Responsibility For Animal Welfare Research Articles

Avoiding unnecessary suffering: Towards a moral minimum standard for humans' responsibility for animal welfare

AbstractAnimals are an important part of our social, economic and corporate world. Their wellbeing is significantly affected by the ways in which humans treat them. However, animals have long remained (and, indeed, continue to remain) effectively invisible in the business ethics and corporate responsibility discourse. This article argues in favor of the moral necessity of according animal welfare a higher priority in business. In line with most streams in both recent and traditional animal ethics, this article derives the avoidance of unnecessary animal suffering as the moral minimum standard for responsible management in the livestock industry. Based on a broad range of different interpretations of what animal suffering may be necessary, the article discusses three distinct ways in which humans working in the animal industry could meet their moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary suffering, and, with this, increase animal welfare: by ameliorating circumstances for animals, by aiming at a two‐pronged transformation, or by transforming into a “zero‐suffering” business. Considering animal welfare as a legitimate ethical value in and of itself is a first step towards overcoming the anthropocentric bias in today's sustainability and corporate responsibility debate.

Consumer trust and willingness to pay for establishing a market-based animal welfare assurance scheme for broiler chickens

The aim of this study was to examine Finnish consumers' preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for measures to improve broiler chicken welfare and to examine how familiarity with animal production farms, trust in food system actors, and views concerning the responsibility for animal welfare were associated with the WTP. A survey instrument, including a choice experiment, to study consumer preferences for food quality attributes was developed. The survey data were analyzed using a latent class model and logistic regression analysis. The results suggested that Finnish consumers tend to have a positive WTP for improvements in farm animal welfare (FAW) in broiler production, although WTP varied by consumer segment. Five different consumer groups with different levels of WTP for specific welfare attributes were identified. The highest WTP was estimated for an additional space allowance for the birds and enhanced litter quality monitoring at the farm. In conclusion, there is demand for animal welfare labeled broiler chicken among Finnish consumers. However, consumer expectations are heterogeneous, and different strategies can appeal to different segments. While one consumer segment prioritizes FAW over price, another segment emphasizes low-priced products and considers mid-market products appealing. Moreover, public policies are an important tool for enhancing FAW for a large proportion of consumers, and public actions are therefore warranted. Finally, engaging with animal protection organizations (as mediators) and being open to consumers can be an effective strategy to build confidence in premium products.

A Review of Australian Animal Welfare Legislation, Regulation, Codes of Practice, and Policy, and Their Influence on Stakeholders Caring for Wildlife and the Animals for Whom They Care.

Simple SummaryThe Australian constitution does not mention native animals. Responsibility for animal welfare is largely retained by the states and territories via a fragmented, complex, contradictory, inconsistent system of regulatory management. The problem this creates for volunteers undertaking the rescue and rehabilitation of native animals is complex. Capturing and rehabilitating wild animals goes against regulations. In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to microchip, band, or mark an animal, making it almost impossible to monitor their survival. A minimum of 50,000 rehabilitated native animals are released back to the wild each year, with few checks afterwards to see how well or if they are surviving. Whilst it can be appropriate to rehabilitate and release injured native animals back to the wild, there may be moral, ethical, and practical reasons for not releasing hand-reared orphan native animals. With no reliable method of identification, no instructions on how to get animals ready for release or see if they are suitable, and little post-release checking, the practice of placing hand-reared native animals into the wild, and the regulatory framework enabling it, should be reviewed.The Australian constitution makes no mention of native animals. Responsibility for animal welfare is largely retained by the states and territories via a fragmented, complex, contradictory, inconsistent system of regulatory management. Given that most jurisdictions have expressly made the possession of wildlife unlawful, the action of taking and possessing an animal, to rehabilitate it, defies the regulatory process. In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to microchip, band, or mark an animal, meaning that no reliable method is available to monitor an animal. Each year, a minimum of 50,000 rehabilitated native animals are released back to the wild, with little post-release monitoring. Where required, the assessments of behavioural and health requirements to confirm suitability for release may be undertaken by people with either negligible or questionable qualifications. Whilst it can be appropriate to rehabilitate and release injured native animals back to the wild, there may be moral, ethical, and practical reasons for not releasing hand-reared orphan native animals. This article examines the evolution, and explains the consequences, of decentralised regulation on wildlife carers and rehabilitating animals. It recommends that the practice of placing hand-reared native animals into the wild, and the regulatory framework that provides for it, should be reviewed.

Defining a functional unit for dairy production LCA that reflects the transaction between the farmer and the dairy processor

The two main functions of dairy farming are to produce raw milk and to generate an economic income for the farmer (Powell et al. in Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 82:107–115, 2008), both of which drive the downstream value chain. Farm profit is mainly determined by the quantity and quality of milk, and at the same time, dairy farmers have a responsibility for animal welfare and the protection of human health through milk hygiene. When dairy farmers supply milk to a processor, the payment is based on both the quantity and the quality in terms of composition (fat and protein) and hygiene (total bacterial count and somatic cell count). Somatic cell count reflects the health status of the mammary gland and contributes to reduced shelf life and reduced cheese yield and quality, whilst total bacterial count reflects herd health and farm sanitation. The objective of this work was to create a new functional unit for raw milk at the farm gate/ processor gate, which could be used to better capture the economic function of milk, while still reflecting the quality criteria captured by energy corrected milk and fat and protein corrected milk. Base price-adjusted milk (BPAM) is proposed as a functional unit to capture more of the functions of the transaction between the farmer and the processor. It expresses the volume of milk delivered as the equivalent volume at base price, such that greater milk solids increase the volume and poor hygiene decreases the volume. The BPAM was compared with energy-corrected milk and was tested using a survey of 54 farms in Ireland and eight scenarios compared with the observed values and an “ideal” scenario with no hygiene penalty imposed. It was found that kg BPAM for the sample of farms was strongly correlated with kg ECM because of the overall hygiene standard from the sample of farms available. For specific farms at specific times, the hygiene properties contributed to the economic function of the milk in a way that could not be captured using energy-corrected milk. The scenario analysis indicated that high levels of biological contamination, if captured in the raw milk functional unit, could increase carbon footprint by > 200%. It was concluded that BPAM may not be a necessary functional unit for all studies, but those that focused on the farmer and processor perspectives should consider using BPAM because it captures more of the obligatory properties of raw milk than just quality expressed in terms of milk solids.

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs

This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs stunned with the head-only electrical method or carbon dioxide at high concentration. In particular, the opinion proposes welfare indicators together with their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death. The opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators and the outcomes to be used to assess consciousness in pigs at three key stages of monitoring: (a) after stunning and during shackling and hoisting, (b) during sticking and (c) during bleeding. Various activities-including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders’ and hearing experts’ meetings-were conducted to gather information about specificity, sensitivity and feasibility of the indicators that are to be included in the toolboxes for monitoring welfare. On the basis of information gathered during these activities, a methodology was developed to select the most appropriate indicators that could be used in the monitoring procedures. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person with responsibility for ensuring animal welfare at slaughter. The personnel performing stunning, shackling, hoisting and/or bleeding will have to check all the animals and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning. For the animal welfare officer, who has the overall responsibility for animal welfare, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of animals that he/she needs to check at a given throughput rate (total number of animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouses) and tolerance level (number of potential failures-animals that are conscious after stunning; animals that are not unconscious or not dead after slaughter without stunning). The model can also be applied to estimate threshold failure rate at a chosen throughput rate and sample size. Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a ‘normal’ or a ‘reinforced’ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse.

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for sheep and goats

This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for sheep and goats stunned with the head-only electrical method or slaughtered without stunning. In particular, the opinion proposes welfare indicators together with their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death. In the case of slaughter with head-only electrical stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox to assess consciousness at three key stages of monitoring: (a) after electrical stunning and during shackling and hoisting, (b) during neck cutting and (c) during bleeding. For slaughter without stunning, another toolbox is proposed for (a) assessing unconsciousness before releasing the animals from restraint, and (b) confirming death before carcass dressing begins. Various activities—including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders‘ and hearing experts‘ meetings—were conducted to gather information about the sensitivity, specificity and feasibility of the indicators. On the basis of such information, a methodology was developed to select the most appropriate indicators to be used in the monitoring procedures. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person with responsibility for ensuring animal welfare. The personnel performing stunning, shackling, hoisting and/or bleeding will have to check all the animals and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning or before releasing from the restraint. For the animal welfare officer, who has the overall responsibility for animal welfare, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of animals to be checked at a given throughput rate (total number of animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouses) and threshold failure rate (number of potential failures—proportion of animals that are conscious after stunning). Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a =normal‘ or a =reinforced‘ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse.

Animal welfare in different human cultures, traditions and religious faiths.

Animal welfare has become a growing concern affecting acceptability of agricultural systems in many countries around the world. An earlier Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible (1982) that dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare. This view was evident in some ancient Greek writings and has parallels in Islamic teaching. A minority view of Christians, which is a widespread view of Jains, Buddhists and many Hindus, is that animals should not be used by humans as food or for other purposes. The commonest philosophical positions now, concerning how animals should be treated, are a blend of deontological and utilitarian approaches. Most people think that extremes of poor welfare in animals are unacceptable and that those who keep animals should strive for good welfare. Hence animal welfare science, which allows the evaluation of welfare, has developed rapidly.

Can genetics deliver?

For the past thirty years pig genetics has enjoyed a clear message from its end–users: reduce backfat and production costs. During that period, genetics, nutrition and health have together delivered improvements of some 60% in lean growth rate and feed efficiency. To compound the recent misfortunes of the UK industry, meat is now slipping further behind everything else on the supermarket shelf in quality, uniformity, and above all predictability. The notion of quality stretches far beyond the product into responsibility for animal welfare, human nutrition and food safety.The industry's present dilemma arises from five factors:1.uncertain market conditions with cyclical profitability2.poor communication of what constitutes good quality3.payment systems that no longer reflect what the market requires4.independent management of the different steps in the pork value chain5.possible effects of animal health on quality and uniformity.Meanwhile the understanding of gene function and the ability to detect potentially useful genetic variation is gathering momentum. This paper examines the role that genetics can play in adding value, reducing risk and differentiating the product, from the perspective of a large vertically coordinated pork producer.