No abstract

No abstract

Public and consumer pressure for assurances that farm animals are raised humanely has led to a range of private and public animal welfare standards, and for methods to assess compliance with these standards. The standards usually claim to be science based, but even though researchers have developed measures of animal welfare and have tested the effects of housing and management variables on welfare within controlled laboratory settings, there are challenges in extending this research to develop on-site animal welfare standards. The standards need to be validated against a definition of welfare that has broad support and which is amenable to scientific investigation. Ensuring that such standards acknowledge scientific uncertainty is also challenging, and balanced input from all scientific disciplines dealing with animal welfare is needed. Agencies providing animal welfare audit services need to integrate these scientific standards and legal requirements into successful programs that effectively measure and objectively report compliance. On-farm assessment of animal welfare requires a combination of animal-based measures to assess the actual state of welfare and resource-based measures to identify risk factors. We illustrate this by referring to a method of assessing welfare in broiler flocks. Compliance with animal welfare standards requires buy-in from all stakeholders, and this will be best achieved by a process of inclusion in the development of pragmatic assessment methods and the development of audit programs verifying the conditions and continuous improvement of farm animal welfare.

This paper systematically evaluates the extent to which achieving the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) is compatible with improving animal welfare. The analyses were based on discussion and independent scoring in a group of 12 participants with academic backgrounds within agricultural or veterinary sciences. We considered all categories of animals; those kept for food production, working and companion animals, but also laboratory and wild animals. The strengths of the links between improving animal welfare and achieving an SDG were scored on a 7-point scale, from being completely indivisible, at one end of the scale, to where it is impossible to reach both the SDG and improved animal welfare at the same time. There was good consensus between participants, with the overall scores being positive, indicating that although animal welfare is not explicitly mentioned in the SDGs, working to achieving the SDGs is compatible with working to improve animal welfare. When analyzing the direction of the links, the impact of achieving an SDG was considered, on average, to be slightly better at leading to improved animal welfare, than the impact of improving animal welfare was on achieving the SDG. The exception to this was for SDG 2, dealing with zero hunger. The two SDGs for which there was strongest mutual reinforcing were SDG 12, which deals with responsible production and consumption, and SDG 14, which deals with life below water. Most of the targets under these two SDGs were considered relevant to animal welfare, whereas when all SDGs were considered, 66 targets of the total of 169 were considered relevant. Although the results of this study suggest a mutually beneficial relationship between improving animal welfare and achieving SDGs, this should be confirmed on a wider group of people, for example people from less developed countries and other stakeholders. Showing the relationships between animal welfare and the sustainable development goals helps highlight the importance of animal welfare when implementing these goals in practice. The methodology described in this study could also be useful to researchers working with other societal and environmental issues not yet considered within the overall SDG framework.

This research used surveys of the public and dairy farmers in the United States to assess perceptions and attitudes related to dairy cattle welfare. Sixty-three percent of public respondents indicated that they were concerned about dairy cattle welfare. Most public respondents agreed that animal welfare was more important than low milk prices but that the average American did not necessarily agree. Most public respondents had not viewed media stories related to dairy cattle welfare. Respondents who had viewed these stories did so on television or Internet. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was viewed as the most accurate source of information related to dairy cattle welfare, followed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA). Both public and dairy farmer respondents viewed farmers as having the most influence on dairy cattle welfare. However, there was a general pattern of public respondents indicating that groups including USDA, HSUS, and AVMA had a relatively larger influence on dairy cattle welfare than did farmer respondents. In contrast, dairy farmers indicated that individual actors-farmers, veterinarians, consumers-had more influence than the public indicated. When asked about production practices, most public respondents indicated that they would vote for a ban on antibiotic use outside of disease treatment or for the mandated use of pain control in castration. However, a minority indicated they would vote to ban the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) or to pay a premium for milk produced without rbST. With respect to explaining public support for the production practice bans and limits, respondents were more likely to vote for the restrictions if they were older, female, had higher income, or had viewed animal welfare stories in the media.