| 1. |
- Berg, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
Editorial : Wildlife Welfare
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2297-1769. ; 7, s. 1-3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Animal welfare relates to the feelings, behavior, and the health status of animals. Nevertheless, animal welfare legislation rarely prescribes what animals should feel or experience, but rather what humans should do to protect the animals in their care from unnecessary suffering, and e.g., specifications to provide them with suitable housing conditions and appropriate feed to ensure a reasonably good life. This obviously applies to domesticated animals and wildlife kept in enclosures, but not to free-roaming wildlife. Wildlife welfare has received far less attention than welfare for farm or companion animals, although attempts have been made. In recent years the extent of interest in wildlife welfare has grown, as more people have realized that humans have a substantial influence on the lives and welfare of wildlife individuals. Humans, as individuals and as a species, intentionally or unintentionally influence the welfare of wildlife in many different ways, some of which are discussed in this special issue.
|
|
| 2. |
- Elmberg, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
Potential disease transmission from wild geese and swans to livestock, poultry and humans : a review of the scientific literature from a One Health perspective
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Infection Ecology & Epidemiology. - : Taylor & Francis. - 2000-8686. ; 7:1, s. 1-21
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are more herbivorous waterfowl (swans and geese) close to humans, livestock and poultry than ever before. This creates widespread conflict with agriculture and other human interests, but also debate about the role of swans and geese as potential vectors of disease of relevance for human and animal health. Using a One Health perspective, we provide the first comprehensive review of the scientific literature about the most relevant viral, bacterial, and unicellular pathogens occurring in wild geese and swans. Research thus far suggests that these birds may play a role in transmission of avian influenza virus, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and antibiotic resistance. On the other hand, at present there is no evidence that geese and swans play a role in transmission of Newcastle disease, duck plague, West Nile virus, Vibrio, Yersinia, Clostridium, Chlamydophila, and Borrelia. Finally, based on present knowledge it is not possible to say if geese and swans play a role in transmission of Escherichia coli, Pasteurella, Helicobacter, Brachyspira, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Microsporidia. This is largely due to changes in classification and taxonomy, rapid development of identification methods and lack of knowledge about host specificity. Previous research tends to overrate the role of geese and swans as disease vectors; we do not find any evidence that they are significant transmitters to humans or livestock of any of the pathogens considered in this review. Nevertheless, it is wise to keep poultry and livestock separated from small volume waters used by many wild waterfowl, but there is no need to discourage livestock grazing in nature reserves or pastures where geese and swans are present. Under some circumstances it is warranted to discourage swans and geese from using wastewater ponds, drinking water reservoirs, and public beaches. Intensified screening of swans and geese for AIV, West Nile virus and anatid herpesvirus is warranted.
|
|
| 3. |
- Elmberg, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
Sprider gäss och svanar smittsamma sjukdomar?
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Fakta för förvaltare: gäss och svanar. - Stockholm : Naturvårdsverket. - 9789162087937 ; , s. 49-65
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- INLEDNING• Gäss och svanar förekommer idag i större antal nära fler människor än någonsin tidigare, i Sverige och i övriga Västeuropa.• De ökande antalen leder ibland till problem och konflikter. På jordbruksmark kan gäss och svanar orsaka kostsamma skador på oskördade grödor. Hårt bete kan också påverka naturlig växtlighet och då bli ett naturvårdsproblem.• Gäss och svanar är vegetarianer och äter enbart blad, stjälkar, frön och rotdelar från växter, både på land och i vatten.• Bete på växande grödor kan också skapa intressekonflikter i områden där gäss samlas i stora antal, till exempel vid skyddade och restaurerade våtmarker.• Samtidigt bidrar gässen med många ekosystemtjänster, bland andra i form av naturupplevelser, jakt och kött.GÄSS OCH SVANAR SOM SMITTSPRIDARE• Många smittämnen är kända hos vilda gäss och svanar. Det handlar om virus, bakterier och encelliga parasiter.• En del av dessa smittämnen har förmåga att infektera också andra fågelarter och ibland däggdjur.• Gäss och svanar är rörliga och uppträder ofta nära människor och i jordbrukslandskapet. Därför misstänks de ibland för att sprida sjukdomar till människor och våra tamdjur.SMITTSPRIDNING TILL MÄNNISKOR OCH TAMDJUR• En genomgång av forskningen inom detta fält visar att gäss och svanar ytterst sällan utgör en hälsorisk för människor, men något oftare för tamdjur och då främst fjäderfän.• I vissa fall tycks gäss och svanar kunna bidra till spridning av följande sjukdomar till tamdjur eller människa: fågelinfluensavirus, campylobacter, salmonella (gäller främst smitta till fjäderfä) och antibiotikaresistenta bakterier. I samtliga fall är dock andra smittkällor än gäss och svanar betydligt vanligare.• Forskningen har däremot inte funnit några belägg för att gäss och svanar sprider till exempel Newcastle-virus, West Nile virus, botulism, papegojsjuka eller borrelia till tamdjur eller människa.• För några smittämnen, till exempel E. coli och cryptosporidier, är det fortfarande oklart om gäss och svanar alls har någon betydelse för spridning till tamdjur eller människa.• Klimatförändringar och en allt bättre förståelse för de olika smittämnenas variation i förekomst och farlighet gör det viktigt att vi fortsätter att övervaka dem samt har beredskap för att omvärdera deras betydelse.• Att tamboskap och gäss betar sida vid sida har inga kända risker från smittsynpunkt, inte heller på strandängar.• Trots slutsatserna om en relativt låg smittorisk kan det vara klokt att iaktta försiktighetsåtgärder vid djurhållning, till exempel att förse tamdjur med rent vatten och att hålla fjäderfä avskilda från vilda gäss och svanar. För människans del kan man minska riskerna genom att sätta upp nät för att hindra fåglarna att ta sig upp på badstränder. Om man badar i sjöar där det vistas mycket gäss eller svanar är detklokt att tvätta sig efter badet och att undvika kallsupar.
|
|
| 4. |
- Fagerberg, Ingegerd, 1950-, et al.
(författare)
-
Hästen och hunden i människovården
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Vårdmiljöns betydelse. - Lund : Studentlitteratur AB. - 9789144102573 ; , s. 255-274
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 5. |
- Lerner, Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
A Comparison of Three Holistic Approaches to Health : One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2297-1769.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Several holistic and interdisciplinary approaches exist to safeguard health. Three of the most influential concepts at the moment, One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Health, are analyzed in this paper, revealing similarities and differences at the theoretical conceptual level. These approaches may appear synonymous, as they all promote the underlying assumption of humans and other animals sharing the same planet and the same environmental challenges, infections and infectious agents as well as other aspects of physical—and possibly mental—health. However, we would like to illuminate the differences between these three concepts or approaches, and how the choice of terms may, deliberately or involuntary, signal the focus, and underlying values of the approaches. In this paper, we have chosen some proposed and well-known suggestions of definitions. In our theoretical analysis, we will focus on at least two areas. These are (1) the value of the potential scientific areas which could be included and (2) core values present within the approach. In the first area, our main concern is whether the approaches are interdisciplinary and whether the core scientific areas are assigned equal importance. For the second area, which is rather wide, we analyze core values such as biodiversity, health, and how one values humans, animals, and ecosystems. One Health has been described as either a narrow approach combining public health and veterinary medicine or as a wide approach as in the wide-spread “umbrella” depiction including both scientific fields, core concepts, and interdisciplinary research areas. In both cases, however, safeguarding the health of vertebrates is usually in focus although ecosystems are also included in the model. The EcoHealth approach seems to have more of a biodiversity focus, with an emphasis on all living creatures, implying that parasites, unicellular organisms, and possibly also viruses have a value and should be protected. Planetary Health, on the other hand, has been put forward as a fruitful approach to deal with growing threats in the health area, not least globally. We conclude that there are actually important differences between these three approaches, which should be kept in mind when using any of these terms.
|
|
| 6. |
- Lerner, Henrik, 1975-
(författare)
-
Health in Non-human Organisms
- 2020. - 1 uppl
-
Ingår i: Explaining Health Across the Sciences. - Cham : Springer Nature. - 9783030526627 - 9783030526634 ; , s. 333-346
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter analyses attempts made to define health for non-human organisms. This could be done either as a bottom-up approach finding a common denominator that all organisms share, or as a top-down approach which starts with a certain valuable criterion that those organisms share. Through this chapter I will discuss both approaches. I will briefly discuss the concept of organism and why I only choose to discuss biological organisms. This chapter will also further develop a categorization of health definitions that acknowledges the variety of the different kinds of definitions. This is done as a two-level categorization consisting of categories and versions of these categories. I will go through relevant categories and versions in order to be able to say which could be fruitful to use as well as where science needs to be heading.
|
|
| 7. |
- Lerner, Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Normality and naturalness : A comparison of the meanings of concepts used within veterinary medicine and human medicine
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1386-7415 .- 1573-0980 .- 1573-1200. ; 32:6, s. 403-412
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article analyses the different connotations of "normality" and "being natural," bringing together the theoretical discussion from both human medicine and veterinary medicine. We show how the interpretations of the concepts in the different areas could be mutually fruitful. It appears that the conceptions of "natural" are more elaborate in veterinary medicine, and can be of value to human medicine. In particular they can nuance and correct conceptions of nature in human medicine that may be too idealistic. Correspondingly, the wide ranging conceptions of "normal" in human medicine may enrich conceptions in veterinary medicine, where the discussions seem to be sparse. We do not argue that conceptions from veterinary medicine should be used in human medicine and vice versa, but only that it could be done and that it may well be fruitful. Moreover, there are overlaps between some notions of normal and natural, and further conceptual analysis on this overlap is needed.
|
|
| 8. |
- Lerner, Henrik, 1975-, et al.
(författare)
-
Stakeholders on Meat Production, Meat Consumption and Mitigation of Climate Change : Sweden as a Case
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. - : Springer. - 1187-7863 .- 1573-322X. ; 26:3, s. 663-678
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this paper we analyse and discuss the views of Swedish stakeholders on how to mitigate climate change to the extent it is caused by meat production. The stakeholders include meat producer organisations, governmental agencies with direct influence on meat production, political parties as well as non-governmental organisations. Representatives of twelve organisations were interviewed. Several organisations argued against the mitigation option of reducing beef production despite the higher greenhouse gas intensity of beef compared to pork and chicken meat (according to life cycle analysis). Regarding feed production some organisations proposed use of the best available industrial fertilizers, others were against all use of such fertilizers. Several organizations suggested domestic production of more protein-rich fodder and use of manure for biogas production. Regarding meat consumption the focus was on throwing away less food as waste and on eating less meat but the best (most climate friendly) meat, which was considered to be Swedish meat in contrast to imported meat. There was agreement on many issues. Most disagreement was found regarding political steering. We find many of the stakeholders' mitigation proposals regarding meat production and consumption acceptable. However, we are to some extent critical to their defence of Swedish beef production. We also point out certain problems with the suggestion to reduce consumption of imported meat but not of domestically produced meat.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Lerner, Henrik, 1975-, et al.
(författare)
-
Towards a healthy concept of health
- 2020. - 2 uppl
-
Ingår i: One Health. - Wallingford : CABI Publishing. - 9781789242577 - 9781789242591 - 9781789242584 ; , s. 52-56
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter analyses the concept of One Health and focuses on the two words in the concept with the aim to better explain what the terms ‘one’ and ‘health’ refer to. First, making a distinction between the usage of the terms ‘One Health approaches’, which refers to all appraoches with a multispecies and multi- or interdisciplinary scope, and ‘One Health’, which refers to a specific kind of approach being made. Second, the One Health definition set forth in this book was compared to three other definitions of One Health, and pros and cons were identified. Additionally, the meaning of ‘one’ was discussed, showing the need for an interdisciplinary approach. Finally, the meaning of ‘health’ was shown to be complex, both regarding which definition of health to choose and on which level (individual, population or ecosystem) to apply it. A non-speciesist definition of health is needed, which could be either a bottom up or top-down definition. Further discussions within the One Health approaches are needed.
|
|
