Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:02:10.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Staying Good While Playing God - The Ethics of Breeding Farm Animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

P Sandøe ,
B L Nielsen ,
L G Christensen  and
P Sørensen
P Sandøe*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark
B L Nielsen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Health and Welfare, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
L G Christensen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark
P Sørensen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
† 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.

Modern genetics has given us some very efficient tools with which to alter the characteristics of animals. To date, farm animal breeders have mainly used these tools to increase productivity. Thus, each new generation of farm animals matures faster, yields more milk, or produces more meat or eggs, than the previous one. Despite these apparent benefits, modern farm animal breeding has had severe negative consequences, including effects on the quality of the animals’ lives and biodiversity. The aim of this paper is to discuss the goals and consequences of farm animal breeding within an ethical context. First, a description of what has happened to broilers and dairy cattle as breeders have pursued the goal of ever more efficient production is given. Second, the ethical values that ought to underlie future breeding schemes are discussed. It is suggested that there are in fact two very different ethical approaches: the ‘quality of life-based ‘ approach and the ‘preservationist ‘ approach. A view combining elements from both approaches is advanced. Finally, an example is given of how it is possible, in practice, to pursue an ethically defensible breeding goal without compromising production efficiency.

Keywords

animal welfarebreedingethicsgenetic selection
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 8 , Issue 4: Special Issue: Genetics and Animal Welfare , November 1999 , pp. 313 - 328
Copyright
© 1999 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Alban, L, Agger, J F and Lawson, L G 1996 Lameness in tied Danish dairy cattle: the possible influence of housing systems, management, milk yield, and prior incidents of lameness. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 29: 135–14910.1016/S0167-5877(96)01066-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, A and Cheng, K M 1985 Early egg production in genetically blind (rc/rc) chickens in comparison with sighted (Rc+/rc) controls. Poultry Science 64: 789–9410.3382/ps.0640789CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avon, L 1990 Conservation and management of genetic resources in Western Europe: cattle breeds. In: Alderson, L (ed) Genetic Conservation of Domestic Livestock pp 45–58. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Beaudeau, F, Ducrocq, V, Fouricbon, C and Seegers, H 1995 Effect of disease on length of productive life of French Holstein dairy cows assessed by survival analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 78: 103 -11710.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76621-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentham, J 1789 An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.(In: Mills JS [edited by Warnock M] 1962. Utilitarianism pp 33–77. Collins/Fontana: London, UK)Google Scholar
Broom, D M 1994 The effects of production efficiency on animal welfare. In: Huisman E A, Osse J W M, Van der Heide D, Tamminga S, Tolkamp B J, Schouten W G P, Hollingsworth C E and Van Winkel G L (eds) Biological Basis of Sustainable Animal Production. Proceedings of the 4th Zodiac Symposium. EAAP Publication 67: 201–210Google Scholar
Christensen, L G 1998a Future market and consumer oriented breeding goals. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science Supplement 28: 45–53Google Scholar
Christensen, L G 1998b Possibilities for genetic improvement of disease resistance, functional traits and animal welfare. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science Supplement 29: 77–89Google Scholar
Det Danske Fjerkræraad 1998 Beretning [Annual Report], Det Danske Fjerkræraad: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Duero, B J and Sørensen, P 1994 Tibial dyschondroplasia and selection using radiography. In: Proceedings of the Ninth European Poultry Conference, Glasgow, UK, 7-12 August. Volume II pp 201-202. UK Branch of the World’s Poultry Science Association (WPSA): Andover, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, D M, Pajor, E A and Milligan, B M 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205.10.1017/S0962728600019795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, M and Jaenecke, D 1997 Differences in productive and behavioural traits between meat type and egg type hybrids. In: Koene, P and Blokhuis, H (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, 7-10 June, Wageningen, The Netherlands pp 121–122. Wageningen Agricultural University and The Institute of Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO): The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Hanset, R 1981 Selection problems when antagonistic effects exist between production characteristics and calving difficulties. Livestock Production Science 8: 291–30510.1016/0301-6226(81)90048-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, W P, Hansen, L B and Chester-Jones, H 1994 Response of health care to selection for milk yield of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 77: 3137–315210.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77257-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kestin, S C, Adams, S J M and Gregory, N G 1994 Leg weakness in broiler chickens, a review of studies using gait scoring. In: Proceedings of the Ninth European Poultry Conference, Glasgow, UK, 7-12 August. Volume II pp 203–206. UK Branch of the World’s Poultry Science Association (WPSA): Andover, UKGoogle Scholar
Kestin, S C, Knowles, T G, Tinch, A E and Gregory, N G 1992 Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record 131: 190–194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landbrugets Informationskontor 1997 Håndbog for Kvœghold 1996-1997 [Handbook for Cattle Production], Landskontoret for Kvæg: Skejby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Landsudvalget for Fjerkræ 1980 Beretning 1979-1980 [Annual Report 1979-80], Landsudvalget for Fjerkræ: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Landsudvalget for Fjerkræ 1990 Beretning 1989-1990 [Annual Report 1989-90], Landsudvalget for Fjerkræ: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Lescourret, F, Coulon, J B and Faye, B 1995 Predictive model of mastitis occurrence in the dairy cow. Journal of Dairy Science 78: 2167–217710.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76844-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, D T, Freeman, A E and Kuck, A L 1991 Genetics of health traits in Holstein cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 1092–1100Google ScholarPubMed
Mäntysaari, E A, Quaas, R L and Gröhn, Y T 1991 Clinical ketosis, phenotypic and genetic correlations between occurrences and with milk yield. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3985–399310.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78593-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martyniuk, E and Planchenault, D 1998 Animal genetic resources and sustainable development in Europe. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production 28: 35–42Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board 1994 United Kingdom Dairy Facts and Figures. Milk Marketing Board:Thames Ditton, SurreyGoogle Scholar
Nebel, R L and McGilliard, M L 1993 Interactions of high milk yield and reproductive performance in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 3257–3268CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicholson, D 1998 Research: is it the broiler industry’s partner into the new millennium? World’s Poultry Science Journal 54: 271 -27810.1079/WPS19980018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, B L (in press) Perceived welfare problems in dairy cows with special emphasis on metabolic stress. British Society of Animal Science Occasional Publication 24:Google Scholar
Parfit, D 1984 Reasons and Persons. Clarendon Press: OxfordGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C J C 1997 Animal welfare considerations in future breeding programmes for farm livestock. Animal Breeding Abstracts 65: 645–654Google Scholar
Pryce, J E, Nielsen, B L, Veerkamp, R Γ and Simm, G 1999 Genotype and feeding system effects and interactions for health and fertility traits in dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 57: 193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryce, J E, Veerkamp, R F and Simm, G 1998 Expected correlated responses in health and fertility traits to selection on production in dairy cattle. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production 23: 383–386Google Scholar
Rauw, W M, Kanis, E, Noordhuizcn-Stassen, E N and Grommers, F J 1998 Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56: 1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J and de Passillé, A M B 1998 Behaviour, welfare and productivity of dairy cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 78(Suppl): 3–21Google Scholar
Sandøe, P 1999 Quality of life - three competing views. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2: 11–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandøe, P, Crisp, R and Holtug, N 1997 Ethics. In: Appleby, M and Hughes, B (eds) Animal Welfare pp 3–17. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Holtug, N and Simonsen, H B 1996 Ethical limits to domestication. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9: 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C J, Hocking, P M, Mann, J S and Maxwell, M H 1996 Is broiler breeder welfare improved by using qualitative rather than quantitative food restriction to limit growth rate? Animal Welfare 5: 105–127Google Scholar
Simm, G 1998 Genetic Improvement of Cattle and Sheep. Farming Press: Ipswich, UKGoogle Scholar
Smith, K L and Hogan, J S 1998 Animal health and welfare in the USA. In: Aagaard, K (ed) Future Milk Farming. Proceedings of the 25th International Dairy Congress, 21-24 September, Aarhus, Denmark. Volume 111 pp 9–14. Danish National Committee of the International Dairy Federation: Aarhus, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, P 1992 The genetics of leg disorders. In: Whitehead, C C (ed) Bone Biology and Skeletal Disorders in Poultry. Poultry Science Symposium No 23 pp 213–229. Carfax Publishing Company: Arbington, UKGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, P, Su, G and Kestin, S C 1999 The effect of photoperiod/scotoperiod on leg weakness in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 78: 336–342Google ScholarPubMed
Statistics Denmark 1996 Danish Household Budget Survey. Statistics Denmark: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Su, G, Sørensen, P and Kestin, S C 1999 Meal feeding is more effective than early feed restriction at reducing the prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 78: 949–955Google ScholarPubMed
Urrutia, S 1997 Broilers for the next decade. What hurdles must commercial broiler breeders overcome? Misset World Poultry 13: 28–30.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, R F, Hill, W G, Stott, A W, Brotherstone, S and Simm, G 1995 Selection for longevity and yield in dairy cows using transmitting abilities for type and yield. Animal Science 61: 189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, C A and Kestin, S C 1997 The effect of leg weakness on the behaviours of broilers. In: Koene, P and Blokhuis, P (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, 7-10 June, Wageningen, The Netherlands pp 117–118. Wageningen Agricultural University and The Institute of Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO): The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wickham, B W and Banos, G 1998 Impact of international evaluations on dairy cattle breeding programmes. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production 23: 315–322Google Scholar