Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:23:13.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farm Animal Welfare: The Interaction of Ethical Questions and Animal Welfare Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

P Sandøe ,
S B Christiansen  and
M C Appleby
P Sandøe*
Affiliation:
Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
S B Christiansen
Affiliation:
Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Groennegaardsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
M C Appleby
Affiliation:
The Humane Society of the United States, Washington DC, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: pes@kvl.dk
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.

Farm animal welfare has now been studied, within a scientific framework, for several decades. The framework does not include ethical issues, but unless measurements of animal welfare at farm level are embedded in an ethical context, there is a danger that these measurements will not be properly utilised. This paper considers the relationship between ethical questions and animal welfare assessment. In it, the following four key ethical questions are identified. What is the baseline standard for morally acceptable animal welfare? What is a good animal life? What farming purposes are legitimate? What kinds of compromise are acceptable in a less-than-perfect world? The authors suggest that animal welfare scientists need to reflect carefully on these questions if welfare assessments are to be properly interpreted and put to practical use. Such reflection will lead to a more transparent appreciation of the values underlying welfare assessment. In this way, it will both offer welfare scientists a greater awareness of their own value-assumptions and enable the same scientists to communicate effectively with the wider audience — farmers, consumers, pressure groups, policy-makers and so on — for which the results of animal welfare assessments are of concern.

Keywords

animal welfareassessmentethicsfarm animal welfarepublic debatetransparency
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 469 - 478
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, M C 1999 What Should We Do About Animal Welfare? Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C and Sandøe, P 2002 Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: implications for animal welfare. Animal Welfare 11: 283–294Google Scholar
CEU (Council of the European Union) 1985 Amendment 1943/85 to Regulation 95/69 also amended by 927/69 and 2502171. Official Journal of the European Communities July 13Google Scholar
CEU (Council of the European Union) 1998 Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Official Journal of the European Communities (L221/23) 20 JulyGoogle Scholar
CEU (Council of the European Union) 1999 Council Directive 99/74/EC: laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities (L203/53) 19 JulyGoogle Scholar
CoE (Council of Europe) 1976 European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes. European Treaty Series No 87Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Fraser, D 1997 Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 19–31. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1991 Report on the welfare of laying hens in colony systems. FAWC: Tolworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, D M, Pajor, E A and Milligan, B N 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Harrison, R 1991 The myth of the barn egg. New Scientist 30: 40–43Google Scholar
Hovland, A L and Bakken, M 2000 The welfare situation of farmed foxes in relation to domestication status and compared to other farmed species. Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of NorwayGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A B and Rushen, J 1993 Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Nimon, A J and Broom, D M 1999 The welfare of farmed mink (Mustela vison) in relation to housing and management: a review. Animal Welfare 8: 205–228Google Scholar
Ryder, R D 2000 Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Berg: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Crisp, R and Holtug, N 1997 Ethics. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 3–17. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, J T and Sandøe, P 2001 Assessment of animal welfare at farm or group level. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A — Animal Science) 30 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Spruijt, B M 1999 The welfare situation of farmed mink as compared to other farmed animals and the question of domestication of farmed mink. Animal Welfare Centre, Utrecht University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, J 1995 Veterinary Ethics. Mosby-Year Book Inc: St Louis, USAGoogle Scholar
Webster, J 1994 Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye towards Eden. Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar