No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2010
In this paper it will be argued that the relationships between welfare and product quality are not commonplace because processes within the animal intervene between substrate and product which reduce farming practices to a common level that is subordinate to the animal's metabolism. Nevertheless there are four ways in which compromised welfare can be linked to product quality: (1) product quality which is influenced by acute stress; (2) ante-mortem trauma occurring in parts of the animal which are edible; (3) disease states which leave lesions or taints in the edible product; and (4) product quality which is dependent on the long-term cumulative effects of exercise, lack of exercise or poor husbandry conditions.
From this classification and the examples to be given in the paper it will become clear that some practices which compromise welfare can lead to poor product quality but there is little evidence to suggest that improved welfare practices benefit product quality. Nevertheless welfare improved products could be of better quality simply because more effort and attention is put into their production. If the same care and expenditure were to be put into systems where welfare was not the main goal, would product quality be any different?
The conclusions that will be drawn from this paper are that: (i) practices which compromise welfare can lead to poor product quality, but there is little evidence that improved welfare benefits product quality; and (ii) modern labelling is suggestive instead of being explicit and as such it does not lend itself to promoting welfare improvements in a cognizant manner.