Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T03:25:10.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring and Monitoring Animal Welfare: Transparency in the Food Product Quality Chain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

H J Blokhuis ,
R B Jones ,
R Geers ,
M Miele  and
I Veissier
H J Blokhuis*
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
R B Jones
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, Scotland
R Geers
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Laboratory of Quality Care in Animal Production, B-3360 Lovenjoel, Belgium
M Miele
Affiliation:
University of Pisa, Agricultural Economics Unit, Department of Agronomy and Agro-ecosystem Management, via del Borghetto 80, 56124 Pisa, Italy
I Veissier
Affiliation:
URH-ACS, INRA-Theix, 63122 Saint-Genes Champanelle, France
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
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.

Animal welfare is of increasing significance for European consumers and citizens. Previously, agricultural production focused mainly on supply, price and competition but consumers now expect their food to be produced and processed with greater respect for the welfare of the animals. Food quality is therefore determined by the welfare status of the animals from which it was produced as well as the nature and safety of the end product. Thus, practical welfare improvement strategies and reliable on-farm monitoring systems for assessing the animals’ welfare status and evaluating potential risks are urgently required to accommodate societal concerns and market demands. It is also of paramount importance to define the kind of information that consumers want about the final products and to develop effective strategies for communicating welfare standards to the public. Generating an intensified dialogue with all factions of society on welfare issues as well as appropriate labelling of animal products and farming systems that offer guarantees about welfare issues and production conditions will, in turn, promote transparency and the societal sustainability of European agriculture. Welfare is multidimensional. It cannot be measured directly but only inferred from external parameters. Therefore, the integration of the most appropriate specialist expertise in Europe is essential to develop, refine, standardise and intercalibrate welfare monitoring systems and to identify and validate remedial measures. We must establish a European standard for welfare assessment systems in order to facilitate intra-European trade and marketing. Only then can we harmonise labelling that is informative and relevant to all European consumers.

Keywords

animal welfareconsumer concernlabellingon-farm monitoringpractical welfare improvement strategiesstandards
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. 445 - 455
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 2001 Scientist's assessment of the impact of housing and management on animal welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 3–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartussek, H 2001 An historical account of the development of the animal needs index ANI-35L as part of the attempt to promote and regulate farm animal welfare in Austria: an example of the interaction between animal welfare science and society. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 34–41 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R M 1996 People's willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 5: 3–11Google Scholar
Blokhuis, H J 1994 Intensive production units and welfare: domestic fowl. Revue Scientifique et Technique, Office International des Epizooties 13: 67–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokhuis, H J 1998 Integration of animal welfare in intensive animal production. In: Wensing Th (ed) Production Diseases in Farm Animals pp 222–229. Wageningen Pers: Wageningen, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, H J and Metz, J H M 1992 Integration of animal welfare into housing systems for laying hens. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Sciences 40: 327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, H J, Hopster, H, Geverink, N A, Korte, S M and Van Reenen, C G 1998 Studies of stress in farm animals. Comparative Haematology International 8: 94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, M B M, Metz, J H M, Spruijt, B M and Schouten, W G P 2002a Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows. A: Model structure and weighting procedure. Journal of Animal Science 80: 1819–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, M B M, Metz, J H M, Spruijt, B M and Schouten, W G P 2002b Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows. B: Validation by expert opinion. Journal of Animal Science 80: 1835–1845CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2001 A method for assessing dairy cows welfare in a loose housing herd focussing on animal observations. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavia (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 62–68 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Craig, J V and Muir, W 1998 Genetics and the behavior of chickens: welfare and productivity. In: Grandin, T (ed) Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals pp 265–297. Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
Craig, J V and Swanson, J C 1994 Review: welfare perspectives on hens kept for egg production. Poultry Science 73: 921–938CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faure, J M, Bessei, W and Jones, R B 2003 Direct selection for improvement of animal well-being. In: Muir, W and Aggrey, S (eds) Poultry Breeding and Biotechnology pp 221–245. CAB International: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare 4: 103–117Google Scholar
Geers, R, Petersen, B, Huysmans, K, Knura-Deszczka, S, De Becker, M, Gymnich, S, Henot, D, Hiss, S and Sauerwein, H 2003 On-farm monitoring of pig's welfare by assessment of housing, management, health records and plasma haptoglobin. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. Animal Welfare 12: 643–647Google Scholar
Geers, R, Puers, R, Goedseels, V and Wouters, P 1997 Electronic Identification, Monitoring and Tracking of Animals. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Harper, G C and Henson, S J 2000 Consumer Values and Farm Animal Welfare — The Comparative Report. The University of Reading, UK. EU FAIR CT98-3678Google Scholar
Harper, G C and Henson, S J 2001 The Level of Consumer Concern About Animal Welfare — The Comparative Report. The University of Reading, UK. EU FAIR CT98-3678Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P H and Coleman, G J 1998 Human-Livestock Interactions. The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Hörning, B 2001 The assessment of housing conditions of dairy cows in littered loose housing systems using three scoring methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 42–47 (Suppl)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1996 Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications and imperatives. World's Poultry Science Journal 52: 131–174Google Scholar
Jones, R B 1997 Fear and distress. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 75–87. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 2001 Environmental enrichment for poultry welfare. In: Wathes, C M (ed) Integrated Management Systems for Livestock pp 125–131. Occasional Publication Number 28. British Society of Animal Science: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 2002 The role of comparative psychology in the development of effective environmental enrichment strategies to improve poultry welfare. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 15: 77–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B, Facchin, L and McCorquodale, C 2002 Social dispersal by domestic chicks in a novel environment: reassuring properties of a familiar odourant. Animal Behaviour 63: 659–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B and Hocking, P M 1999 Genetic selection for poultry behaviour: big bad wolf or friend in need? Animal Welfare 8: 343–359Google Scholar
Mason, G J 1991 Stereotypies and suffering. Behavioural Processes 25: 103–115Google ScholarPubMed
Mench, J A 1992 The welfare of poultry in modern production systems. Poultry Science Reviews 4: 107–128Google Scholar
Mench, J A and Mason, G J 1997 Behaviour. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 127–142. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Miele, M and Parisi, V 2001 ‘L'Etica del Mangiare, i valori e le preoccupazioni dei consumatori per il benessere animale negli allevamenti: un'applicazione dell'analisi Means-end Chain’. Rivista di Economia Agraria, Anno LVI, No 1: 81–103 [Title translation: The ethics of eating. Consumers’ values and concerns for farm animals’ welfare: a means-end chain analysis]Google Scholar
Porcher, J 2001 Le travail dans l’élevage industriel des porcs. Souffrance des animaux, souffrance des hommes. In: Burgat F and Dantzer R (eds) Un Point Sur … Les animaux d’élevage ont-ils droit au bien être? pp 23-64. INRA Editions: Paris, France [Title translation: Labour in industrial pig farming: animal suffering, human suffering. In: Are Farm Animals Entitled to their Well-being?]Google Scholar
Price, E O 1999 Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 245–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, J B and Schulkin, J 1998 From normal fear to pathological anxiety. Psychological Review 105: 325–350CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30: 5–10 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Terlouw, E M C, Schouten, W G P and Ladewig, J 1997 Physiology. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 143–158. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Bertrand, G and Toullec, R (eds) 2003 Le Veau de Boucherie: Concilier Bien-être Animal et Production. INRA Editions, Collection du Labo au Terrain: Paris, France [Title translation: Veal Calves: How to Reconcile Production with Animal Welfare]Google Scholar
Zulkifli, I and Siegel, P B 1995 Is there a positive side to stress? World's Poultry Science Journal 51: 63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar