Reproduction in Domestic Animals

168 GCW England and KM Millartrauma or a prolonged and potentially stressful procedure.The AI(S) is an infringement of wellbeing even ifthe procedure is conducted without complications.Justification for the use of AI(S) is that, adverse effectsare minimal and therefore the welfare risk is equallysmall; however, there is limited data to support orrefute this statement. Some have also claimed thatAI(S) may be less stressful to the animal than a difficultAI(TC), and that AI(TC) may not be possible in somesmaller breeds as well as in some large or obese bitches;however, both these difficulties may be due to operatorinexperience or inappropriate equipment (i.e. endoscopesize). The use of low-dose sedatives, may reducehandling stress.When examining the risks of AI and the animalwelfare burden, the use of non-surgical approaches,namely AI(V) and AI(TC), respectively, appear torepresent far smaller welfare risks than AI(S).Behavioural freedom (DA)When AI is used over natural mating, dogs and bitchesare denied the ability to engage in normal sexualbehaviour (a negative infringement). Studies have indicatedthat some bitches can be highly selective in theirmating choices. If breeder intervention occurs, eitherforced mating or insemination removes the ability toself-determine the mate and this infringes the instinctivebehavioural pattern. In addition, forced mating can betraumatic for an unreceptive bitch. Continued attemptsto mate could reinforce a negative behavioural experience.In these circumstances, the use of AI would be theonly option for breeding.Intrinsic value (DF)When considering whether the use of AI may infringeor respect the notion of intrinsic value of the animal, itis important to consider whether the application ofthese technologies is potentially increasing the objectificationof the dog or bitch. It could be argued thatthe need to produce pups results in the dog being seenmerely as a ‘reproductive vessel’. This may in turndetract from the relationship between dog and owner⁄ breeder and deny the dog respect as an animal thathas value in its own right, beyond its instrumentalvalue, for example, as a working dog or breeding dog.However, it may be argued that the dog has an innatedrive to reproduce and raise young and that bydenying the bitch the ability to do so would be aninfringement of her ‘telos’ or innate purpose (linked torespect for behavioural freedom). There is no indicationfrom the literature or from anedoctal experienceby dog breeders that, bitches that are artificiallyinseminated as opposed to naturally mated femalesshow less maternal behaviour towards their pups.BreedersSatisfactory income and working conditions (BW)Breeders are not a homogenous group; many breeders,particularly in the UK, are individuals who operate ona non-commercial basis and are driven by theiradmiration of a specific breed. In contrast, a numberof breeders focus on economic factors and a need toproduce pedigree dogs for sale. However, when consideringthe conditions that drive requests to veterinariansto use AI, a number of overarching aspects can beidentified for all breeders as well as specific aspects thatrelate exclusively to commercially-oriented breeders.The availability of assisted reproductive technologies(ARTs) allows breeders to manage their breedingprogrammes and maximize fertility rates for their bestbitches. The availability of AI prevents breeding delaysand should not reduce litter size, which might prohibituse. In addition, breeders may wish to introducebreeding programmes for animals that have exaggeratedphysical or temperamental features, which canmake natural mating difficult. However, this may resultin breeders sustaining problem behaviour or undesirablephysical features within a line. The use of AIcould, therefore, inadvertently perpetuate the selectionof undesirable traits within a breed which wouldnegatively impact on breeders’ wellbeing as well asbeing detrimental for the breed. In contrast, thetechnology could allow the introduction of desirabletraits and ensure the preservation of endangered breedswith the secondary benefit of potentially enhancing thewellbeing of breeders.Managerial freedom (BA)Breeders are free to apply and optimize all availablereproductive technologies. Some breeders may have nooption other than to request AI, as quality breedingdogs may only realistically be available from otherbreeders outside of their geographic region. AI alsoallows breeders to use those dogs that are not accustomedto mating bitches (e.g. inexperienced dogs) or thedogs that are rejected by the bitch. The technology canensure that these quality animals are still able to breedand produce litters. However, the free availability of thistechnology may result in breeders opting for AI forvirgin dogs and bitches, rather than investing time intraining these animals to mate naturally. This may leadto an ‘intervention treadmill’ where AI is alwaysrequested for high value animals to ensure timelypregnancies.Fair regulations and trade (BF)The increasing availability of new reproductive technologiesmay undermine the ability of smaller breeders totrade in an increasingly competitive environment, asonly large commercial breeders will have the financialmeans to access these technologies. This differencebetween commercial and leisure breeders may be positivelyreinforcing over time and could eventually changethe composition of the breeding community. However,this argument could be advanced for all new innovationssuch as nutritional advances, veterinary treatment, etc.,therefore representing a minor or neutral infringementof the principle of justice for all breeders. The breedingof certain dogs, particularly sporting dogs and servicedogs, may be a highly commercial enterprise, andtherefore, improving breeding efficiency is a naturalÓ 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation Ó 2008 Blackwell Verlag