E-Mail Alert

Add your e-mail address to receive forthcoming issues of this journal:

Journal Browser

Journal Browser

Special Issue "Feature Papers"

Quicklinks

A special issue of Animals (ISSN 2076-2615).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 December 2014)

Special Issue Editor

Guest Editor
Prof. Dr. Clive J. C. Phillips (Website)

Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton Campus, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia
Interests: animal welfare; animal ethics; captive animal management; heavy metals in animals

Special Issue Information

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Animals is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 600 CHF (Swiss Francs). English correction and/or formatting fees will be charged in certain cases for those articles accepted for publication that require extensive additional formatting and/or English corrections. For further details see here.

Published Papers (4 papers)

View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-4
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

Open AccessArticle Inclusion of Oat in Feeding Can Increase the Potential Probiotic Bifidobacteria in Sow Milk
Animals 2015, 5(3), 610-623; doi:10.3390/ani5030375
Received: 17 February 2015 / Revised: 25 June 2015 / Accepted: 15 July 2015 / Published: 22 July 2015
PDF Full-text (927 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to (i) investigate the impact of feeding oat on the population of bifidobacteria and (ii) evaluate their probiotic potential. In this study, we investigated the effects of supplementing sows’ gestation and lactation feed with 15% oat [...] Read more.
The objectives of this study were to (i) investigate the impact of feeding oat on the population of bifidobacteria and (ii) evaluate their probiotic potential. In this study, we investigated the effects of supplementing sows’ gestation and lactation feed with 15% oat (prebiotic source) on the levels of probiotic population in milk. We found that dietary inclusion of oat during lactation and gestation resulted in increased levels of bifidobacteria compared to lactobacilli in sow milk. Furthermore bifidobacteria within the sow milk samples were further evaluated for probiotic potential based on aggregating properties, and acid- and bile-tolerance after exposure to hydrochloric acid (pH 2.5) and bile salts (0%, 0.25%, 0.50%, 1.0% and 2.0%). All isolates survived under the condition of low pH and bile 2.0%. Autoaggregation ability ranged from 17.5% to 73%. These isolates also showed antimicrobial activity against E. coli O157:H7.Together our results suggest that inclusion of oat in feeding systems could have the potential to improve the intestinal health of piglets by increasing the population of bifidobacteria. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers)
Open AccessArticle Semi-Ownership and Sterilisation of Cats and Dogs in Thailand
Animals 2012, 2(4), 611-627; doi:10.3390/ani2040611
Received: 13 September 2012 / Revised: 24 October 2012 / Accepted: 25 October 2012 / Published: 6 November 2012
Cited by 7 | PDF Full-text (201 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of cat and dog semi-ownership in Thailand and factors that predict sterilisation. Semi-ownership was defined as interacting/caring for a companion animal that the respondent does not own, such as a stray cat [...] Read more.
The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of cat and dog semi-ownership in Thailand and factors that predict sterilisation. Semi-ownership was defined as interacting/caring for a companion animal that the respondent does not own, such as a stray cat or dog. A randomised telephone survey recruited 494 Thai nationals residing in Thailand. The findings revealed that 14% of respondents (n = 71) engaged in dog semi-ownership and only 17% of these dogs had been sterilised. Similarly, 11% of respondents (n = 55) engaged in cat semi-ownership and only 7% were known to be sterilised. Using Hierarchical Multiple Regression, the findings showed that 62% and 75% of the variance in intentions to sterilise semi-owned dogs and cats, respectively, was predicted by religious beliefs, and psychosocial factors such as attitudes, perceived pressure from others, and perceived behavioural control. Community awareness campaigns that approach the issue of sterilisation in a way that is consistent with cultural and religious traditions using Thai role models, such as veterinarians, may go some way in reducing stray animal population growth. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers)
Open AccessArticle Prevalence and Incidence of Abnormal Behaviours in Individually Housed Sheep
Animals 2012, 2(1), 27-37; doi:10.3390/ani2010027
Received: 18 January 2012 / Revised: 31 January 2012 / Accepted: 1 February 2012 / Published: 6 February 2012
Cited by 2 | PDF Full-text (297 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This study examined the prevalence and incidence of abnormal behaviour in sheep housed individually indoors. Ninety-six castrated Merino sheep were observed using 15-min instantaneous sampling between 08:15 and 18:15 h for two consecutive days over a 3-week period. Sheep on average spent [...] Read more.
This study examined the prevalence and incidence of abnormal behaviour in sheep housed individually indoors. Ninety-six castrated Merino sheep were observed using 15-min instantaneous sampling between 08:15 and 18:15 h for two consecutive days over a 3-week period. Sheep on average spent 62% of their time idle, 17% feeding, 1% drinking, 5% pacing, 10% chewing pen fixtures and 4% nosing pen fixtures. Pacing behaviour was predominantly seen in the morning with sheep on average spending 14% of their time pacing. Sheep on average spent 4% of their time in the morning and 13% of their time in the afternoon chewing pen fixtures. In the afternoon, the predominant behaviour was idle with sheep on average spending 71% of their time idle. Seventy-one percent of the sheep displayed one or more of the behaviours of pacing, and chewing and nosing pen fixtures for more than 10% of the day and 47% displayed one or more of these behaviours for more than 20% of the day. The prevalence and incidence of these ‘abnormal’ behaviours appears high, especially in relation to that of sheep grazed outdoors on pasture, and raises the question of the welfare risk to these animals. However, without a more comprehensive appreciation of other aspects of the animal’s biology, such as stress physiology and fitness characteristics, it is difficult to understand the welfare implications of these behaviours. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers)

Review

Jump to: Research

Open AccessReview Welfare of Aged Horses
Animals 2011, 1(4), 366-376; doi:10.3390/ani1040366
Received: 5 September 2011 / Revised: 28 October 2011 / Accepted: 28 October 2011 / Published: 31 October 2011
Cited by 1 | PDF Full-text (164 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Horses form a unique and special part of their owners’ lives and aged horses are no exception. This review considers the health and management of aged horses, including the role of the owner and their perceptions of aged horses, potential threats or [...] Read more.
Horses form a unique and special part of their owners’ lives and aged horses are no exception. This review considers the health and management of aged horses, including the role of the owner and their perceptions of aged horses, potential threats or risks to their welfare and finally, factors affecting quality of life and euthanasia of aged horses. Owners of aged horses are concerned about the health, welfare and quality of life of their aged animals. Yet surveys of management and preventive healthcare reflect that there may be some limitations to what owners are actually achieving in practice. They show declining management as horses age, particularly for the retired horse and insufficient appropriate preventive healthcare via veterinary surgeons. The veterinary surgeon plays an essential and influential role in preventive healthcare, management of diseases and disorders and ultimately in the decision making process for euthanasia of aged horses at the end of their lives. The value of aged horses should not be underestimated by veterinarians and others working with them and the continuing care of aged horses should be regarded with the same importance as the care of younger horses with more obvious monetary value. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers)

Journal Contact

MDPI AG
Animals Editorial Office
St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
animals@mdpi.com
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18
Editorial Board
Contact Details Submit to Animals
Back to Top