Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T16:21:13.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aggregating animal welfare indicators: can it be done in a transparent and ethically robust way?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

P Sandøe ,
SA Corr ,
TB Lund  and
B Forkman
P Sandøe
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
SA Corr
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow G61 1QH, UK
TB Lund
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
B Forkman
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A central aim of animal welfare science is to be able to compare the effects of different ways of keeping, managing or treating animals based on welfare indicators. A system to aggregate the different indicators is therefore needed. However, developing such a system gives rise to serious challenges. Here, we focus specifically on the ethical aspects of this problem, taking as our starting point the ambitious efforts to set up an aggregation system within the project Welfare Quality® (WQ). We first consider the distinction between intra- and inter-individual aggregation. These are of a very different nature, with inter-individual aggregation potentially giving rise to much more serious ethical disagreement than intra-individual aggregation. Secondly, we look at the idea of aggregation with a focus on how to compare different levels and sorts of welfare problems. Here, we conclude that animal welfare should not be understood as a simple additive function of negative or positive states. We also conclude that there are significant differences in the perceived validity and importance of different kinds of welfare indicators. Based on this, we evaluate how aggregation is undertaken in WQ. The main conclusion of this discussion is that the WQ system lacks transparency, allows important problems to be covered up, and has severe shortcomings when it comes to the role assigned to experts. These shortcomings may have serious consequences for animal welfare when the WQ scheme at farm or group level is applied. We conclude by suggesting ways to overcome some of these shortcomings.

Keywords

aggregationanimal welfareethicsexpert opinionfarm animalsWelfare Quality®
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 67 - 76
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, MC and Sandøe, P 2002 Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: Implications for animal welfare. Animal Welfare 11: 283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, R 2000 Luck egalitarianism and prioritarianism. Ethics 110: 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1086/233272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, M and Poirier, C 2019 Can biomarkers of biological age be used to assess cumulative lifetime experience? Animal Welfare 28: 41–56. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bracke, MBM, Perny, P, Butterworth, A, Capdeville, J, Van Reenen, CG and Veissier, I 2007 Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of ani-mal welfare. Part 2: Analysis of constraints Animal 1: 1188–1197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731107000547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2001 A method of assessing welfare in loose housed dairy cows at farm level, focusing on animal observations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 51(S30): 62–68Google Scholar
Caplen, G, Hothersall, B, Nicol, CJ, Parker, RMA, Waterman-Pearson, AE, Weeks, CA and Murrell, JC 2014 Lameness is consistently better at predicting broiler chicken per-formance in mobility tests than other broiler characteristics. Animal Welfare 23: 179–187. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.2.179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Eath, RB, Arnott, G, Turner, SP, Jensen, T, Lahrmann, HP, Busch, ME, Niemi, JK, Lawrence, AB and Sandøe, P 2014 Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking? Animal 8: 1479–1497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001359CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Graaf, S, Ampe, B, Winckler, C, Radeski, M, Mounier, L, Kirchner, MK, Haskell, MJ, van Eerdenburg, FJCM, de Boyer des Roches, A, Andreasen, SN, Bijttebier, J, Lauwers, L, Verbeke, W and Tuyttens, FAM 2017 Trained-user opinion about Welfare Quality® measures and integrated scoring of dairy cattle welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 100: 6376–6388. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12255CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, van Schaik, G, Botreau, R, Engel, B, Dijkstra, T and de Boer, IJM 2013 Evaluating results of the Welfare Quality® multi-criteria evaluation model for clas-sification of dairy cattle welfare at the herd level. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 6264–6273. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical con-cerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, RM 1981 Moral Thinking – Its Level, Method, and Point. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198246609.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houe, H, Sandøe, P and Thomsen, PT 2011 Welfare assess-ments based on lifetime health and production data in Danish dairy cows. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 14: 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2011.576984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L 2009 An Overview of the Development of the Welfare Quality® Assessment Systems. Welfare Quality® Reports no 12: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Kestin, SC, Knowles, TG, Tinch, AE and Gregory, NG 1992 Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record 131: 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.131.9.190CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krotscheck, U, Nelson, SA, Todhunter, RJ, Stone, M and Zhang, Z 2016 Long term functional outcome of TTA vs TPLO and extracapsular repair in a heterogeneous population of dogs. Veterinary Surgery 45: 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.12445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2006 Happy pigs are dirty! – conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lievaart, JJ and Noordhuizen, JPTM 2011 Ranking experts’ preferences regarding measures and methods of assessment of wel-fare in dairy herds using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 3420–3427. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGeown, D, Danbury, TC, Waterman-Pearson, AE and Kestin, SC 1999 Effect of carprofen on lameness in broiler chickens. Veterinary Record 144: 668–671https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.144.24.668CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parfit, D 1997 Equality and priority. Ratio 10: 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9329.00041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, JS 2006 Benmonitoreringsprojektet 2005. In: Årsberet-ningen fra Det Danske Fjerkræraad pp 16–19. Det Danske Fjerkræraad: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Porter, DG 1992 Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature 356: 101–102. https://doi.org/10.1038/356101a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasmussen, IK and Spangberg, A 2012 Screening af slagtekyllin-gers gangegenskaber anno 2011. Videncentret for Landbrug, Fjerkræ: Århus, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J 1971 A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition 1999. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J 1993 Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Ritter, MJ, Ellis, M, Anderson, DB, Curtis, SE, Keffaber, KK, Killefer, J, McKeith, FK, Murphy, CM and Peterson, BA 2009 Effects of multiple concurrent stressors on rectal temperature, blood acid-base status, and longissimus muscle glycolytic potential in market-weight pigs. Journal of Animal Science 87: 351–362. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-0874CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandøe, P, Forkman, B, Hakansson, F, Andreasen, SN, Nøhr, R, Denwood, M and Lund, TB 2017 Should the contri-bution of one additional lame cow depend on how many other cows on the farm are lame? Animals 7(12): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanotra, GS, Lund, JD, Ersbøll, AK, Petersen, JS and Vestergaard, KS 2001 Monitoring leg problems in broilers: a survey of commercial broiler production in Denmark. World's Poultry Science Journal 57: 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS20010006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoolder, H, Rosa, G, Hörning, B, Waiblinger, S and Wemelsfelder, F 2003 Integrating parameters to assess on-farm welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 529–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafleu, FR, Tramper, R, Vorstenbosch, J and Joles, JA 1999 The ethical acceptability of animal experiments: a proposal for a system to support decision-making. Laboratory Animals 33: 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367799780578255CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuyttens, FAM, Vanhonacker, F, Van Poucke, E and Verbeke, W 2010 Quantitative verification of the correspon-dence between the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livestock Science 131: 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valros, A and Heinonen, M 2015 Save the pig tail. Porcine Health Management 1: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2055-5660-1-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I, Botreau, R and Perny, P 2009 Scoring animal welfare: difficulties and Welfare Quality® solutions. In: Keeling L (ed) An Overview of the Development of the Welfare Quality® Assessment Systems pp 15–32. Welfare Quality® Reports no 12: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Jensen, KK, Botreau, R and Sandøe, P 2011 Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal wel-fare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare 20: 89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM 2014 What is suffering in animals? In: Appleby, MC, Weary, DM and Sandøe, P (eds) Dilemmas in Animal Welfare. CABI: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781 780642161.0188Google Scholar
Weary, DM and Robbins, J 2019 Understanding the multiple conceptions of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 28: 33–40. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle. pigs and laying hens: Consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wucherer, KL, Conzemius, MG, Evans, R and Wilke, VL 2013 Short-term and long-term outcomes for overweight dogs with CCL rupture treated surgically or non-surgically. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 242: 134–172. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.242.10.1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar