scholarly journals Citizens’ and Farmers’ Framing of ‘Positive Animal Welfare’ and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication

Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belinda Vigors
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Human Perception ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Negative Experiences ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Positive Experiences ◽  
Existing Frames ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Positive Animal

Human perception can depend on how an individual frames information in thought and how information is framed in communication. For example, framing something positively, instead of negatively, can change an individual’s response. This is of relevance to ‘positive animal welfare’, which places greater emphasis on farm animals being provided with opportunities for positive experiences. However, little is known about how this framing of animal welfare may influence the perception of key animal welfare stakeholders. Through a qualitative interview study with farmers and citizens, undertaken in Scotland, UK, this paper explores what positive animal welfare evokes to these key welfare stakeholders and highlights the implications of such internal frames for effectively communicating positive welfare in society. Results indicate that citizens make sense of positive welfare by contrasting positive and negative aspects of welfare, and thus frame it as animals having ‘positive experiences’ or being ‘free from negative experiences’. Farmers draw from their existing frames of animal welfare to frame positive welfare as ‘good husbandry’, ‘proactive welfare improvement’ or the ‘animal’s point of view’. Implications of such internal frames (e.g., the triggering of ‘negative welfare’ associations by the word ‘positive’) for the effective communication of positive welfare are also presented.

scholarly journals Economic and Welfare Impacts of Providing Good Life Opportunities to Farm Animals

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica E. Stokes ◽  
Siobhan Mullan ◽  
Taro Takahashi ◽  
Federica Monte ◽  
David C.J. Main
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Market Failure ◽  
Good Life ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Economic Modelling ◽  
Financial Benefit ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Scientific Validity ◽  
Positive Experiences ◽  
On Farm

Existing animal welfare standards for legislation and food certification programmes are primarily designed to avoid harms to the livestock, with minimal consideration given to their behavioural freedoms. Recent research has shown, however, that animal welfare should not only be evaluated by the absence of negative states but also by the presence of “good life” or positive experiences enjoyed by animals. The objective of the present study is to investigate the scientific validity and on-farm cost implications of utilising potential input-based measures of positive welfare as part of evaluation criteria for farm assurance schemes. Building upon the Farm Animal Welfare Council’s concept of good life opportunities, an assessment was undertaken on 49 noncaged laying hen farms across the UK by measuring on-farm resources to facilitate positive experiences alongside commonly measured metrics for welfare outcomes. The financial cost of providing these resources on each enterprise was also estimated using a farm-scale costing tool. The results suggested that 63% of resource needs that facilitate the behaviour opportunities of laying hens are already being provided by these producers, far above legal and commercial requirements. This practice attracts no reward mechanism or direct financial benefit under the current market structure. Additional provision of opportunities was positively associated with behavioural outcomes, but only limited impact was observed on health and productivity measures. Economic modelling indicated that significant room exists to further improve welfare scores on these farms, on average by 97%, without incurring additional costs. Together we argue that these results can be seen as evidence of market failure since producers are providing positive welfare value to society that is not being currently recognised. It is therefore contended that measuring and rewarding the supply of good life opportunities could be a novel policy instrument to create an effective marketplace that appropriately recognises high welfare production.

scholarly journals Lack of environmental enrichments in shelters for homeless animals: Animal welfare and human perception of animals’ need

2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (03) ◽  
pp. 6358-2020
Author(s):  
HANNA MAMZER
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Human Perception ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Social Stimuli ◽  
Communicative Skills ◽  
Animal Shelters ◽  
Complex Interactions ◽  
Scientific Experiments ◽  
Companion Species ◽  
Polish Law

The more social and intelligent an animal is, the more stimuli it needs for optimal welfare. Animal welfare is based on complex interactions between somatic, psychological and social stimuli that fulfill animals’ needs at various levels. This is also true of dogs – the species that was domesticated first due to its extensive social and communicative skills as well as cognitive capabilities. In view of these facts, it is difficult to explain why Polish law does not require animal shelters to provide dogs with environmental and social enrichments. Environmental enrichments are required by law for animals used in scientific experiments, for animals kept in zoos and for farm animals in industrial farming, but not for companion species kept in shelters. This is even more surprising considering that homeless animals spend long years in shelters, while the other categories of animals mentioned above may, according to their use, live much shorter lives. What are the consequences of this undesirable situation for animals in shelters and for society, and how can it be changed?

The use of environmental enrichment on farms benefits animal welfare and productivity

Livestock ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-188
Author(s):  
Sarah L Bolt ◽  
Adam J George
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Environmental Enrichment ◽  
Animal Health ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Animal Behaviour ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Production Animals ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Housing Facilities

Environmental enrichment is a key aspect of animal welfare and productivity. Enrichment for livestock can be cost effective and used successfully on farm. The benefits generally outweigh any costs of providing enrichment and it should be taken into account when providing housing facilities for farm animals. It also reduces abnormal behaviours commonly seen in production animals, thus decreasing issues associated with poor animal health. The aim of this review is to summarise information and research that highlights the importance of understanding farm animal behaviour and indicates how enrichment will benefit the welfare and productivity of livestock.

scholarly journals What Are the Positives? Exploring Positive Welfare Indicators in a Qualitative Interview Study with Livestock Farmers

Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belinda Vigors ◽  
Alistair Lawrence
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Genetic Selection ◽  
Qualitative Interview ◽  
Welfare Indicators ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Livestock Farmers ◽  
Human Animal ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Primary Management ◽  
Positive Animal

To support the furtherance of positive animal welfare, there is a need to develop meaningful and practical positive welfare indicators for on-farm welfare assessment. Considering the perspectives of farmers is arguably critical in this regard. Doing so helps ensure positive welfare indicators reflect farmers’ existing welfare norms and attitudes and, are thus, of practical relevance to them. However, a key issue for such development is the dearth of knowledge on farmers’ perspectives of positive welfare. To address this, this study uses qualitative interviews to directly examine livestock farmers’ perspectives of positive welfare. Findings reveal that farmers describe elements of positive welfare which are broadly in line with indicators suggested in the positive welfare literature. These elements include animal autonomy, play, positive affect, positive human-animal relationships, social interaction, and appropriate genetic selection. Additionally, this study finds that farmers construct the reduction of negative aspects of welfare as their primary management concern and mostly construct positive welfare as arising indirectly from this. Insights into the importance that farmers of different sectors and systems give to different aspects of positive welfare indicators are also explored. The implications of these findings and the similitudes between farmers’ perspectives and the positive welfare literature are discussed.

scholarly journals Positive Welfare in Science and Society: Differences, Similarities and Synergies

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belinda Vigors ◽  
Peter Sandøe ◽  
Alistair B. Lawrence
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Science And Society ◽  
Comprehensive Understanding ◽  
Specific Context ◽  
Negative Experiences ◽  
The Public ◽  
Positive Experiences ◽  
Conceptual Paper ◽  
Similarities And Differences

Societal and scientific perspectives of animal welfare have an interconnected history. However, they have also, somewhat, evolved separately with scientific perspectives often focusing on specific aspects or indicators of animal welfare and societal perspectives typically taking a broader and more ethically oriented view of welfare. In this conceptual paper, we examine the similarities and differences between scientific and societal perspectives of positive welfare and examine what they may mean for future discussions of animal welfare considered as a whole. Reviewing published studies in the field we find that (UK and Republic of Ireland) farmers and (UK) members of the public (i.e., society) typically consider both negatives (i.e., minimising harms) and positives (i.e., promoting positive experiences) within the envelope of positive welfare and prioritise welfare needs according to the specific context or situation an animal is in. However, little consideration of a whole life perspective (e.g., the balance of positive and negative experiences across an animal's lifetime) is evident in these societal perspectives. We highlight how addressing these disparities, by simultaneously considering scientific and societal perspectives of positive welfare, provides an opportunity to more fully incorporate positive welfare within a comprehensive understanding of animal welfare. We suggest that a consideration of both scientific and societal perspectives points to an approach to welfare which accounts for both positive and negative experiences, prioritises them (e.g., by seeing positive experiences as dependent on basic animal needs being fulfilled), and considers the balance of positives and negatives over the lifetime of the animals. We expand on this view and conclude with its potential implications for future development of how to understand and assess animal welfare.

scholarly journals Acceptance and Feasibility of a Guideline for the Animal Welfare Assessment of Fattening Pigs from Farmers’ Point of View

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 711
Author(s):  
Mareike Pfeifer ◽  
Alexandra Koch ◽  
Clara Lensches ◽  
Armin O. Schmitt ◽  
Engel F. Hessel
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Tail Length ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Faecal Soiling ◽  
The Individual ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Indicator Systems ◽  
Fattening Pigs

The welfare of farm animals is being increasingly discussed in society and politics. To evaluate animal welfare, indicator systems are often used. Such a system has been developed by the German Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture and suggested in the publication “Animal Welfare Indicators: Practical Guide—Pigs”. The association’s aim is to provide farmers with a useful method for recording the welfare of pigs. Crucial for the acceptance of the guide by farmers is a high degree of feasibility of the recommended indicators as well as the proposed methods for their recording. To evaluate this, 40 farmers keeping fattening pigs were interviewed. The guided semi-structured interview was conducted on the farms after the farmers evaluated the welfare of their fattening pigs according to the guide. The results are: Apart from the indicators faecal soiling and tail length, all the other eleven indicators are accepted for the assessment of fattening pig welfare by a majority of the interviewed farmers (between 57.5% and 90% acceptance per indicator). Furthermore, the feasibility of the individual indicators was assessed as being positive. The relationship between time expenditure and benefit was rated on a five-point scale at an average of 3.1 (medium), which clearly shows that there is a need for further development of this guide. Some possible changes with a potential for improvement could be identified; for example, the aggregation of the results after the collection of the individual indicators to an overall result that can be compared and interpreted.

Philosophical Ethology: On the Extents of What It Is to Be a Pig

2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jes Harfeld
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Agricultural Production ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Important Influence ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Normative Ethics ◽  
Physical Attributes ◽  
Descriptive Knowledge

AbstractAnswers to the question, “What is a farm animal?” often revolve around genetics, physical attributes, and the animals’ functions in agricultural production. The essential and defining characteristics of farm animals transcend these limited models, however, and require an answer that avoids reductionism and encompasses a de-atomizing point of view. Such an answer should promote recognition of animals as beings with extensive mental and social capabilities that outline the extent of each individual animal’s existence and—at the same time—define the animals as parts of wholes that in themselves are more than the sum of their parts and have ethological as well as ethical relevance. To accomplish this, the concepts of both anthropomorphism and sociobiology will be examined, and the article will show how the possibility of understanding animals and their characteristics deeply affects both ethology and philosophy; that is, it has an important influence on our descriptive knowledge of animals, the concept of what animal welfare is and can be, and any normative ethics that follow such knowledge.

Preferences of housed finishing beef cattle for different floor types

2000 ◽  
Vol 2000 ◽  
pp. 124-124
Author(s):  
D.E. Lowe ◽  
R.W.J. Steen ◽  
V.E. Beattie
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Human Perception ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Public Concern ◽  
Finishing Beef Cattle

There is increasing public concern about the welfare of farm animals and one of the issues recently raised has been the use of totally slatted floors for rearing and finishing beef cattle. However, human perception of the needs of animals may not necessarily reflect that of the animals' needs. The objective of this experiment was to examine beef cattle preferences for different floor types, in order to provide scientific information that will be valuable in formulating a policy on the housing requirements of beef cattle.

scholarly journals Longitudinal national-level monitoring of on-farm broiler welfare identifies consistently poorly performing farms

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Siobhan Mullan ◽  
Bobby Stuijfzand ◽  
Andrew Butterworth
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
National Level ◽  
Regulatory Compliance ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Level Monitoring ◽  
Poor Welfare ◽  
Check Compliance

AbstractA range of welfare outcome measures relating to on-farm welfare are monitored in UK slaughterhouses to check compliance with the European Broiler Directive. A national dataset from 438,155 batches of chickens between 2010 and 2014 and from 228,795 batches between 2016 and 2018 was analysed. The data contained information about 3.1 billion chickens. The highest mean proportion for a single condition was for ascites/oedema in 2016–2018 at 0.384%, affecting 3.9 million chickens/year sent to slaughter during that time, followed by abnormal colour/fevered at 0.324%, affecting 3.4 million chickens/year. Identifying farms most likely to have poor welfare is an important strategy for improving animal welfare overall, and for maximising the capacity for checking regulatory compliance when resources are limited. We found a greater proportion of broiler farms overall remained consistently in the best quartile (16.4%) rather than the worst quartile (6.6%). Farms that exceeded a Government ‘trigger’ threshold for poor welfare were significantly more likely to subsequently improve than ‘non-trigger’ farms, although they usually remained in the worst performing quartile of farms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document