Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:35:19.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global Animal Partnership's 5-Step™ Animal Welfare Rating Standards: a welfare-labelling scheme that allows for continuous improvement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

IJH Duncan ,
M Park  and
AE Malleau
IJH Duncan*
Affiliation:
Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
M Park
Affiliation:
Global Animal Partnership, PO Box 21484, Washington, DC, USA
AE Malleau
Affiliation:
Whole Foods Market, 550 Bowie Street, Austin, Texas, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: iduncan@uoguelph.ca
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.

One challenge with animal welfare assessment programmes is that standards that make a meaningful difference to welfare can be difficult for a broad spectrum of producers to meet, thereby preventing many from engaging at all. Global Animal Partnership's (GAP's) 5-Step™ Animal Welfare Rating Standards are unique in that they are designed as a multi-tiered system that encourages continuous welfare improvement. The 5-Step program allows for a wide variety of production models — from small farms raising fewer than 50 animals in extensive, outdoor systems to larger, indoor operations raising tens of millions — and allows producers to move up the Steps as they choose. Each additional Step provides a four-fold benefit: the animals have improved welfare, the producer has the opportunity of greater rewards and more accurate representation of her or his farming practices, retailers can provide wider product selection to meet their customer demands, and consumers have the guarantee of ever-increasing, welfare-friendly choices as well as a transparent source of information on how their meat was raised. GAP began piloting its 5-Step program in 2008 with comprehensive on-farm/on-ranch and transport standards for meat chickens, pigs and beef cattle in an exclusive, two-year partnership with Whole Foods Market (WFM), North America's largest natural-foods grocer. The variety of farms and ranches supplying WFM provided a thorough testing ground for the programme. Chicken, pork, beef and turkey products ranging from Step 1 to Step 5+ are available regionally in WFM stores in the USA and Canada. Having successfully completed this pilot phase with WFM, GAP is now negotiating with other retailers, both restaurants and grocers, as well as further-processors, in North America and beyond. The essence of the Steps is captured by the following phrases: Step 1 — no crowding, cages or crates; Step 2 — an enriched environment; Step 3 — enhanced outdoor access; Step 4 — pasture centred; Step 5 — animal-centred: bred for the outdoors; and Step 5+ — animal-centred: entire life on the same farm. As of 1 December 2011, more than 1,740 third-party audited and certified farms and ranches are raising more than 140 million animals annually according to GAP's 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards.

Keywords

animal welfarebeef cattlecontinuous improvementmeat chickenspigsturkeys
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Making animal improvements: Economic and other incentives and constraints’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , May 2012 , pp. 113 - 116
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bennett, RM, Anderson, J and Blaney, RJP 2002 Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 187–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015036617385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2011 www.spca.bc.ca/welfare/farm-animal-welfare/spca-certified/. (Accessed 8 December 2011)Google Scholar
Certified Humane 2011 www.certifiedhumane.org. (Accessed 8 December 2011)Google Scholar
Crawford, RD 1990 Poultry Breeding and Genetics. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Global Animal Partnership 2011 www.globalanimalpartnership.org/the-5-step-program/our-standards/. (Accessed 8 December 2011)Google Scholar
Haley, DB, Stookey, JM and Bailey, DW 2002 A procedure to reduce the stress of weaning in beef cattle: on-farm trials of 2-step weaning. Proceedings of the Fifth North American Regional Meeting of the ISAE p 8. 20-21 July 2002, Quebec City, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, HH and Wathes, CM 2000 Ammonia and poultry welfare: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 56: 235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ and Hess, S 2011 A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review Agricultural Economics 38: 55–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, JL and Norwood, FB 2008 A survey to determine public opinion about the ethics and governance of farm animal welfare. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 233: 1121–1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2337.1121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McInerney, JP 2004 Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy. Report on a study undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of DEFRA. University of Exeter: Exeter, UKGoogle Scholar
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2011 www.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/farmanimals/. (Accessed 8 December 2011)Google Scholar
Widowski, T, Lawlis, P and Sheppard, K 2011 Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. 8-11 August 2011, Guelph, CanadaGoogle Scholar