scholarly journals Analysis of synergies and trade-offs between animal welfare, ammonia emission, particulate matter emission and antibiotic use in Dutch broiler production systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 189 ◽  
pp. 103070
Author(s):  
Luuk S.M. Vissers ◽  
Helmut W. Saatkamp ◽  
Alfons G.J.M. Oude Lansink
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-171
Author(s):  
John Hill ◽  
Carol Asby ◽  
Ian Sturgess

This paper considers what animal welfare is and the importance of animal welfare to the consumer. It also considers how different production systems are perceived in terms of kindness to animals, and outlines a method of assessing the costs of animal welfare by analysing the costs of intensive egg and broiler production and comparing them with costs of free-range production by using data from the UK. The extra costs associated with free-range production are due to higher labour, feed, building and equipment costs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-185
Author(s):  
Este van Marle-Köster ◽  
Carina Visser

Abstract. Modern farming technologies, including quantitative selection and breeding methods in farm animal species, resulted in increased production and efficiency. Selection for increased output in both intensive and extensive production systems has trade-offs and negative outcomes, often more pronounced in intensive systems. Animal welfare and health are often adversely affected and this influences sustainable production. The relative importance of animal welfare differs among developed and developing countries due to the level of economic development, food security and education, as well as religious and cultural practices which presents challenges for sound scientific research. Due to breeding goals in the past set on growth performance, traits such as fertility, welfare and health have been neglected. Fertility is the single most important trait in all livestock species. Reduced fertility and lameness, claw health and mastitis results in unnecessary culling and reduced longevity. Selection pressure for growth accompanied with inbreeding has resulted in a number of genetic defects in beef, sheep and pigs. This review demonstrated the importance of inclusion of animal welfare concepts into breeding objectives and selection strategies. Accurate phenotyping of welfare traits is a limiting factor in the implementation of mitigating strategies, which include diagnostic testing, control of inbreeding and genomic selection.


Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 491
Author(s):  
Qichang Chen ◽  
Helmut W. Saatkamp ◽  
Jan Cortenbach ◽  
Weidong Jin

Both proper animal welfare and economic benefit are important to the broiler industry, so it is better to consider these two factors together. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between economic benefit and animal welfare in different production systems of white-feathered broilers in China. Based on the Welfare Quality Assessment (WQA) protocol for poultry, the authors compared and evaluated the results of the Welfare Quality model (WQM) and the deterministic model. The present study conducted welfare evaluations and investigations on 66 broiler chicken flocks on 52 farms in China. These flocks included three types: the net floor system (NFS), the normal cage system (NCS), and the high standard cage system (HCS). In terms of economy, the results were in line with high economic input, high output, and high profit. In terms of animal welfare assessment, the authors calculated the welfare scores per measure and the attributional WQ scores and WQ index scores of each production systems. The results showed that nine welfare measures from four welfare criteria presented different trends in the three production systems. WQ index scores were 778.24 ± 29.45, 691.09 ± 32.97, and 669.82 ± 22.79, respectively. According to Chow test results, significant differences were found between WQ index scores and total cost and profit (all p < 0.01). In conclusion, with the development of white-feathered broiler production in China, from the conventional system to the latest system, both cost and economic profit have been increased, but the welfare score has been decreased.


Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1225
Author(s):  
Jordan O. Hampton ◽  
Timothy H. Hyndman ◽  
Benjamin L. Allen ◽  
Bob Fischer

Ethical food choices have become an important societal theme in post-industrial countries. Many consumers are particularly interested in the animal welfare implications of the various foods they may choose to consume. However, concepts in animal welfare are rapidly evolving towards consideration of all animals (including wildlife) in contemporary approaches such as “One Welfare”. This approach requires recognition that negative impacts (harms) may be intentional and obvious (e.g., slaughter of livestock) but also include the under-appreciated indirect or unintentional harms that often impact wildlife (e.g., land clearing). This is especially true in the Anthropocene, where impacts on non-human life are almost ubiquitous across all human activities. We applied the “harms” model of animal welfare assessment to several common food production systems and provide a framework for assessing the breadth (not intensity) of harms imposed. We considered all harms caused to wild as well as domestic animals, both direct effects and indirect effects. We described 21 forms of harm and considered how they applied to 16 forms of food production. Our analysis suggests that all food production systems harm animals to some degree and that the majority of these harms affect wildlife, not livestock. We conclude that the food production systems likely to impose the greatest overall breadth of harms to animals are intensive animal agriculture industries (e.g., dairy) that rely on a secondary food production system (e.g., cropping), while harvesting of locally available wild plants, mushrooms or seaweed is likely to impose the least harms. We present this conceptual analysis as a resource for those who want to begin considering the complex animal welfare trade-offs involved in their food choices.


Fuel ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 301 ◽  
pp. 121054
Author(s):  
Yue Peng ◽  
Tao Wang ◽  
Yongzheng Gu ◽  
Jiawei Wang ◽  
Yongsheng Zhang ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document