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 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 Precision Technologies to Address Dairy Cattle Welfare: Focus on Lameness, Mastitis and Body Condition

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 2253
Author(s):  
Severiano R. Silva ◽  
José P. Araujo ◽  
Cristina Guedes ◽  
Flávio Silva ◽  
Mariana Almeida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Body Condition ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Economic Sustainability ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Livestock Farming ◽  
Technological Support ◽  
Technological Tools ◽  
Cow Welfare ◽  
Time Assessment

Specific animal-based indicators that can be used to predict animal welfare have been the core of protocols for assessing the welfare of farm animals, such as those produced by the Welfare Quality project. At the same time, the contribution of technological tools for the accurate and real-time assessment of farm animal welfare is also evident. The solutions based on technological tools fit into the precision livestock farming (PLF) concept, which has improved productivity, economic sustainability, and animal welfare in dairy farms. PLF has been adopted recently; nevertheless, the need for technological support on farms is getting more and more attention and has translated into significant scientific contributions in various fields of the dairy industry, but with an emphasis on the health and welfare of the cows. This review aims to present the recent advances of PLF in dairy cow welfare, particularly in the assessment of lameness, mastitis, and body condition, which are among the most relevant animal-based indications for the welfare of cows. Finally, a discussion is presented on the possibility of integrating the information obtained by PLF into a welfare assessment framework.

scholarly journals Costs and Benefits of Improving Farm Animal Welfare

Agriculture ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 104
Author(s):  
Jill N. Fernandes ◽  
Paul H. Hemsworth ◽  
Grahame J. Coleman ◽  
Alan J. Tilbrook
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Social Consequences ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Course Of Action

It costs money to improve the welfare of farm animals. For people with animals under their care, there are many factors to consider regarding changes in practice to improve welfare, and the optimal course of action is not always obvious. Decision support systems for animal welfare, such as economic cost–benefit analyses, are lacking. This review attempts to provide clarity around the costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare, thereby enabling the people with animals under their care to make informed decisions. Many of the costs are obvious. For example, training of stockpeople, reconfiguration of pens, and administration of pain relief can improve welfare, and all incur costs. Other costs are less obvious. For instance, there may be substantial risks to market protection, consumer acceptance, and social licence to farm associated with not ensuring good animal welfare. The benefits of improving farm animal welfare are also difficult to evaluate from a purely economic perspective. Although it is widely recognised that animals with poor welfare are unlikely to produce at optimal levels, there may be benefits of improving animal welfare that extend beyond production gains. These include benefits to the animal, positive effects on the workforce, competitive advantage for businesses, mitigation of risk, and positive social consequences. We summarise these considerations into a decision tool that can assist people with farm animals under their care, and we highlight the need for further empirical evidence to improve decision-making in animal welfare.

Environmental choices of farm animals

1997 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 35-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
C J. Nicol
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
One Dimension ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Know How ◽  
Single Dimension ◽  
Underlying Basis ◽  
Preference Strength

AbstractTo assess farm animal welfare we need to understand how animals make choices and how these choices relate to preference strength. Studies of environmental choice can be categorized by the method used to investigate them, or by the underlying basis on which the animal is choosing. Choices made between resources that vary along a single dimension should meet certain criteria e.g. those of transitivity. Choices made between resources that vary along more than one dimension may or may not meet these criteria, depending how the animal evaluates each option. Understanding how farm animals choose will allow the results of individual experiments to be applied in a wider context. It is also important to know how preferences are formed during development. Evidence suggests that preferences for nests and pecking substrates in hens may be influenced by prefunctional experience. Experimental data from studies of environmental choice may enable us either to provide important resources in commercial systems, or to provide facilities for animals to continue to make their own decisions.

scholarly journals Reducing the Consumer Attitude–Behaviour Gap in Animal Welfare: The Potential Role of ‘Nudges’

Animals ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belinda Vigors
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Consumer Attitude ◽  
Choice Architecture ◽  
Market Demand ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare

Citizen concern for the welfare of farm animals is well documented. However, there is a notable gap between people saying they want improved farm animal welfare and how they actually behave as a consumer. This is known as the citizen–consumer attitude–behaviour gap. As improvements in farm animal welfare can be affected by market demand, the choices consumers make become important. This paper introduces the concept of ‘nudging’ and discusses how it could be applied to reduce the attitude–behaviour gap amongst consumers. By designing the choice environment to better reflect the behavioural biases known to impact human decision-making, ‘nudge’ tools function to prompt individuals to make choices that are aligned with their stated intentions. Four ‘nudge’ tools: self-nudges, choice architecture, social norms and pre-commitments are discussed. The behavioural rationales for their use are reviewed and examples of how they might be applied to animal welfare provided. Improved farm animal welfare arguably requires improved pro-welfare consumer behaviour. This paper highlights how this might be encouraged by: self-nudging the salience of an ethical self-image; altering the choice architecture to influence decision-making; articulating social norms to impact behaviour; and using pre-commitment devices to overcome self-control issues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document