Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:56:20.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

C Hubbard  and
K Scott
C Hubbard*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
K Scott
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: carmen.hubbard@ncl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In response to an increased public awareness regarding how livestock are reared, animal welfare scientists have attempted to develop new methods of welfare assessment at the farm level. Furthermore, in recent years they have increasingly moved away from the conventional approach of evaluating the provision of resources necessary to ensure good welfare, and have instead focused on the use of animal-based measures of welfare. In contrast, it is believed that farmers use mostly resource-based and management-based measures (eg the provision of food, water and housing) when assessing the welfare of their animals. They also seem to be driven more by economic and financial concerns than by the welfare of the animals per se, when it comes to the provision of animal welfare. Different approaches to the definition and assessment of farm animal welfare were explored in work carried out at Newcastle University as part of the Welfare Quality® project by both social and welfare scientists. Social scientists explored farmers’ perceptions and understanding of animal welfare, whilst welfare scientists developed animal-based measures of welfare for use in a prototype on-farm welfare monitoring system. Based on two separate surveys, this paper focuses on UK farmers’ perception and understanding of animal welfare and their criteria of assessment in contrast with those employed by welfare scientists, using a specific case study of pigs. Results show that, despite scientists being unaware of the findings from the farmer survey, they produced a set of measures to assess welfare which were very similar to those used by farmers. However, ‘instinctive’ terms used by farmers to describe (positive or negative) animal behaviour did not bear any relation to more objective welfare measures. Compared with conventional monitoring systems which focus more on the provision of resources to promote good welfare than on the animal itself, the prototype monitoring system may be more acceptable to farmers given that it uses similar animal-based measures to assess welfare to those they use themselves, and furthermore, the focus is on the animal.

Keywords

animal-based measuresanimal welfarefarm assurance schemespigsqualitative behaviour assessmentwelfare monitoring system
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 79 - 87
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnard, C 2007 Ethical regulation and animal science: why animal behaviour is special. Animal Behaviour 74: 5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 2008 International cooperation in animal welfare: the Welfare Quality® project. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50: S10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, BB and van Huick, MM 2007 Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109(11): 931–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, BB and van Leeuwen, F 2005 Socio-political and market developments of animal welfare schemes. In: Roex, J and Miele, M (eds) Farm Animal Welfare Concerns: Consumers, Retailers and Producers Welfare Quality Report No 1 pp 115–167. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Buller, H and Morris, C 2003 Farm animal welfare a new repertoire of nature-society relations and modernism re-embedded? Sociologia Ruralis 43: 216–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buller, H 2009 Agricultural Animal Welfare. In: Kitchen, R and Thrift, N (eds) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Volume 1 pp 127–132. Elsevier: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carenzi, C and Verga, M 2009 Animal welfare: review of the scientific concept and definition. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8(1): 21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dockès, AC and Kling Eveillard, F 2006 Farmers’ and advisers representations of animal and animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH and Fraser, D 1997 Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby MC and BO Hughes (eds) Animal Welfare pp 19–31. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH 2005 Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm animals. Revue Scientifique et Technique International Office of Epizootics 24: 483–492CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Fraser, D 1999 Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65(3): 171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2004 Applying science to animal welfare standards. Global Conference on Animal Welfare: an OIE Initiative. 23-25 February 2004, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Weary, DM 2004 Quality of life of farm animals: linking science, ethics and animal welfare. In: Benson, GJ and Rollin, BR (eds) The Well-Being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions pp 39–60 Blackwell: Ames, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewson, C 2003 What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequence. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 44: 496–499Google Scholar
Hubbard, C, Bourlakis, M and Garrod, G 2005 Study of beliefs, attitudes, marketing and communication strategies of British producers engaged in farm assurance schemes, Case study 1: Pig producers. Final report for the Welfare Quality Project, Subdeliverable 1.3.1.2. www.welfarequality.netGoogle 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): 919–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L and Bock, BB 2008 Turning welfare principles into practice; approach followed in Welfare Quality®, unpublishedGoogle Scholar
Lund, V, Coleman, G, Gunnarsson, S, Appleby, MC and Karkinen, K 2006 Animal welfare science. Working at the interface between natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97: 37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marie, M 2006 Ethics: the new challenge for animal agriculture. Livestock Science 103: 203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miele, M 2009 Citizens juries: testing the legitimacy of the Welfare Quality® protocol. Proceedings Conference on Delivering Animal Welfare and Quality: Transparency in the Food Production Chain pp 77–79. 8-9 October 2009, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P, Christiansen, SB and Appleby, MC 2003 Farm animal welfare: the interaction of ethical questions and animal welfare science. Animal Welfare 12: 469–478Google Scholar
Scott, ME, Nolan, AM and Fitzpatrick, JL 2001 Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: a framework for measurement. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A: Animal Science 30(S): 5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, K, Binnendijk, GP, Edwards, SA, Guy, JH, Kiezebrink, MC and Vermeer, HM 2009 Preliminary evaluation of a prototype welfare monitoring system for sows and piglets (Welfare Quality® project). Animal Welfare 18: 441–449Google Scholar
Simonsen, HB 1996 Assessment of animal welfare by a holistic approach: behaviour, health and measured opinion. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A: Animal Science 27(S): 91–96Google Scholar
Te Velde, VT, Aarts, N and van Woerkum, C 2002 Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008 Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116: 126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velarde, A, Algers, B, Bracke, MBM, Chaloupkova, H, Courboulay, V, D’Eath, R, Edwards, SA, Forkman, B, Geers, R, Geverink, NA, Guy, JH, Hautekiet, V, Illmann, G, Keeling, L, Lammens, V, Lenskens, P, Meuleman, M, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Millard, F, Namestkova, P, Neuhauserova, K, van Nuffel, A, van Reenen, CG, Scott, K, Spinka, M, Spoolder, HAM, van Steenbergen, L, Turner, S, Tuyttens, FAM, Vermeulen, K, Wemelsfelder, F and Dalmau, A 2007 Sows and piglets. In: Veissier, I, Forkman, B and Jones, B (eds) Proceedings of the Second Welfare Quality Stakeholder Conference on Assuring Animal Welfare: from Societal Concerns to Implementation pp 76–77. 3-4 May 2007, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 2001 Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free market. The Veterinary Journal 161: 229–237CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of animal welfare at farm and group level: introduction and overview. Animal Welfare 12: 429–431Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 2007 How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of animal behaviour. Animal Welfare 16(S): 25–31Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TEA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001 Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62: 209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Millard, F 2006 Qualitative indicators for the on-farm monitoring of pig welfare. Welfare Quality Project Deliverable D2.18.10, subtask 2.2.5. www.welfarequality.netGoogle Scholar