Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:22:25.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The performance of farm animal assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

E Roe ,
H Buller  and
J Bull
E Roe
Affiliation:
School of Geography, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
H Buller*
Affiliation:
School of Geography, University of Exeter, Amory, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4JS, UK
J Bull
Affiliation:
Forskare, Centrum för Genusvetenskap, Box 634, 751 26 Uppsala, Sweden
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: H.Buller@Exeter.ac.uk
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.

This paper argues that the current drive towards greater use of animal-based measures for welfare assessment raises important issues for how farm visits by welfare assessors are performed. As social scientists, we employ a number of contemporary social science ideas to offer a new approach to examining the practice and performance of farm animal assessment. We identify key findings from a recent study of contemporary farm assessment and speculate upon what some of the challenges of introducing animal-based measures may be. We conclude by arguing for a greater awareness of how sets of knowledge are made, circulated, practiced and become an integral component of the procedures, practices and discourses around farm animal welfare assessment in farm assurance.

Keywords

animal-based measuresanimal welfareassessmentassurance schemesfarm inspectionspractice
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 69 - 78
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 15: 225–228Google Scholar
Buller, H and Roe, E 2010a Certifying welfare: integrating welfare assessments into assurance procedures: a European perspective. In: Miele, M (ed) Welfare Quality Report Series No 13. University of Cardiff: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Buller, H and Roe, E 2010b Integrating animal-based measures of welfare: 25 points. In: Miele M (ed). Welfare Quality Report Series No 13. University of Cardiff: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Callon, M, Law, J and Rip, A 1985 How to study the force of science. In: Callon, M, Law, J and Rip, A (eds) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology pp 3–17. Macmillan: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Despret, V 2008 The becomings of subjectivity in animal worlds. Subjectivity 23: 123–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Early, R 1995 A Guide to Quality Management Systems For The Food Industry. Blackie Academic and Professional: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2001 Report on the Animal Welfare Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2005 Report on the Animal Welfare Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fearne, A and Walters, R 2004 The Costs and Benefits of Farm Assurance to Livestock Producers in England. Final Report for the Meat and Livestock Commission, Centre for Food Chain Research. Imperial College London: Wye, UKGoogle Scholar
Harrison, P 2000 Making sense: embodiment and the sensibilities of the everyday. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18: 497–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Goleman, GJ 2009 The integration of human-animal relations into animal welfare monitoring schemes. Animal Welfare 18: 335–345Google Scholar
Hubbard, C, Bourlakis, M and Garrod, G 2007 Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109(11): 919–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L 2009 Animal welfare inspection reports in Sweden. Animal Welfare 18: 391–397Google Scholar
Latour, B 2005 Reassembling The Social: An Introduction To Actor Network Theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Lowe, P, Clark, J, Seymour, S and Ward, N 1997 Moralising the Environment. UCL Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Lund, V, Coleman, G, Gunnarsson, S, Appleby, MC and Karkinen, K 2006 ‘Animal welfare science. Working at the interface between the natural and the social sciences’. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97(1): 37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Leeb, C and Webster, AJF 2007 Formal animal-based welfare assessment in UK certification schemes. Animal Welfare 16: 233–236Google Scholar
Manning, L, Baines, RN and Chadd, SA 2006 Quality Assurance Models in the food supply chain. British Food Journal 108(2): 91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, L 2009 Working Bodies. Routledge: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponte, S and Gibbon, P 2005 Quality standards, conventions and the governance of global value chains. Economy and Society 34(1): 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, E and Higgin, M 2007 The presence of animal welfare-friendly bodies: an organised or disorganised achievement in the food supply chain. Unpublished paper to the European Food, Ethics and Agriculture Conference. June 2006, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bock, B, and Roe, E 2008 European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113(4): 279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF, Main, DCJ and Whay, HR 2004 Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation. Animal Welfare 13: S93–S98Google Scholar
Whatmore, S 1991 Farming Women: Gender, Work and Family Enterprise. Macmillan: Basingstoke, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinions. Animal Welfare 12: 205–217Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2004 Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measures. The Veterinary Record 153(7): 197-202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkie, R 2005 Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: the ambiguous nature of human-livestock relations in Northeast Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 21.2: 213-230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, JD, Holder, JS and Main, DCJ 1998 Quality assurance schemes. Meat Science 49: S191–S203CrossRefGoogle Scholar