p><p>physiological measurements. J. Anim. Sci. 75, 266–272.</p><p>Mormède, P., Andanson, S., Auperin, B., Beerda, B., Guemene, D., Malmkvist, J., Manteca, X.,</p><p>Manteuffel, G., Prunet, P., Van Reenen, C.G., Richard, S., Veissier, I., 2007. Exploration of</p><p>the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal function as a tool to evaluate animal welfare. Physiol.</p><p>Behav. 92, 317–339.</p><p>Muehlemann, T., Haensse, D., Wolf, M., 2008. Wireless miniaturized in-vivo near infrared im-</p><p>aging. Opt. Express 16, 10323–10330.</p><p>Muehlemann, T., Reefmann, N., Wechsler, B., Wolf, M., Gygax, L., 2011. In vivo functional</p><p>near-infrared spectroscopy measures mood-modulated cerebral responses to a positive</p><p>emotional stimulus in sheep. Neuroimage 54, 1625–1633.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0440</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0440</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0445</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0445</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0445</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0445</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0450</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0450</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0450</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0450</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0455</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0455</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0455</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0460</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0460</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0465</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0465</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0470</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0470</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0475</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0475</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0475</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0480</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0480</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0480</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0485</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0485</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0490</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0490</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0495</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0495</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0495</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0500</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0500</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0505</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0505</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0510</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0510</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0515</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0515</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0520</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0520</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0520</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0520</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0525</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0525</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0530</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0530</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0530</p><p>100 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Murrell, J.C., Johnson, C.B., 2006. Neurophysiological techniques to assess pain in animals. J.</p><p>Vet. Pharmacol. Ther. 29, 325–335.</p><p>Nakamura, S., Walker, D.W., Wong, F.Y., 2016. Cerebral haemodynamic response to soma-</p><p>tosensory stimulation in near-term fetal sheep. J. Physiol. 595, 1289–1303.</p><p>Nakyinsige, K., Che Man, Y.B., Aghwan, Z.A., Zulkifli, I., Goh, Y.M., Abu Bakar, F., Al-Kahta-</p><p>ni, H.A., Sazili, A.Q., 2013. Stunning and animal welfare from islamic and scientific per-</p><p>spectives. Meat Sci. 95, 352–361.</p><p>Newhook, J.C., Blackmore, D.K., 1982. Electroencephalographic studies of stunning and</p><p>slaughter of sheep and calves: part 1—the onset of permanent insensibility in sheep during</p><p>slaughter. Meat Sci. 6, 221–233.</p><p>Nicol, A.U., Perentos, N., Martins, A.Q., Morton, A.J., 2016. Automated detection and char-</p><p>acterisation of rumination in sheep using in vivo electrophysiology. Physiol. Behav. 163,</p><p>258–266.</p><p>Niezgoda, J., Bobek, S., Wronska-Fortuna, D., Wierzchos, E., 1993. Response of sympatho-</p><p>adrenal axis and adrenal cortex to short-term restraint stress in sheep. J. Vet. Med. Ser. A</p><p>40, 631–638.</p><p>Nitzsche, B., Frey, S., Collins, L.D., Seeger, J., Lobsien, D., Dreyer, A., Kirsten, H., Stoffel,</p><p>M.H., Fonov, V.S., Boltze, J., 2015. A stereotaxic, population-averaged T1w ovine brain</p><p>atlas including cerebral morphology and tissue volumes. Front. Neuroanat. 9, 69.</p><p>Nixon-Smith, W.F., 1968. Cold Stress and Sheep Survival. Part I: Cold Stress in Newly-Born</p><p>Lambs and Its Measurement. Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra.</p><p>Oken, B.S., Chamine, I., Wakeland, W., 2015. A systems approach to stress, stressors and resil-</p><p>ience in humans. Behav. Brain Res. 282, 144–154.</p><p>Olson, D., Severson, E., Verstraeten, B., Ng, J., Mccreary, J., Metz, G., 2015. Allostatic load and</p><p>preterm birth. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 16, 26209.</p><p>Olsen Alstruo, A.K., Winterdahl, M., 2009. Imaging techniques in large animals. Scand. J. Lab.</p><p>Anim. Sci. 36, 55–66.</p><p>Ong, R.M., Morris, J.P., O’dwyer, J.K., Barnett, J.L., Hemsworth, P.H., Clarke, I.J., 1997. Be-</p><p>havioural and EEG changes in sheep in response to painful acute electrical stimuli. Aust.</p><p>Vet. J. 75, 189–193.</p><p>Oxley, T.J., Opie, N.L., John, S.E., Rind, G.S., Ronayne, S.M., Wheeler, T.L., Judy, J.W., Mc-</p><p>donald, A.J., Dornom, A., Lovell, T.J.H., Steward, C., Garrett, D.J., Moffat, B.A., Lui,</p><p>E.H., Yassi, N., Campbell, B.C.V., Wong, Y.T., Fox, K.E., Nurse, E.S., Bennett, I.E.,</p><p>Bauquier, S.H., Liyanage, K.A., Van Der Nagel, N.R., Perucca, P., Ahnood, A., Gill, K.P.,</p><p>Yan, B., Churilov, L., French, C.R., Desmond, P.M., Horne, M.K., Kiers, L., Prawer, S.,</p><p>Davis, S.M., Burkitt, A.N., Mitchell, P.J., Grayden, D.B., May, C.N., O’brien, T.J., 2016.</p><p>Minimally invasive endovascular stent-electrode array for high-fidelity, chronic recordings</p><p>of cortical neural activity. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 320–327.</p><p>Pairis-Garcia, M.D., Johnson, A.K., Abell, C.A., Coetzee, J.F., Karriker, L.A., Millman, S.T.,</p><p>Stalder, K.J., 2015. Measuring the efficacy of flunixin meglumine and meloxicam for lame</p><p>sows using a gaitfour pressure mat and an embedded microcomputer-based force plate</p><p>system. J. Anim. Sci. 93, 2100–2110.</p><p>Parrott, R.F., Hall, S.J.G., Lloyd, D.M., 1998. Heart rate and stress hormone responses of sheep</p><p>to road transport following two different loading procedures. Animal Welfare 7, 257–267.</p><p>Parrott, R.F., Lloyd, D.M., Goode, J.A., 1996. Stress hormone responses of sheep to food and</p><p>water deprivation at high and low ambient temperatures. Anim. Welfare 1, 45–56.</p><p>Pedernera-Romano, C., Ruiz De La Torre, J.L., Badiella, L., Manteca, X., 2010. Effect of per-</p><p>phenazine enanthate on open-field test behaviour and stress-induced hyperthermia in do-</p><p>mestic sheep. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 94, 329–332.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0535</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0535</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0540</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0540</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0545</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0545</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0545</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0550</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0550</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0550</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0555</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0555</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0555</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0560</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0560</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0560</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0565</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0565</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0565</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0570</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0570</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0575</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0575</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0580</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0580</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0585</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0585</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0590</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0590</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0590</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0595</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0595</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0595</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0595</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0595</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0595</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0595</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0595</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0600</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0600</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0600</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0600</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0605</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0605</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0610</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0610</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0615</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0615</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0615</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 101</p><p>Pedernera-Romano, C., Ruiz De La Torre, J.L., Badiella, L., Manteca, X., 2011. Associations</p><p>between open-field behaviour and stress-induced hyperthermia in two breeds of sheep.</p><p>Anim. Welfare 20, 339–346.</p><p>Perentos, N., Martins, A.Q., Cumming, R.J.M., Mitchell, N.L., Palmer, D.N., Sawiak, S.J.,</p><p>Morton, A.J., 2016. An EEG investigation of sleep homeostasis in healthy and CLN5 bat-</p><p>ten disease affected sheep. J. Neurosci. 36, 8238–8249.</p><p>Perentos, N., Nicol, A.U., Martins, A.Q., Stewart, J.E., Taylor, P., Morton, A.J., 2017. Tech-</p><p>niques for chronic monitoring of brain activity in freely moving sheep using wireless,</p><p>longitudinal EEG recording. J. Neurosci. Methods 279, 87–100.</p><p>Pérez de Diego, A.C., Sánchez-Cordón, P.J., Pedrera, M., Martínez-López, B., Gómez-Villa-</p><p>mandos, J.C., Sánchez-Vizcaíno, J.M., 2013. The use of infrared thermography as a non-</p><p>invasive method for fever detection in sheep infected with bluetongue virus. Vet. J. 198,</p><p>182–186.</p><p>Phan, K.L., Wager, T., Taylor, S.F., Liberzon, I., 2002. Functional neuroanatomy of emotion: a</p><p>meta-analysis of emotion activation studies in PET and fMRI. Neuroimage 16, 331–348.</p><p>Plichta, M.M., Herrmann, M.J., Baehne, C.G., Ehlis, A.C., Richter, M.M., Pauli, P., Fallgatter,</p><p>A.J., 2006. Event-related functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS): are the measure-</p><p>ments reliable? Neuroimage 31, 116–124.</p><p>Pluym, L.M., Maes, D., Vangeyte, J., Mertens, K., Baert, J., Van Weyenberg, S., Millet, S.,</p><p>Van Nuffel, A., 2013. Development of a system for automatic measurements of force and</p><p>visual stance variables for objective lameness detection in sows: SowSIS. Biosyst. Eng.</p><p>116, 64–74.</p><p>Purohit, R.C., McCoy, M.D., 1980. Thermography in the diagnosis of inflammatory processes</p><p>in the horse. Am. J. Vet. Res. 41, 1167–1174.</p><p>Qiu, X., Ledger, J., Zheng, C., Martin, G.B., Blache, D., 2016. Associations between tempera-</p><p>ment and gene polymorphisms in the brain dopaminergic system and the adrenal gland of</p><p>sheep. Physiol. Behav. 153, 19–27.</p><p>Ralph, C.R., Tilbrook, A.J., 2016. The usefulness of measuring glucocorticoids for assessing</p><p>animal welfare. J. Anim. Sci. 94, 457–470.</p><p>Reefmann, N., Bütikofer Kaszàs, F., Wechsler, B., Gygax, L., 2009a. Physiological expression</p><p>of emotional reactions in sheep. Physiol. Behav. 98, 235–241.</p><p>Reefmann, N., Wechsler, B., Gygax, L., 2009b. Behavioural and physiological assessment of</p><p>positive and negative emotion in sheep. Anim. Behav. 78, 651–659.</p><p>Renbourn, E.T., 1960. Body temperature and pulse rate in boys and young men prior to sporting</p><p>contests. A study of emotional hyperthermia: with a review of the literature. J. Psychosom.</p><p>Res. 4, 149–175.</p><p>Rietema, S.E., Blackberry, M.A., Maloney, S.K., Martin, G.B., Hawken, P.a.R., Blache, D.,</p><p>2015. Twenty four-hour profiles of metabolic and stress hormones in sheep selected for a</p><p>calm or nervous temperament. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 53, 78–87.</p><p>Roche, J.F., Blache, D., Kay, J.K., Miller, D.R., Sheahan, A.J., Miller, D.W., 2008. Neuroen-</p><p>docrine and physiological regulation of intake with particular reference to domesticated</p><p>ruminant animals. Nutr. Res. Rev. 21, 207–234.</p><p>Romero, L.M., 2012. Using the reactive scope model to understand why stress physiology pre-</p><p>dicts survival during starvation in galápagos marine iguanas. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 176,</p><p>296–299.</p><p>Romero, L.M., Dickens, M.J., Cyr, N.E., 2009. The reactive scope model—a new model inte-</p><p>grating homeostasis, allostasis, and stress. Horm. Behav. 55, 375–389.</p><p>Samson, N., Dumont, S., Specq, M.-L., Praud, J.-P., 2011. Radio telemetry devices to monitor</p><p>breathing in non-sedated animals. Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol. 179, 111–118.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0620</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0620</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0620</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0625</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0625</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0625</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0630</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0630</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0630</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0635</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0635</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0635</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0635</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0640</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0640</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0645</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0645</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0645</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0650</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0650</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0650</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0650</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0655</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0655</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0660</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0660</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0660</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0665</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0665</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0670</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0670</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0675</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0675</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0680</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0680</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0680</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0685</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0685</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0685</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0690</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0690</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0690</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0695</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0695</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0695</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0700</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0700</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0705</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0705</p><p>102 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Sánchez-Barrera, I.C., Albarracin, W., Rojas, M.J., 2014. Electroencephalographic spectrum</p><p>power of sheep’s brain after stunning. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 42, 73–76.</p><p>Sanger, M.E., Doyle, R.E., Hinch, G.N., Lee, C., 2011. Sheep exhibit a positive judgement</p><p>bias and stress-induced hyperthermia following shearing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 131,</p><p>94–103.</p><p>Santurtun, E., Moreau, V., Phillips, C.J.C., 2014. A novel method to measure the impact of sea</p><p>transport motion on sheep welfare. Biosyst. Eng. 118, 128–137.</p><p>Sapolsky, R.M., Romero, L.M., Munck, A.U., 2000. How do glucocorticoids influence stress</p><p>responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions. En-</p><p>docr. Rev. 21, 55–89.</p><p>Sasaki, Y., Oshiro, S., Miura, M., Tsuda, T., 1973. Effect of heat exposure on urinary excretion</p><p>of noradrenaline and adrenaline in sheep. Nihon Chikusan Gakkaiho 44, 248–257.</p><p>Schroeter, M.L., Bücheler, M.M., Müller, K., Uludag, K.M., Obrig, H., Lohmann, G., Titt-</p><p>gemeyer, M., Villringer, A., Von Cramon, D.Y., 2004. Towards a standard analysis for</p><p>functional near-infrared imaging. Neuroimage 21, 283–290.</p><p>Scott, S.L., Schaefer, A.L., Tong, A.K.W., Lacasse, P., 2000. Use of infrared thermography for</p><p>early detection of mastitis in dairy cows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 80, 764.</p><p>Selye, H., 1936. A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature 138, 32.</p><p>Stewart, M., Webster, J.R., Schaefer, A.L., Cook, N.J., Scott, S.L., 2005. Infrared thermography</p><p>as a non-invasive tool to study animal welfare. Anim. Welfare 14, 319–325.</p><p>Stubsjøen, S.M., Bohlin, J., Dahl, E., Knappe-Poindecker, M., Fjeldaas, T., Lepschy, M., Palme,</p><p>R., Langbein, J., Ropstad, E., 2015a. Assessment of chronic stress in sheep (Part i): the use</p><p>of cortisol and cortisone in hair as non-invasive biological markers. Small Rumin. Res.</p><p>132, 25–31.</p><p>Stubsjøen, S.M., Bohlin, J., Skjerve, E., Valle, P.S., Zanella, A.J., 2010. Applying fractal analy-</p><p>sis to heart rate time series of sheep experiencing pain. Physiol. Behav. 101, 74–80.</p><p>Stubsjøen, S.M., Flø, A.S., Moe, R.O., Janczak, A.M., Skjerve, E., Valle, P.S., Zanella, A.J., 2009.</p><p>Exploring non-invasive methods to assess pain in sheep. Physiol. Behav. 98, 640–648.</p><p>Stubsjøen, S.M., Knappe-Poindecker, M., Langbein, J., Fjeldaas, T., Bohlin, J., 2015b. Assess-</p><p>ment of chronic stress in sheep (Part ii): exploring heart rate variability as a non-invasive</p><p>measure to evaluate cardiac regulation. Small Rumin. Res. 133, 30–35.</p><p>Swaab, D.F., Swaab, D.F., 1991. Brain aging and alzheimer’s disease, “wear and tear” versus</p><p>“use it or lose it”. Neurobiol. Aging 12, 317–324.</p><p>Tallet, C., Veissier, I., Boivin, X., 2006. Does the use of a device to measure heart rate affect the</p><p>behavioural responses of lambs to humans? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 99, 106–117.</p><p>Talukder, S., Gabai, G., Celi, P., 2015. The use of digital infrared thermography and measure-</p><p>ment of oxidative stress biomarkers as tools to diagnose foot lesions in sheep. Small Ru-</p><p>min. Res. 127, 80–85.</p><p>Tan, J.-H., Ng, E.Y.K., Rajendra Acharya, U., Chee, C., 2009. Infrared thermography on ocular</p><p>surface temperature: a review. Infrared Phys. Technol. 52, 97–108.</p><p>Ternman, E., Hänninen, L., Pastell, M., Agenäs, S., Nielsen, P.P., 2012. Sleep in dairy cows</p><p>recorded with a non-invasive EEG technique. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 140, 25–32.</p><p>Thompson, J.R., Christopherson, R.J., Hammond, V.A., Hills, G.A., 1978. Effects of acute cold</p><p>exposure on plasma concentrations of noradrenaline and adrenaline in sheep. Can. J. Anim.</p><p>Sci. 58, 23–28.</p><p>Tielbeek, J.J. Al-Itejawi, Z. Zijlmans, J. Polderman, T.J.C. Buckholtz, J.W., Popma, A., 2016.</p><p>The impact of chronic stress during adolescence on the development of aggressive be-</p><p>havior: a systematic review on the role of the dopaminergic system in rodents. Neurosci.</p><p>Biobehav. Rev. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.10.009</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0710</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0710</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0715</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0715</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0715</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0720</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0720</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0725</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0725</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0725</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0730</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0730</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0735</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0735</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0735</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0740</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0740</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0745</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0750</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0750</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0755</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0755</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0755</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0755</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0760</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0760</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0765</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0765</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0770</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0770</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0770</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0775</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0775</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0780</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0780</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0785</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0785</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0785</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0790</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0790</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0795</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0795</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0800</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0800</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0800</p><p>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.10.009</p><p>New physiological measures of the biological cost of responding to challenges 103</p><p>Tilbrook, A.J., Rivalland, E.T.A., Turner, A.I., Lambert, G.W., Clarke, I.J., 2008. Responses</p><p>of the hypothalamopituitary adrenal axis and the sympathoadrenal system to isolation/</p><p>restraint stress in sheep of different adiposity. Neuroendocrinology 87, 193–205.</p><p>Turner, A.I., Keating, C.L., Tilbrook, A.J., 2012. Sex differences and the role of sex steroids in</p><p>sympatho-adrenal medullary system and hypothalamo-pituitary adrenal axis responses to</p><p>stress. In: Kahn, S.M. (Ed.), Sex Steroids. InTech Publisher, Rijeka, Croatia.</p><p>Turner, A.I., Rivalland, E.T.A., Clarke, I.J., Lambert, G.W., Morris, M.J., Tilbrook, A.J., Turner,</p><p>A.I., Rivalland, E.T.A., Clarke, I.J., Lambert, G.W., Morris, M.J., Tilbrook, A.J., 2002.</p><p>Noradrenaline, but not neuropeptide Y, is elevated in cerebrospinal fluid from the third</p><p>cerebral ventricle following audiovisual stress in gonadectomised rams and ewes. Neu-</p><p>roendocrinology 76, 373–380.</p><p>Vaessen, T., Hernaus, D., Myin-Germeys, I., Van Amelsvoort, T., 2015. The dopaminergic</p><p>response to acute stress in health and psychopathology: a systematic review. Neurosci.</p><p>Biobehav. Rev. 56, 241–251.</p><p>Van Os, S., Klaessens, J., Hopman, J., Liem, D., Van De Bor, M., 2005. Brain cell function</p><p>during hypoxemia in near-term lambs: a near-infrared spectroscopy study. Neonatology</p><p>88, 79–86.</p><p>Velarde, A., Rodriguez, P., Dalmau, A., Fuentes, C., Llonch, P., Von Holleben, K.V., Anil, M.H.,</p><p>Lambooij, J.B., Pleiter, H., Yesildere, T., Cenci-Goga, B.T., 2014. Religious slaughter:</p><p>evaluation of current practices in selected countries. Meat Sci. 96, 278–287.</p><p>Verhoeven, M.T.W., Gerritzen, M.A., Kluivers-Poodt, M., Hellebrekers, L.J., Kemp, B., 2015.</p><p>Validation of behavioural indicators used to assess unconsciousness in sheep. Res. Vet.</p><p>Sci. 101, 144–153.</p><p>Villalba, J.J., Manteca, X., Vercoe, P.E., Maloney, S.K., Blache, D., 2016. Integrating nutrition</p><p>and animal welfare in extensive systems. In: Phillips, C. (Ed.), Nutrition and the Welfare</p><p>of Farm Animals. Springer, Switzerland.</p><p>Vögeli, S., Lutz, J., Wolf, M., Wechsler, B., Gygax, L., 2014. Valence of physical stimuli, not</p><p>housing conditions, affects behaviour and frontal cortical brain activity in sheep. Behav.</p><p>Brain Res. 267, 144–155.</p><p>Vögeli, S., Wolf, M., Wechsler, B., Gygax, L., 2015. Housing conditions influence cortical and</p><p>behavioural reactions of sheep in response to videos showing social interactions of differ-</p><p>ent valence. Behav. Brain Res. 284, 69–76.</p><p>von Borell, E., Langbein, J., Despres, G., Hansen, S., Leterrier, C., Marchant-Forde, J., March-</p><p>ant-Forde, R., Minero, M., Mohr, E., Prunier, A., Valance, D., Veissier, I., 2007. Heart rate</p><p>variability as a measure of autonomic regulation of cardiac activity for assessing stress and</p><p>welfare in farm animals: a review. Physiol. Behav. 92, 293–316.</p><p>Walker, F.R., Pfingst, K., Carnevali, L., Sgoifo, A., Nalivaiko, E., 2017. In the search for</p><p>integrative biomarker of resilience to psychological stress. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.</p><p>74, 310–320.</p><p>Wang, X., Durosier, L.D., Ross, M.G., Richardson, B.S., Frasch, M.G., 2014. Online detection</p><p>of fetal acidemia during labour by testing synchronization of EEG and heart rate: a pro-</p><p>spective study in fetal sheep. PLoS One 9, e108119.</p><p>Wickham, S.L., Collins, T., Barnes, A.L., Miller, D.W., Beatty, D.T., Stockman, C., Blache, D.,</p><p>Wemelsfelder, F., Fleming, P.A., 2012. Behavioral assessment of transported sheep quali-</p><p>tative behavioral assessment of transport-naïve and transport-habituated sheep. J. Anim.</p><p>Sci. 90, 4525–4535.</p><p>Wolf, M., Wolf, U., Toronov, V., Michalos, A., Paunescu, L.A., Choi, J.H., Gratton, E., Wolf,</p><p>M., Wolf, U., Toronov, V., Michalos, A., Paunescu, L.A., Choi, J.H., Gratton, E., 2002.</p><p>Different time evolution of oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin concentration changes</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0805</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0805</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0805</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0810</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0810</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0810</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0815</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0815</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0815</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0815</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0815</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0820</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0820</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0820</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0825</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0825</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0825</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0830</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0830</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0830</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0835</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0835</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0835</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0840</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0840</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0840</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0845</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0845</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0845</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0850</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0850</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0850</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0855</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0855</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0855</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0855</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0860</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0860</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0860</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0865</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0865</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0865</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0870</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0870</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0870</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0870</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0875</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0875</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0875</p><p>104 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>in the visual and motor cortices during functional stimulation: a near-infrared spectroscopy</p><p>study. Neuroimage 16, 704–712.</p><p>Yeates, J.W., Main, D.C.J., 2008. Assessment of positive welfare: a review. Vet. J. 175, 293–300.</p><p>Yates, D.T., Ross, T.T., Hallford, D.M., Yates, L.J., Wesley, R.L., 2010. Technical note: com-</p><p>parison of salivary and serum cortisol concentrations after adrenocorticotropic hormone</p><p>challenge in ewes12. J. Anim. Sci. 88, 599–603.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0875</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0875</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0880</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0885</p><p>has been reported to be 7%–12% greater than</p><p>nonlactating animals and Penning et al. (1995) reported that when grazing a monocul-</p><p>ture of clover, lactating ewes also had slightly longer grazing times. When grazing a</p><p>mixed rye grass/clover sward, feeding behaviour differences between dry and lactating</p><p>ewes were minimal, although lactating animals appeared to eat clover at a faster rate</p><p>(Parsons et al., 1994).</p><p>Given the range of ways that sheep can adjust intake levels, it is interesting to</p><p>speculate if these mechanisms vary in links to motivation and whether, for example</p><p>provision of high density feeds with limited capacity for foraging time has conse-</p><p>quences for aspects of well-being. Again it is clear that the species is highly adapt-</p><p>able and while patterns can be described it is difficult to define what is ‘normal’.</p><p>As we consider the grazing behaviour of sheep in unconstrained conditions, the</p><p>question of impact on the animal of reduced opportunity to travel and select pre-</p><p>ferred foods comes to mind. Clearly, the species is adaptable so, are they able to</p><p>adapt to energy dense feeds that will inevitably reduce the need for long periods of</p><p>grazing? Recent studies have begun to examine such questions but in the extreme</p><p>there is good evidence that high-energy diets can lead to boredom and that lack of</p><p>fibre can result in the development of stereotypies such as wool biting (Fraser and</p><p>Broom, 1990; Vasseur et al., 2006).</p><p>Highly selective in food choices</p><p>Sheep have a cleft upper lip, which allows the animals to graze close to the ground</p><p>and also appears to allow greater selectivity of the plant species on offer. The lips and</p><p>lower incisor teeth are the principal prehensile structures of this species with the for-</p><p>age bitten through by the lower incisors pressing on the upper dental pad. It is interest-</p><p>ing to consider how important the capacity for selection is to the sheep. Certainly, it</p><p>facilitates the intake of better quality food, but how motivated the animal is to achieve</p><p>8 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>such a balance is still to be determined. The sheep is classified as a generalist feeder</p><p>with the ability to adapt their dietary choice according to the environment in which</p><p>they are located. A good example of this adaptability is the reports of the seaweed-</p><p>eating sheep on north Ronaldsay Island (Paterson and Coleman, 1982).</p><p>Sheep tend to forage and sample the most palatable plant species first and spatial</p><p>memory of preferential feed and water source locations is good even after one visit in a</p><p>complex and diverse paddock topography (Dumont et al., 1998; Edwards et al., 1996).</p><p>Boissy and Dumont (2002) reported that sheep foraging in patchy grasslands showed</p><p>a preference for larger patches over smaller ones and sheep were willing to expend</p><p>increased foraging costs to do so. They suggested that this grazing behaviour bias was</p><p>also influenced by animal social characteristics including social attraction and social</p><p>tolerance.</p><p>We have good evidence that the chemical properties of the plants and the associated</p><p>sensory characteristics of odour and taste are important determinants of food selected</p><p>but it seems that sheep do learn to adapt their taste preferences if they are given an</p><p>opportunity to link tastes with positive ingestive outcomes. It could be argued that</p><p>generalist feeders are extremely adaptable [e.g. sheep can adapt quickly to unfamiliar,</p><p>bitter tastes such as quinine treated hay (Jones and Forbes, 1984)], and even if not</p><p>given food choices will eat to satisfy their appetite.</p><p>In the last 2 decades, there has been considerable research focused on understand-</p><p>ing the mechanisms that determine food choice in sheep. The role of the senses and</p><p>feedback mechanisms is relevant not only to aspects of feeding and food choice but</p><p>also to many other sheep behaviours, including maternal and social behaviours. Like-</p><p>wise, our understanding of learning and memory capacity of this species and impli-</p><p>cation for welfare has been expanded, as the mechanisms of food choice have been</p><p>examined (Manteca et al., 2008; Provenza, 1996).</p><p>Scott et al. (1996) reported the impact of familiarity with the environment on the</p><p>ability of sheep to learn about feeds. They suggested that social factors might become</p><p>more important than previous food experiences/preferences if animals are in a novel</p><p>environment. However, if most sheep in the group are strangers, then memory of pre-</p><p>ferred food locations may become a major determinant of foraging location rather</p><p>than maintenance of social contact. To generalise, the decision about which patch to</p><p>move to is not only determined by food preferences but also by social and, possibly,</p><p>environmental conditions.</p><p>How important an opportunity to select foods is to the sheep is not clear but it</p><p>can be argued that this is a mechanism to protect animals in environments, where</p><p>a diverse range of potential foods need to be ‘screened’ to avoid toxins. The nor-</p><p>mal behavioural patterns facilitate learning about new food sources while at the</p><p>same time preventing negative outcomes. With intensification and housing of sheep</p><p>comes restriction of food sources, but as long as the animals have identified the</p><p>foods offered as ‘safe’ or ‘rewarding’, then animals will eat to daily requirements.</p><p>Interestingly, if sheep have a choice of foods they will always sample more than</p><p>one food but it seems unlikely that thwarted motivation to sample has any impact</p><p>on well-being.</p><p>Understanding the natural behaviour of sheep 9</p><p>Followers, fearful and gregarious</p><p>Sheep have an innate desire to be with other sheep, although the strength of this at-</p><p>traction varies with breed. Group activities are common in stable social groups such as</p><p>Merino sheep; however, decision-making may be influenced by relatedness (Ramseyer</p><p>et al., 2009) and physiological state (Rands et al., 2003). Therefore, group cohesion and</p><p>coordinated behaviour require individuals to harmonise their behaviour with that of their</p><p>neighbours (Syme and Syme, 1979) and are probably most apparent in the Australian</p><p>Merino. These behaviours influence group activities as do leader-follower behaviour.</p><p>Follower behaviours</p><p>There is clear evidence of follower patterns established in sheep flocks and Merino</p><p>sheep have been observed to demonstrate leader-following behaviour while walking,</p><p>running, grazing and bedding down together (Fig. 1.1). There appears to be no domi-</p><p>nance rank relationship with leadership (Arnold and Maller, 1974; Lynch et al., 1989;</p><p>Syme, 1981), and no consistent movement order or leadership during voluntary move-</p><p>ment (Nowak et al., 2011; Syme, 1981). Squires and Daws (1975) found that not</p><p>one sheep was consistently the leader in competitive situations, rather a leader would</p><p>emerge from a pool of animals that were consistently observed to be leaders at one</p><p>time or another. Different flock mates might emerge as leaders depending on the situ-</p><p>ation. Stolba et al. (1990) found that Merino sheep movement was typically initiated</p><p>by older sheep within the group and passive recruitment of other animals appeared to</p><p>be unintentional when an individual animal moved to a new grazing patch (Ramseyer</p><p>Figure 1.1 Following behaviour of Merino wethers.</p><p>10 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>et al., 2009). However, sheep can be trained to initiate behaviours that will influence</p><p>other members to follow. During trained leader movement trials, Taylor et al. (2011)</p><p>found that Merino ewes could be trained to successfully initiate movement of flocks,</p><p>thus influencing pasture and resource utilisation.</p><p>Following behaviours are important in determining the movement of sheep flocks;</p><p>they are now well understood and utilised in facilitating ‘low stress’ handling ap-</p><p>proaches to sheep management. Interestingly, the movement of sheep is also influ-</p><p>enced by pair associations/bonds and nearest neighbour studies indicate that there is</p><p>a great consistency in nearest neighbours within a flock (Stolba et</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0885</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00005-4/ref0885</p><p>Part Three</p><p>Current and Future Solutions</p><p>to Sheep Welfare Challenges</p><p>6. Genetic solutions 107</p><p>7. Reproductive management (including impacts of</p><p>prenatal stress on offspring development) 131</p><p>8. Nutritional management 153</p><p>9. Predation control 177</p><p>10. Managing disease risks 197</p><p>11. Husbandry procedures 211</p><p>12. Transport and pre-slaughter management 227</p><p>13. Advanced livestock management solutions 245</p><p>14. Optimised welfare for sheep in research and teaching 263</p><p>Page left intentionally blank</p><p>Advances in Sheep Welfare. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100718-1.00006-6</p><p>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p><p>Genetic solutions</p><p>Sonja Dominik*, Jennifer L. Smith*, Joanne Conington**,</p><p>Hans D. Daetwyler†,‡, Ingrid Olesen§, Kim L. Bunter¶</p><p>*CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Armidale, NSW, Australia; **SRUC, The Roslin Institute, The</p><p>University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; †Agriculture Victoria, AgriBio, Centre</p><p>for AgriBioscience, Bundoora, VIC, Australia; ‡La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia;</p><p>§Nofima, Ås, Norway; ¶University of England, Armidale, NSW, Australia</p><p>Introduction</p><p>Based on current trends, increased consumers’ perception of animal welfare in ag-</p><p>ricultural production will impact livestock systems, including meat sheep and wool</p><p>production systems. Sheep breeding programmes target the most profitable type of</p><p>animal for future production circumstances in three ways: increasing production to</p><p>increase returns, improving health to decrease cost and considering future production</p><p>and product requirements such as welfare-related traits, to retain the social licence to</p><p>operate. To integrate novel traits in existing breeding programmes, methodologies are</p><p>required to determine the economic value of these traits, which can be challenging,</p><p>especially if the trait does not have a direct value that can be derived from the current</p><p>market.</p><p>Breeding strategies are essential components of any integrated approach to future</p><p>sheep production, as breeding programmes provide long-term and potentially low</p><p>input solutions. An attractive aspect of selective breeding for improved welfare and</p><p>disease control is that the genetic gain is cumulative and permanent over successive</p><p>generations. Selective breeding in this context can also reduce reliance on manage-</p><p>ment interventions requiring chemicals and drugs, and their associated potential resi-</p><p>due issues.</p><p>Methods of different levels of complexity are used to integrate welfare-related</p><p>traits in sheep breeding programs, ranging from mass selection over selection on tra-</p><p>ditional breeding values to genomic approaches. Genomic applications can be par-</p><p>ticularly useful for difficult to measure traits, which welfare-related traits often are.</p><p>The objective of this chapter is to provide a general overview of breeding strat-</p><p>egies in relation to welfare traits in sheep, to outline the challenges of incorpo-</p><p>rating welfare-related traits in breeding programmes and to illustrate examples</p><p>where welfare issues in sheep have been successfully addressed through breeding</p><p>strategies.</p><p>6</p><p>108 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Welfare-related breeding objectives and novel trait</p><p>concepts in livestock breeding programmes</p><p>In the context of genetic improvement, breeding objectives define the direction of</p><p>breeding programmes and combine the main profit drivers to maximise profitability</p><p>(Goddard, 1998). A number of tools aid sheep breeders to make decisions on the ge-</p><p>netic merit of selection candidates to meet their breeding objective. Breeding values</p><p>provide a description of the genetic merit of an animal for a single trait. They can be</p><p>estimated on the basis of phenotype and pedigree information as estimated breeding</p><p>values or instead of pedigree, with genomic information as genomic estimated breed-</p><p>ing values. Generally, if a combination of pedigree and genomic information is used,</p><p>breeding values are referred to as genomic-enhanced breeding values. Throughout</p><p>the chapter ‘genomic breeding values’ will be used to describe any breeding value,</p><p>which incorporates genomic information. For selection of multiple traits, estimated or</p><p>genomic breeding values are weighted by their economic value and combined in a se-</p><p>lection index, which yields the genetic ranking of selected candidates for a multi-trait</p><p>breeding objective. It has been shown that strong selection for production traits will</p><p>potentially lead to unfavourable correlated responses in other functional and health</p><p>traits (Rauw et al., 1998). It is important to balance the weight given to production</p><p>traits with other traits related to health and welfare. The integration of novel traits</p><p>such as those related to welfare, into existing breeding objectives is challenging. How</p><p>are they measured? What are the genetic and phenotypic relationships with traditional</p><p>production and health traits? How is the economic value determined? These chal-</p><p>lenges for integrating welfare-related traits into breeding programmes are discussed.</p><p>Animal resilience and breeding for better animal welfare</p><p>The concept of breeding animals to be more resilient generally refers to their ability</p><p>to reproduce, grow and produce (meat, wool and milk) in the context of likely, or</p><p>‘normal’ farming practice. From a farm animal welfare point of view, having animals</p><p>that are genetically well adapted to their production environment reduces the likeli-</p><p>hood of negative health and welfare problems. Generally, the emphasis has been on</p><p>adapting the farming environment to better suit the needs of the animals, for example</p><p>by modifying housing and management practices. However, breeding animals that are</p><p>better suited to the farm environment can also help to improve animal welfare such as</p><p>breeding for resistance to disease or useful behavioural traits. Questions as to whether</p><p>we should be breeding animals to ‘cope’ with less than optimal farming environments</p><p>or if the ‘easy care farm animal’ concept promotes less rigorous animal monitoring</p><p>and individual attention are part of a separate ethical debate, and one, which is out-</p><p>side the scope of this chapter. Suffice it to say, even a ‘natural’ environment provides</p><p>challenges for animal health and welfare, selection of animals better suited to environ-</p><p>ments makes sense.</p><p>Animal resilience can mean being resistant to, and being able to overcome dis-</p><p>ease challenges, adequately recovering following periods of limited nutrition or</p><p>Genetic solutions 109</p><p>additional demands such as during lactation and/or following adverse and extreme</p><p>weather events. The terms ‘robust’, ‘resistant’ and ‘resilient’ are often used inter-</p><p>changeably in the literature, but they do in fact have different meanings (Colditz and</p><p>Hine, 2016), particularly in an animal-breeding context.</p><p>In animal breeding, a ‘robust’ animal is one that overcomes genotype by environ-</p><p>ment (GxE) interactions and is able to deliver good or high levels of production across</p><p>a range of different environments for a range of different traits such as growth, repro-</p><p>duction efficiency or disease resistance.</p><p>Furthermore, the farm environments can also be classified and the selection of</p><p>animals can be ‘tailored’ to better suit these, as defined by the ‘reaction norm’ theory</p><p>as illustrated for pigs (Knap and Su, 2008), dairy cattle (Kolmodin et al., 2002) and</p><p>more recently, for Texel sheep in the United Kingdom (McLaren et al., 2015). The</p><p>regression of sire breeding values on a continuous measure of ‘environment’ (e.g.</p><p>topography, level of average animal performance, temperature and so on) in which</p><p>records from their offspring exist, allows reaction norms to be predicted for individual</p><p>sires. In this way, the phenotype expressed by a certain genotype over a number of dif-</p><p>ferent environments is quantified, which can be particularly useful when environments</p><p>are described along a continuous</p><p>al., 1990). These</p><p>pair-links are usually attributable to ‘family’ or previous rearing experiences and while</p><p>ewes (reports not available for mature rams) seem motivated to retain these associa-</p><p>tions, it is unclear if the disruption of such nearest neighbour pairs has any impact on</p><p>affective or cognitive state of the animals.</p><p>A more specific form of association/bond that is established between ewe and</p><p>lamb/s and the development of a close bond within the first 6 h post lambing has been</p><p>well documented. This bond forms largely as a result of olfactory cues that establish</p><p>recognition of the lamb by the ewe, although ewes without a sense of smell can com-</p><p>pensate using other senses, and auditory cues appear to be vital in the maintenance</p><p>of the communication bond for the lamb (Sèbe et al., 2010). These links can remain</p><p>for at least 2.5 years (Hinch et al., 1990), and Arnold (1985) has also reported that</p><p>olfactory cues are important in-group recognition, for example when mixing groups</p><p>of different ages.</p><p>The capacity to identify other individual animals is clearly important in the social</p><p>organisation of sheep and knowledge of the sensory mechanisms that allow this rec-</p><p>ognition can be used in a variety of ways to aid in the husbandry of sheep, particularly</p><p>the facilitation of good maternal outcomes during lamb rearing. It appears that the</p><p>sheep, like many other mammalian species, are very adaptable in terms of the senses</p><p>it uses, if one is not available then another is brought into play. However, in general,</p><p>visual cues are probably the most dominant influence with olfaction used predomi-</p><p>nantly for individual recognition. Kendrick (2008) in his review reported growing evi-</p><p>dence for highly sophisticated social and emotional recognition skills in sheep linked</p><p>to shape, sound and olfaction.</p><p>Social dominance</p><p>An understanding of dominance relationships within a group of animals is vital in</p><p>terms of management and stability of flocks. Dominance can have significant influenc-</p><p>es on social interactions, frequency of aggression and potential injury in many species,</p><p>but its importance appears somewhat less in sheep because of the seasonal separation</p><p>(be it natural or husbandry determined) of ewes and rams. The separation of male and</p><p>female during most of the year [there are exceptions, e.g. bighorn rams have been</p><p>reported to stay with the flock all year in desert environments (Lenarz, 1979)] means</p><p>that there is very little competition for resources except during the mating period when</p><p>high levels of aggression between rams can cause injury. The high sexual motivation</p><p>exhibited by rams during this period can result in weight loss over extended periods of</p><p>Understanding the natural behaviour of sheep 11</p><p>time as the promiscuous mating system results in daily movement over relatively large</p><p>distances particularly when mating ratios are high. Competition between rams is, to</p><p>some degree, ‘regulated’ through postural or physical signals such as horn size, which</p><p>are known to be ‘hard wired’ in sheep (Kendrick and Baldwin, 1987).</p><p>In ewes, while dominance structures have been reported they appear to have mini-</p><p>mal impact except possibly when animals are crowded together competing for limited</p><p>resources such as in feedlots or confinement during shipping. Because of the gregari-</p><p>ous nature of sheep, crowding of ewes and young sheep is usually not an issue with</p><p>space allowances of around 2 m2 seemingly adequate to avoid chronic stress although</p><p>resource restrictions may alter competitiveness (Bøe and Andersen, 2010).</p><p>Fearful and gregarious</p><p>Sheep are known to be fearful animals and it appears that this is linked to a preda-</p><p>tion protection strategy whereby animals are fearful of unknown or predator species.</p><p>Interestingly, they also exhibit a high level of fearfulness of ‘new’, which has been il-</p><p>lustrated in relation to foods and infrastructure such as troughs and raceways. In terms</p><p>of moving flocks of sheep, fear of a predator (Beausoleil et al., 2005) is commonly</p><p>used in western societies, where dogs are used to initiate flocking behaviour and then</p><p>to force animals to move together and follow one another in a certain direction. An</p><p>alternative still used in many societies is focused on following behaviours where the</p><p>flock follows the shepherd or trained lead animal; this is arguably a less stressful ap-</p><p>proach to flock movement. However, the success of the latter approach does rely on</p><p>considerable ‘gentling’ time between human and sheep (usually from weaning) and</p><p>smaller flock sizes are common in many extensive grazing systems.</p><p>In grazing situations sheep are know to be vigilant, showing alert posture when</p><p>threatened by the ‘unknown’ (Stolba et al., 1990). Sheep can also use alarm/distress</p><p>vocalisations, but these are more commonly linked with maternal ewe-lamb separa-</p><p>tions than with general flock activity. One of the key causes for initiation of distress</p><p>vocalisations is visual isolation of sheep from other animals and it is well documented</p><p>that visual isolation is highly stressful with high levels of motivation to retain contact</p><p>with conspecifics (Barnard et al., 2015; Sibbald and Hooper, 2004). A sheep that is</p><p>challenged, be it from isolation or exposure to a ‘new and frightening object’, will ex-</p><p>hibit fear, which can be largely quelled if the animal can express its gregarious tenden-</p><p>cies by flocking together (Fig. 1.2) with other sheep and reducing nearest neighbour</p><p>distances to around 1 m, although the distance does depend on breed (Arnold, 1985).</p><p>Interestingly, some breeds may not have gregarious flocking as their default position</p><p>for a fearful response to a predator as Boyd et al. (1964) reported that Soay sheep</p><p>responded to a predator by dispersal rather than congregating.</p><p>Isolation is not an uncommon outcome of husbandry practices and some forms of</p><p>housing and as such can be highly stressful to sheep (Averós et al., 2013). Gentling</p><p>and training (usually food reward based) can reduce this stress and it is well known</p><p>that sheep can be trained to tolerate confinement with no negative behaviours being</p><p>exhibited. In a study reported by Taylor et al. (2010) the question of how long memory</p><p>of training can last was tested and when both visual and auditory cues were combined</p><p>12 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>correct T maze choices were made by 90% of sheep 130 days after initial training.</p><p>Whether sheep can generalise training cues to a variety of contexts is not well docu-</p><p>mented, although farmers in Australia would argue that sheep generalise the sound of</p><p>a vehicle to the availability of food.</p><p>Undemonstrative</p><p>It is often difficult to assess if an individual sheep is showing signs of fear or that an</p><p>animal is suffering in some way. Generally, sheep are relatively undemonstrative in</p><p>behavioural expressions that would indicate stress and/or pain. A review by Gougoulis</p><p>et al. (2010), looking at qualitative and quantitative measures related to sheep welfare,</p><p>noted that there is a need for further research to identify behavioural indicators of</p><p>distress in sheep, but highlighted that changes in locomotory activity and feeding or</p><p>social patterns are potential indicators of distress.</p><p>However, other researchers have reported that rapid changes in ear position (Reef-</p><p>mann et al., 2009) are usually a good indicator of fear most often followed by flight</p><p>although, because of the wide variation in ear anatomy of sheep breeds, this will not</p><p>be a reliable indicator in all contexts. Postural changes such as an arched back are of-</p><p>ten indicative of pain (Paull et al., 2007) and increases in lying time can also indicate</p><p>Figure 1.2 Highly gregarious with minimal space.</p><p>Understanding the natural behaviour of sheep 13</p><p>compromised well-being. Isolation from the flock (e.g. clear separation from the flock</p><p>during periods of lying, Fig. 1.3) may also indicate that an individual animal is com-</p><p>promised in some way. Phythian et al. (2012) reported that behavioural</p><p>and physical</p><p>indicators could be used as a feasible measurement tool for on-farm assessment of</p><p>sheep welfare. In addition the recent report of repeated qualitative behavioural as-</p><p>sessment of sheep flocks in the United Kingdom (Phythian et al., 2016) suggested</p><p>that there are measures, which can be used as indicators of the welfare of sheep on</p><p>farm collectively summarised as ‘mood’ (content/relaxed/thriving to distressed/dull/</p><p>dejected) or ‘responsiveness’ (anxious/agitated/responsive to relaxed/dejected/dull).</p><p>However, further work is needed to understand how variation in these measures can</p><p>be influenced by physiological state and thus whether they are reliable indicators of</p><p>compromise to individual animal’s well-being in all situations. Studies have already</p><p>illustrated the impact of chronic stress on judgement biases and learning deficits in</p><p>sheep (Destrez et al., 2013) but such changes are only identifiable with complex test-</p><p>ing procedures. It would seem that identification of compromised well-being cannot</p><p>be done using evidence of deviation from a single, ‘normal’ behaviour alone.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>So, what is the picture of sheep that you have gained from this short chapter? It is a</p><p>species that is, both physiologically and behaviourally, well capable of adapting to the</p><p>environment in which it finds itself but it is very hard to ‘read’. The characteristics</p><p>Figure 1.3 Alone? Unlikely unless she is ill!</p><p>14 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>described, if taken into account for handling and management practices, make the</p><p>outcome of interactions with humans less likely to be stressful, and it is interesting to</p><p>contemplate if this knowledge will help to direct application of new biological knowl-</p><p>edge to improve the well-being of sheep into the future.</p><p>As our understanding of brain plasticity and sensitive periods in young animals</p><p>develops, it may well be that the more challenging aspects of sheep behaviour such as</p><p>fearfulness can be modulated through early life interventions. This has recently been</p><p>illustrated in layer hens in our lab (Campbell et al., 2017) but to the author’s knowledge</p><p>has yet to be shown to be possible in sheep. Such outcomes might also be possible</p><p>through genetic approaches. The recent review of Rodenburg (2014) provides insights</p><p>into the potential role that genes and their interaction with environment play in behav-</p><p>ioural development and fearfulness in particular. Clearly, there is a possibility that at</p><p>least some of the natural behaviours of sheep can, in the future, be modified in ways</p><p>that will increase the likelihood of lowered stress levels, improvements in affective</p><p>state and possibly more consistent positive welfare outcomes for individual animals.</p><p>References</p><p>Arnold, G.W., 1985. Association and social behaviour. In: Fraser, A.F. (Ed.), Ethology of Farm</p><p>Animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 79–104.</p><p>Arnold, G.W., Dudzinski, M.L., 1978. Ethology of Free Ranging Domestic Animals. Elsevier,</p><p>Amsterdam.</p><p>Arnold, G.W., Maller, R.A., 1974. Some aspects of the social competition between sheep for</p><p>supplementary feed. Anim. Prod. 19, 309–319.</p><p>Averós, X., de Heredia, I.B., Ruiz, R., Arranz, J., Estevez, I., Gonzáleza, M., 2013. The effect</p><p>of social buffering on fear responses in sheep (Ovis aries). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 149,</p><p>13–20.</p><p>Barnard, S., Matthews, L.R., Messori, S., Podaliri Vulpiani, M., Ferri, N., 2015. Behavioural</p><p>reactivity of ewes and lambs during partial and total social isolation. Appl. Anim. Behav.</p><p>Sci. 163, 89–97.</p><p>Beausoleil, N.J., Stafford, K.J., Mellor, D.J., 2005. Sheep show more aversion to a dog than to</p><p>a human in an arena test. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 91, 219–232.</p><p>Bøe, K.E., Andersen, I.L., 2010. Competition, activity budget and feed intake of ewes when</p><p>reducing the feeding space. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 125, 109–114.</p><p>Boissy, A., Dumont, B., 2002. Interactions between social and feeding motivations on the graz-</p><p>ing behaviour of herbivores: sheep more easily split into subgroups with familiar peers.</p><p>Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 79, 233–245.</p><p>Bown, J.E., 1971. Sheep behaviour under unherded conditions on mountain summer ranges.</p><p>J. Range Manage. 24, 105–109.</p><p>Boyd, J.M., Doney, J.M., Gunn, R.G., Jewell, P.A., 1964. The Soay sheep of the island of Hirta,</p><p>St Kilda: a feral population. Proc Zool. Soc. 142, 129–163.</p><p>Campbell, D.L.M., Hinch, G.N., Downing, J.A., Lee, C., 2017. Early enrichment in free-range</p><p>laying hens: effects on welfare and response to stressors. Animal.</p><p>Destrez, A., Deiss, V., Lévy, F., Calandreau, L., Lee, C., Chaillou-Sagon, E., Boissy, A., 2013.</p><p>Chronic stress induces pessimistic-like judgment and learning deficits in sheep. Appl.</p><p>Anim. Behav. Sci. 148, 28–36.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0010</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0015</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0020</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0025</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0030</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0035</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0040</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0045</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0050</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0055</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0060</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0065</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0065</p><p>Understanding the natural behaviour of sheep 15</p><p>Doughty, A.K., Ferguson, D., Matthews, L.R., Hinch, G.N., 2016. Assessing feeding motivation</p><p>in sheep using different behavioural demand models and measures. Appl. Anim. Behav.</p><p>Sci. 180, 43–50.</p><p>Dudzinski, M.L., Arnold, G.W., 1979. Factors influencing the grazing behaviour of sheep in a</p><p>Mediterranean climate. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 5, 125–144.</p><p>Dudzinski, M.L., Pahl, P.J., Arnold, G.W., 1969. Qualitative assessment of grazing behaviour of</p><p>sheep in arid areas. J. Range Manage. 22, 230–235.</p><p>Dumont, B., Dutronc, A., Petit, M., 1998. How readily will sheep walk for a preferred forage?</p><p>J. Anim. Sci. 76, 965–971.</p><p>Edwards, G.R., Newman, J.A., Parsons, A.J., Krebs, J.R., 1996. The use of spatial memory by</p><p>grazing animals to locate food patches in a spatially heterogenous environment: an exam-</p><p>ple with sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 50, 147–160.</p><p>ElAich, A., El Asraoui, M., Rittenhouse, L.R., 1991. Effect of travelling to water on temporal</p><p>behaviour and ingestion of herded sheep in Morocco. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 31, 251–257.</p><p>El Aich, A., Rittenhouse, L.R., 1988. Use of habitats by free grazing sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav.</p><p>Sci. 21, 223–231.</p><p>Fisher, A., Roberts, N., Matthews, L., Hinch, G., 2008. Does a sheep’s motivation to avoid hot</p><p>conditions correspond to the physiological cost of remaining in those conditions? In:ISAE</p><p>42nd Conference, August, Dublin Ireland, p. 45.</p><p>Forbes, J.M., 1995. Voluntary Food Intake and Diet Selection in Farm Animals. CAB Interna-</p><p>tional, Wallingford,</p><p>Oxfordshire, 532p.</p><p>Fraser, A.F., 1985. Ethology of Farm Animals. Elsevier, Oxford.</p><p>Fraser, A.F., Broom, D.M., 1990. Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Balliere Tindall,</p><p>London.</p><p>Gougoulis, D.A., Kyriazakis, I., Fthenakis, G.C., 2010. Diagnostic significance of behaviour</p><p>changes of sheep: a selected review. Small Rumin. Res. 92, 52–56.</p><p>Grubb, P., Jewell, P.A., 1974. Movement, daily activity and home range of Soay sheep. In:</p><p>Jewell, P.A., Milner, C., Morton Boyd, J. (Eds.), Island Survivors: The Ecology of the Soay</p><p>Sheep of St. Kilda. Athlone Press, London.</p><p>Hafez, E.S.E. (Ed.), 1975. The Behaviour of Domestic Animals. Bailliere, Tindall & Cox,</p><p>London.</p><p>Hinch, G.N., Lynch, J.J., Elwin, R.L., Green, G.C., 1990. Long term associations between</p><p>Merino ewes and their offspring. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 27, 93–103.</p><p>Hunter, R.F., Milne, C., 1963. The behaviour of individual, related groups of South Cheviot Hill</p><p>sheep. Anim. Behav. 11, 507–513.</p><p>James, C.D., Landsberg, J., Morton, S.R., 1999. Provision of watering points in the Australian</p><p>arid zone: a review of effects on biota. J. Arid Environ. 41, 87–121.</p><p>Jones, R., Forbes, J.M., 1984. A note on the effects of glyphosate and quinine on the palatability</p><p>of hay for sheep. Anim. Prod. 38, 301–303.</p><p>Kendrick, K.M., 2008. Sheep senses, social cognition and capacity for consciousness. In: Dwyer,</p><p>C. (Ed.), The Welfare of Sheep. Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 135–157, (Chapter 4).</p><p>Kendrick, K.M., Baldwin, B.A., 1987. Cells in the temporal cortex of conscious sheep can</p><p>respond preferentially to the sight of faces. Science 236, 448–450.</p><p>Lawrence, A.B., Wood-Gush, D.G.M., 1988. Home range behaviour and social organisation of</p><p>Scottish Blackface sheep. J. Appl. Ecol. 25, 25–40.</p><p>Lenarz, M.S., 1979. Social structures and reproductive strategy in desert bighorn sheep (Ovis</p><p>canadensis mexicanan). J. Mammol. 60, 671–677.</p><p>Lynch, J.J., Alexander, G., 1977. Sheltering behaviour of lambing Merino sheep in relation to</p><p>grass hedges and artificial windbreaks. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 28, 691–701.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0070</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0075</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0075</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0080</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0085</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0085</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0090</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0095</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0100</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0105</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0105</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0110</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0115</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0120</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0125</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0130</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0135</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0140</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0145</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0150</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0155</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0160</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0165</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0170</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0175</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0175</p><p>16 Advances in Sheep Welfare</p><p>Lynch, J.J., Hinch, G.N., Adams, D.B., 1992. The Behaviour of Sheep: Biological Principles</p><p>and Implications for Production. CAB. International, Wallingford.</p><p>Lynch, J.J., Hinch, G.N., Bouissou, M.F., Elwin, R.L., Green, G.C., Davies, H.I., 1989. Social</p><p>organization in young Merino and Merino x Border Leicester ewes. Appl. Anim. Behav.</p><p>Sci. 22, 49–64.</p><p>Lynch, J.J., Mottershead, B.E., Alexander, G., 1980. Sheltering behaviour and lamb mortality</p><p>amongst shorn Merino ewes lambing in paddocks with a restricted area of shelter or no</p><p>shelter. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 6, 163–174.</p><p>Manteca, X., Villalba, J.J., Atwood, S.B., Dziba, L., Provenza, F.D., 2008. Is dietary choice</p><p>important to animal welfare? J. Vet. Behav. 3, 229–239.</p><p>McDaniel, K.C., Tiedman, J.A., 1981. Sheep use of mountain winter range in New Mexico.</p><p>J. Range Manage. 34, 102–105.</p><p>Meuret, M., Provenza, F. (Eds.), 2014. The Art & Science of Shepherding: Tapping the Wisdom</p><p>of French Herders. Acres USA, Austin Texas, pp. 431.</p><p>Muller, W.T., Low, W.A., Lenden, C., Dudzinski, M.L., 1976. Variation in grazing patterns of</p><p>free range cattle in a semi-arid area. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 11, 461–464.</p><p>Nowak, R., Keller, M., Levy, F., 2011. Mother–young relationships in sheep: a model for a</p><p>multidisciplinary approach of the study of attachment in mammals. J. Neuroendocrinol.</p><p>23, 1042–1053.</p><p>Parsons, A.J., Newman, J.A., Penning, P.D., Harvey, A., Orr, R.J., 1994. Diet preference of</p><p>sheep: effect of recent diet, physiological state and species abundance. J. Anim. Ecol. 63,</p><p>465–478.</p><p>Paterson, I.W., Coleman, C.D., 1982. Activity patterns of seaweed-eating sheep on North</p><p>Ronaldsay Island, Orkney. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 8, 137–146.</p><p>Paull, D.R., Lee, C., Atkinson, S.J., Colditz, I.G., Fisher, A.D., 2007. The effect of a topical</p><p>anaesthetic formulation, systemic flunixin and carprofen, singly or in combination, on</p><p>cortisol and behavioural responses of Merino lambs to mulesing. Aust. Vet. J. 85, 98–106.</p><p>Penning, P.D., Parsons, A.J., Orr, R.J., Harvey, A., Champion, R.A., 1995. Intake and behav-</p><p>ioural response by sheep in different physiological states, when grazing monocultures of</p><p>grass or white clover. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 45, 63–78.</p><p>Phythian, C.J., Cripps, P.J., Michalopoulou, E., Jones, P.H., Grove-White, D., Clarkson, M.J.,</p><p>Winter, A.C., Stubbings, L.A., Duncan, J.S., 2012. Reliability of indicators of sheep wel-</p><p>fare assessed by a group observation method. Vet. J. 193, 257–263.</p><p>Phythian, C.J., Michalopoulou, E., Cripps, P.J., Duncan, J.S., Wemelsfelder, F., 2016. On-farm</p><p>qualitative behaviour assessment in sheep: repeated measurements across time, and as-</p><p>sociation with physical indicators of flock health and welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.</p><p>175, 23–31.</p><p>Provenza, F.D., 1996. Acquired aversions as the basis for varied diets of ruminants foraging on</p><p>rangelands. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 2010–2020.</p><p>Ramseyer, A., Boissy, A., Dumont, B., Thierry, B., 2009. Decision making in group departures</p><p>of sheep is a continuous process. Anim. Behav. 78, 71–78.</p><p>Rands, S.A., Cowlishaw, G., Pettifor, R.A., Rowcliffe, J.M., Johnstone, R.A., 2003. Spontane-</p><p>ous emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs. Nature 433, 432–434.</p><p>Rebanks, J., 2015. The Shepherd’s Life: A tale of the Lake District. Penguin Books, London,</p><p>UK, 292pp.</p><p>Reefmann, N., Kasza, ‘F.B., Wechsler, B., Gygax, L., 2009. Ear and tail postures as indicators</p><p>of emotional valence in sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 118, 199–207.</p><p>Rodenburg, T.B., 2014. The role of genes, epigenetics and ontogeny in behavioural develop-</p><p>ment. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 157, 8–13.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0180</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0185</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0190</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0195</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0200</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0205</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0210</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0210</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0215</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0215</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0215</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0220</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0225</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0225</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0230</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0230</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0230</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0235</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0235</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0235</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0240</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0245</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0250</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0250</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0255</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0255</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0260</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0260</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0265</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0265</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0270</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0270</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0275</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0275</p><p>Understanding the natural behaviour of sheep 17</p><p>Scott, C.B., Banner, R.E., Provenza, F.D., 1996. Observations of sheep foraging in familiar and</p><p>unfamiliar environments: familiarity with the environment influences diet selection. Appl.</p><p>Anim. Behav. Sci. 49, 165–171.</p><p>Sèbe, F., Duboscq, J., Aubin, T., Ligout, S., Poindron, P., 2010. Early vocal recognition of</p><p>mother by lambs: contribution of low- and high-frequency vocalizations. Anim. Behav.</p><p>79, 1055–1066.</p><p>Sibbald, A.M., Hooper, R.J., 2004. Sociability and the willingness of individual sheep to move</p><p>away from their companions in order to graze. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 86, 51–62.</p><p>Squires, V.R., Daws, G.T., 1975. Leadership and dominance in Merino and Border-Leicester</p><p>sheep. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1, 263–274.</p><p>Stolba, A., Hinch, G.N., Lynch, J.J., Adams, D.B., Munro, R.K., Davies, H.I., 1990. Social</p><p>organization of Merino sheep of different ages, sex and family structure. Appl. Anim.</p><p>Behav. Sci. 27, 337–349.</p><p>Syme, L.A., 1981. Social disruption and forced movement orders in sheep. Anim. Behav. 29,</p><p>283–288.</p><p>Syme, G.J., Syme, L.A., 1979. Social Structure in Farm Animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam.</p><p>Taylor, D.B., Brown, W.Y., Price, I.R., Hinch, G.N., 2010. Training Merino sheep to respond to</p><p>visual and auditory cues. Anim. Prod. Sci. 50, 541–545.</p><p>Taylor, J.A., Hedges, D.A., 1984. Some characteristics of the trees used by sheep for diurnal</p><p>camping and different between shade and nocturnal camps in a paddock on Northern Ta-</p><p>blelands of NSW. Aust. Rangelands J. 6, 3–9.</p><p>Taylor, D.B., Schneider, D.A., Brown, W.Y., Price, I.R., Trotter, M.G., Lamb, D.W., Hinch,</p><p>G.N., 2011. GPS observations of shelter utilization by Merino ewes. Anim. Prod. Sci. 51,</p><p>724–737.</p><p>Vasseur, S., Paull, D.R., Atkinson, S.J., Colditz, I.G., Fisher, A.D., 2006. Effects of dietary fibre</p><p>and feeding frequency on wool biting and aggressive behaviours in housed Merino sheep.</p><p>Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46, 777–782.</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0280</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0280</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0280</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0285</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0285</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0285</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0290</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0295</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0295</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0300</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0305</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0310</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0315</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0315</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0320</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0320</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0320</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0325</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0325</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0325</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0330</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0330</p><p>http://refhub.elsevier.com/B978-0-08-100718-1.00001-7/ref0330</p><p>Page left intentionally blank</p><p>Advances in Sheep Welfare. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100718-1.00002-9</p><p>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p><p>Overview of sheep</p><p>production systems</p><p>Stephen T. Morris</p><p>International Sheep Research Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand</p><p>International perspectives in sheep production:</p><p>differences in systems and welfare risks</p><p>World sheep numbers and production</p><p>There are an estimated 1000 million sheep in the world (Morris, 2009). The major</p><p>sheep farming areas are located within the latitudes 35–55 degree north in Europe</p><p>and Asia and between 30 and 45 degree south in South America, Australia and New</p><p>Zealand (Zygoyiannis, 2006). These are the world temperate zone areas reflecting</p><p>temperate</p>
- Salmonela: Prevenção e Controle
- Reutilização de Cama de Aviários
- Avicultura: Técnico em Agropecuária
- Atividade avicultura de corte
- jose
- Aula 01 - Aves e Suinos
- Quest-es COM GABARITO - Avilcultura 2024
- PRODUCAO E SANIDADE DE AVES E SUINOS pdf
- Vírus da doença de Newcastle em aves não vacinadas no Estado do RJ
- AULA 2 MANEJO FRANGO DE CORTE
- Avicultura: Técnico em Agropecuária
- Produção de Galinhas Caipiras
- Avicultura-Sistema-de-producao-de-galinhas-caipiras
- difeencie A)Aviário Convencional: B)Aviário Dark House: C)Aviário Pressão Negativa:
- 2)A debicagem é uma prática comum na avicultura de postura. Explique o que é a debicagem e qual é a sua função
- 3- A qualidade dos ovos férteis e dos pintinhos recém nascidos é essencial para garantir o sucesso na produção avícola. Para isso, realçada a seleç...
- 2-A suplementação de cálcio é fundamental para as aves de postura, pois o calcio ée o principal mineral envolvido na formação da casca do ovo. Cerc...
- Diferencie os três tipos de aviários? Aviários convencional, aviário dark house e aviário pressão negativa.
- Sobre a produção de carne de frango, Considere as afirmativas a seguir.I - O integrado é associado a empresa integradora por meio de um contrato,...
- Sobre a criação de Aves, Considere as afirmativas a seguir.I - A ventilação contribui para aumentar as trocas térmicas por radiação,conduzindo a...
- Sobre a criação de Aves, Considere as afirmativas a seguir.I - A orientação do galpão deve seguir o eixo Leste-Oeste a fim de reduzir a intensida...
- Sobre a criação de Aves, Considere as afirmativas a seguir.I - As aves separadas para a produção de carne são escolhidas principalmente pelo temp...
- Qual esta correta O papo corresponde a uma dilatação do intestino e serve para armazenar o alimento coletado, ocorrendo alguma fermentação e embebi...
- Comparada à capacidade dos CLP, a capacidade dos sistemas de relé e corivencionais convencionais para para operações complexas é: QL A Bem menor B ...
- Para responder à sua pergunta sobre a Doença de Newcastle (DN), vamos analisar cada afirmativa: 1. **A forma Beaudette é considerada a mais patogê...
- Considerando os equipamentos utilizados para avicultura, assinale a alternativa que apresente os aqueles relacionados diretamente ao controle e a m...
- Aula 3 Rafael Resumo 24 02
- Análise do nível, padrão e determinantes dos fluxos populacionais entre Bahia e São Paulo
Perguntas dessa disciplina
Grátis
The text mentions obstacles to raising kangaroos for meat. Which of the statements below is NOT in the text?a) Kangaroos have to be hunted and kil...
Grátis
4. O trecho “By making room for reports of single experiments or minor technical advances, journals increased the chaos of science” pode ser reescr...
11) De acordo com o estudo do plural dos substantivos, marque a seqüência correta das palavras a seguir: foot, sheep, dish, potato. a) foots, she...
Ao lado da grafia da palavra indexada, os dicionários de Língua Inglesa costumam trazer uma transcrição da forma como a palavra deve ser pronunciad...
Ao lado da grafia da palavra indexada, os dicionários de Língua Inglesa costumam trazer uma transcrição da forma como a palavra deve ser pronunciad...