The Politics of Farm Animal Welfare in the United States

1998 ◽  
pp. 139-150
Author(s):  
Robert Garner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
The United States ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare

285 Panel: Recent Practical Advancements Related to On-farm Animal Welfare in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 9-10
Author(s):  
Angela Baysinger ◽  
Paul Ayers ◽  
Stephanie Wisdom ◽  
Jon P Holt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
The United States ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Livestock Industry ◽  
Professional Experiences ◽  
Barriers To Implementation ◽  
Future Direction ◽  
On Farm

Abstract The purpose of this panel session is to highlight recent practical solutions and advancements to farm animal welfare challenges in the United States. Through a moderated discussion with session attendees, professionals and experts representing a variety of livestock industry and academic sectors will be given the opportunity to share their professional experiences in working to improve animal welfare by highlighting examples of practical solutions they have undertaken. Additionally, a discussion will be held on the future direction of farm animal welfare needs and barriers to implementation of animal welfare-related strategies.

scholarly journals US Farm Animal Welfare: An Economic Perspective

Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glynn T. Tonsor ◽  
Christopher A. Wolf
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Supply And Demand ◽  
The United States ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Voluntary Programs ◽  
Legal Market ◽  
Primary Driver ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Economic Perspectives

The topic of farm animal welfare (FAW) is both complex and controversial, and inherently involves expertise and views from multiple disciplines. This article provides a summary of economic perspectives on FAW issues in the United States. Practices related to FAW can occur through legal, market or voluntary programs. FAW is not a primary driver of US food demand but negative press has industry-wide effects. Aligning FAW supply and demand can be facilitated through labeling, education, and voluntary programs, but all have pros and cons.

286 Where Is On-farm Animal Welfare in the United States Headed? A Canadian Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 9-9
Author(s):  
Jennifer Brown
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Size ◽  
Gradual Transition ◽  
Group Housing ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Tail Docking

Abstract Both the United States and Canada are major exporters of pork, with market forces and consumer demand playing a more important role than legislation in defining production standards. Canadian welfare standards can be seen as intermediate between those in America and Europe, with the province of Quebec leading the way in Canada’s production of “high welfare” pork. In many other respects- such as farm size, diets, genetics and management, pig farms in Canada and the United States are very similar. What can U.S. producers learn from Canada’s experience in implementation of new welfare standards? This talk discusses Canada’s 2014 implementation of the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs. The Code included multiple new requirements, including the transition to group housing for gestating sows, use of analgesics at castration and tail docking, space allowances and the provision of enrichment. Code development is overseen by the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) in cooperation with the Canadian Pork Council (CPC) and with participation of government, industry and public partners. In 2020, the Pig Code underwent a 5-year review, which resulted in eight major recommendations. Five of those recommendations will require amendments to the code and are yet to be approved. Each change illustrates a balance between economics and welfare in a highly competitive and changing industry. For example, the 2014 Code promoted adoption of group housing for sows by July 1, 2024. While integrated production systems committed to, and invested heavily in, implementation of group gestation, the cost of barn conversion and poor pork returns have been major deterrents on many farms. The CPC estimates that in 2021, 44% of Canada’s sow herd will be managed in groups. The Code review recognized that not all producers will be able to transition by 2024, and that forcing producers to convert on a strict timeline would result in a worsening of the animal’s welfare. The review recommended changing the date for implementation of group housing from 2024 to 2029. This more gradual transition will allow renovations to be part of a scheduled rebuild of an existing facility or new construction, with better long-term outcomes for producers and sow wellbeing.

Edinburgh Farm Animal Welfare Scale

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth J. Austin ◽  
Ian J. Deary ◽  
Gareth Edwards-Jones ◽  
Dale Arey
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare

scholarly journals Estimating mouse and rat use in American laboratories by extrapolation from Animal Welfare Act-regulated species

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Carbone
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
The United States ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Laboratory Rats ◽  
Tier System ◽  
Western Nations ◽  
Rats And Mice ◽  
Usage Data

AbstractAlone among Western nations, the United States has a two-tier system for welfare protections for vertebrate animals in research. Because its Animal Welfare Act (AWA) excludes laboratory rats and mice (RM), government veterinarians do not inspect RM laboratories and RM numbers are only partially reported to government agencies1. Without transparent statistics, it is impossible to track efforts to reduce or replace these sentient animals’ use or to project government resources needed if AWA coverage were expanded to include them. I obtained annual RM usage data from 16 large American institutions and compared RM numbers to institutions’ legally-required reports of their AWA-covered mammals. RM comprised approximately 99.3% of mammals at these representative institutions. Extrapolating from 780,070 AWA-covered mammals in 2017–18, I estimate that 111.5 million rats and mice were used per year in this period. If the same proportion of RM undergo painful procedures as are publicly reported for AWA-covered animals, then some 44.5 million mice and rats underwent potentially painful experiments. These data inform the questions of whether the AWA needs an update to cover RM, or whether the NIH should increase transparency of funded animal research. These figures can benchmark progress in reducing animal numbers in general and more specifically, in painful experiments. This estimate is higher than any others available, reflecting the challenges of obtaining statistics without consistent and transparent institutional reports.

scholarly journals Designing an Institutional Network for Improving Farm Animal Welfare in the EU

2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 1081-1093 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Jones ◽  
Joop Lensink ◽  
Maria Cecilia Mancini ◽  
Richard Tranter
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Institutional Network ◽  
The Eu
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document