Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T19:07:37.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Animal Welfare at the Farm and Group Level: The Interplay of Science and Values

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

D Fraser
D Fraser*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Centre for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the social debate about animal welfare we can identify three different views about how animals should be raised and how their welfare should be judged: (1) the view that animals should be raised under conditions that promote good biological functioning in the sense of health, growth and reproduction, (2) the view that animals should be raised in ways that minimise suffering and promote contentment, and (3) the view that animals should be allowed to lead relatively natural lives. When attempting to assess animal welfare, different scientists select different criteria, reflecting one or more of these value-dependent views. Even when ostensibly covering all three views, scientists may differ in what they treat as inherently important versus only instrumentally important, and their selection of variables may be further influenced by a desire to use measures that are scientifically respected and can be scored objectively. Value assumptions may also enter animal welfare assessment at the farm and group level (1) when empirical data provide insufficient guidance on important issues, (2) when we need to weigh conflicting interests of different animals, and (3) when we need to weigh conflicting evidence from different variables. Although value assumptions cannot be eliminated from animal welfare assessment, they can be made more explicit as the first step in creating animal welfare assessment tools. Different value assumptions could lead to different welfare assessment tools, each claiming validity within a given set of assumptions.

Keywords

animal welfareethicssowsstandardsvalueswelfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 433 - 443
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anonymous 1989 How Astrid Lindgren Achieved Enactment of the 1988 Law Protecting Farm Animals in Sweden. Animal Welfare Institute: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2001 Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Communities L 316. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/1_316/1_31620011201en00010004.pdfGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J L, Hemsworth, P H, Cronin, G M, Jongman, E C and Hutson, G D 2001 A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52: 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M R 1983 Ethology in environmental design for animal production. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beynen A C, Baumans V, Bertens A P M G, Havenaar R, Hesp A P M and Zutphen L F M van 1987 Assessment of discomfort in gallstone-bearing mice: a practical example of the problems encountered in an attempt to recognize discomfort in laboratory animals. Laboratory Animals 21: 35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borell, E von, Broom, D M, Csermely, D, Dijkhuizen, A A, Edwards, S A, Jensen, P, Madec, F and Stamataris, C 1997 The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, European Union: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1991 Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunk, C G, Haworth, L and Lee, B 1991 Value Assumptions in Risk Assessment: A Case Study of the Alachlor Controversy. Wilfrid Laurier University Press: Waterloo, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt R W Jr 1997 The founders of ethology and the problem of animal subjective experience. In: Dol, M, Kasanmoentalib, S, Lijmbach, S, Rivas, E and van den Bos, R (eds) Animal Consciousness and Animal Ethics pp 1–13. Van Gorcum: Assen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, E 1980 Animals and Ethics. A report of the working party convened by Edward Carpenter. Watkins & Dulverton: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1980 Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1993 Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6: 8–14 (Suppl 2)Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1996 Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 27: 29–35 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Fraser, D 1997 Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 19–31. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, D M, Pajor, E A and Milligan, B N 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Gonyou, H W 1993 Animal welfare: definitions and assessment. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6: 37–43 (Suppl 2)Google Scholar
Grandin, T 1998 Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices at slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 212: 36–39Google ScholarPubMed
Kiley-Worthington, M 1989 Ecological, ethological, and ethically sound environments for animals: toward symbiosis. Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2: 323–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, J J 1993 What is animal welfare? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6: 26–36 (Suppl 2)Google Scholar
Rollin, B E 1993 Animal welfare, science and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6: 44–50 (Suppl 2)Google Scholar
Rollin, B E 1995 Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical, and Research Issues. Iowa State University Press: Ames, USAGoogle Scholar
Panksepp, J 1998 Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P and Simonsen, H B 1992 Assessing animal welfare: where does science end and philosophy begin? Animal Welfare 1: 257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, E M, Nolan, A M and Fitzpatrick, J L 2001 Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: a framework for measurement. Acta Agriculturae Scandanavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 5–10 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Stafleu, F R, Grommers, F J and Vorstenbosch, J 1996 Animal welfare: evolution and erosion of a moral concept. Animal Welfare 5: 225–234Google Scholar
te Velde, H, Aarts, N and van Woerkum, C 2002 Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, J 1991 Ethics and animal welfare: the inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 198: 1360–1376Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, G B 1972 One man's philosophy of welfare. Veterinary Record 91: 426–428CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, J 1994 Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden. Blackwell Science: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar