No abstract

To study animal welfare empirically we need an objective basis for deciding when an animal is suffering. Suffering includes a wide range ofunpleasant emotional states such as fear, boredom, pain, and hunger. Suffering has evolved as a mechanism for avoiding sources ofdanger and threats to fitness. Captive animals often suffer in situations in which they are prevented from doing something that they are highly motivated to do. The “price” an animal is prepared to pay to attain or to escape a situation is an index ofhow the animal “feels” about that situation. Withholding conditions or commodities for which an animal shows “inelastic demand” (i.e., for which it continues to work despite increasing costs) is very likely to cause suffering. In designing environments for animals in zoos, farms, and laboratories, priority should be given to features for which animals show inelastic demand. The care ofanimals can thereby be based on an objective, animal-centered assessment of their needs.

Intensive broiler (meat) chicken production now exceeds 800 million birds each year in the United Kingdom and 2 x 10(10) birds worldwide, but it attracts accusations of poor welfare. The European Union is currently adopting standards for broilers aimed at a chief welfare concern--namely, overcrowding--by limiting maximum 'stocking density' (bird weight per unit area). It is not clear, however, whether this will genuinely improve bird welfare because evidence is contradictory. Here we report on broiler welfare in relation to the European Union proposals through a large-scale study (2.7 million birds) with the unprecedented cooperation of ten major broiler producers in an experimental manipulation of stocking density under a range of commercial conditions. Producer companies stocked birds to five different final densities, but otherwise followed company practice, which we recorded in addition to temperature, humidity, litter and air quality. We assessed welfare through mortality, physiology, behaviour and health, with an emphasis on leg health and walking ability. Our results show that differences among producers in the environment that they provide for chickens have more impact on welfare than has stocking density itself.

No abstract

Can suffering in non‐human animals be studied scientifically? Apart from verbal reports of subjective feelings, which are uniquely human, I argue that it is possible to study the negative emotions we refer to as suffering by the same methods we use in ourselves. In particular, by asking animals what they find positively and negatively reinforcing (what they want and do not want), we can define positive and negative emotional states. Such emotional states may or may not be accompanied by subjective feelings but fortunately it is not necessary to solve the problem of consciousness to construct a scientific study of suffering and welfare. Improvements in animal welfare can be based on the answers to two questions: Q1: Will it improve animal health? and Q2: Will it give the animals something they want? This apparently simple formulation has the advantage of capturing what most people mean by ‘improving welfare’ and so halting a potentially dangerous split between scientific and non‐scientific definitions of welfare. It can also be used to validate other controversial approaches to welfare such as naturalness, stereotypies, physiological and biochemical measures. Health and what animals want are thus not just two of many measures of welfare. They provide the definition of welfare against which others can be validated. They also tell us what research we have to do and how we can judge whether welfare of animals has been genuinely improved. What is important, however, is for this research to be done in situ so that it is directly applicable to the real world of farming, the sea or an animal’s wild habitat. It is here that ethology can make major contributions.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. The potential conflicts between animal welfare and efficient farming can often be resolved or at least reduced by showing the financial benefits that improving animal welfare can bring to both society and individual farmers. These benefits include increased profits through: (i) reduced mortality; (ii) improved health; (iii) improved product quality; (iv) improved disease resistance and reduced medication; (v) lower risk of zoonoses and foodborne diseases; (vi) farmer job satisfaction and contributions to Corporate Social Responsibility; and (vii) the ability to command higher prices from consumers. Current conflicts between animal welfare and production may be resolved by future developments in genetics, management practices and new technology. Financial benefits reinforce, rather than replace, ethical arguments for good animal welfare.