Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:10:53.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Applying scientific advances to the welfare of farm animals: why is it getting more difficult?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

L Keeling*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 234, SE 532 23 Skara, Sweden

Abstract

Despite interest and willingness to apply advances in animal welfare science, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so. This paper addresses three main areas. The first deals with economic consequences and, while recognising the cost of implementing change, highlights the importance of hidden costs in animal disease. It argues that when these costs are taken into consideration more money can be allocated to the prevention of welfare problems. The second section relates to the fact that as animal welfare science progresses, there will tend to be scientists who focus on theoretical concepts and those who focus on practical problems. This specialisation may mean that intermediate research is needed to bridge the gap between the original idea and its practical implementation. It may also mean that the scientist making the original advance may not be well placed or even interested in doing this. The final section on the difficulties of applying scientific advances makes the point that as the number of scientists in the area increases, so does the discussion of methods and results. In the long-term these intellectual exchanges obviously benefit the science, but in the short-term they slow down the implementation of findings. Scientists focus on differences in interpretation not on similarities, leading non-scientists to sometimes miss the large areas of agreement and see only uncertainty in other areas. The paper concludes by suggesting that awareness of the factors affecting the application of scientific advances will help to minimise the risks that good ideas and results are not implemented in practice.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2004 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

Appleby, M C, Duncan, I J H and McRae, H E 1988 Perching and floor laying by domestic hens: experimental results and their commercial implications. British Poultry Science 29: 351357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, S, Keeling, L J and Svedberg, J 1999 Effects of rearing conditions on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40: 1218CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, R 1964 Animal Machines. Vincent Stuart: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Oltenacu, P A 2000 Does animal welfare pay? In: Proceedings of a Conference Organised by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences ‘Food Chain 2001 — Safe, Sustainable and Ethical’ pp 160164. Uppsala, Sweden, 14-16 March 2000.Google Scholar
Tauson, R 1985 Mortality of laying hens caused by different cage design. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 35: 165174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R and Svensson, S A 1980 Influence of plumage conditions on the hen's feed requirement. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 3539Google Scholar
Wallgren, P and Lindahl, E 1996 The influence of tail biting on performance of fattening pigs. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 37: 453460Google ScholarPubMed
Whay, H R, Main, D C J, Green, L E and Webster, A J F 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205217Google Scholar