17 pages, o sustain the economic viability of a livestock farm in a global market, characterised by a price undercutting competition, farmers are forced to adapt to what the market demands. At the same time, they have to care for the functionality of the farm system as a whole and of the subsystems, such as the farm animals, so that they for their part they can contribute to an economic success. Now, that animal health and welfare (AHW) has become an increasingly important issue for citizens and consumers, not only the decision makers but also the disciplines of animal science are challenged to improve an unsatisfying AHW level that has been neglected for long. However, to reduce AHW problems requires a quite different approach than to increase productive efficiency. A common sense can be assumed concerning the need to strive for an optimal cost-to-benefit ratio while balancing positive and negative impacts of production processes on economic and AHW target figures. However, what is often not adequately considered is the fact that economic and biological demands have to be balanced within a living system, e.g. in the individual animal and farm system. These function as the relevant reference systems in all cases where measures to reduce AHW problems are considered. Furthermore, there is a large gap of scientific knowledge, however, not in the traditional sense. While the predominant approaches, scientists generate context-invariant, and thus generalisable disposal knowledge in diversified subdisciplines, problem solving requires contextualisation, orientation and action-guiding knowledge within transdisciplinary approaches. The reason is that AHW problems are highly context-sensitive as well as multifactorial. They develop within the farm specific interconnectedness of manifold and highly varying factors, emerging a complexity that does not allow predictive statements via inductive approaches but requires an iterative procedure to approach to a farm specific AHW level, which is balanced with the overarching goal of economic viability. Recommended action guiding knowledge has to be of high external and ecological validity, before farmers might consider it to be implemented in farm practice. From the reflection about the discrepancy between the knowledge needed to reduce AHW problems and what is offered by animal science, it is concluded that not only the farm systems but also the predominant approaches of animal science have to be transformed. Otherwise, there is not a big chance to considerably reduce AHW problems in farm animals.
19 pages., Via online journal., This article discusses two main issues: the historical invisibility of the role of animal
agriculture in climate change and whether it is useful to include explicit violent images
or “moral shock” of farmed animals in environmental advocacy campaigns to fight
against climate change and environmental devastation. The claim will be explored
at two levels: ethical and strategic. According to the current literature available, it
will be argued that we have sound arguments to believe that using images of farmed
animal suffering (including explicit violent images and moral shocks) is both an ethical
and effective approach to reach the end of speciesist oppression and to mitigate
climate change.
6 pages, Social change is slow and difficult. Social change for animals is formidably slow and difficult. Advocates and scholars alike have long tried to change attitudes and convince the public that eating animals is wrong. The topic of norms and social change for animals has been neglected, which explains in part the relative failure of the animal protection movement to secure robust support reflected in social and legal norms. Moreover, animal ethics has suffered from a disproportionate focus on individual attitudes and behavior at the expense of collective behavior, social change, and empirical psychology. If what we want to change is behavior on a large scale, norms are important tools. This article reviews an account of social norms that provides insights into the possibility and limitations of social change for animals, approaching animal protection as a problem of reverse social engineering. It highlights avenues for future work from this neglected perspective.
16 pages., via online journal, The sustainable intensification of animal production systems is increasing as a consequence of increased demand for foods originating from animals. Production diseases are particularly endemic in intensive production systems, and can negatively impact upon farm animal welfare. There is an increasing need to develop policies regarding animal production diseases, sustainable intensification, and animal welfare which incorporate consumer priorities as well as technical assessments of farm animal welfare. Consumers and/or citizens may have concerns about intensive production systems, and whether animal production disease represent a barrier to consumer acceptance of their increased use. There is a considerable body of research focused on consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for improved animal welfare. It is not clear how this relates specifically to a preference for reduced animal production disease incidence in animal production systems. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to establish the publics’ WTP for farm animal welfare, with a focus on production diseases which arise in intensive systems. Systematic review methodology combined with data synthesis was applied to integrate existing knowledge regarding consumer WTP for animal welfare, and reduced incidence of animal production diseases. Multiple databases were searched to identify relevant studies. A screening process, using a set of pre-determined inclusion criteria, identified 54 studies, with the strength of evidence and uncertainty for each study being assessed. A random effects meta-analysis was used to explore heterogeneity in relation to a number of factors, with a cumulative meta-analysis conducted to establish changes in WTP over time. The results indicated a small, positive WTP (0.63 standard deviations) for farm animal welfare varying in relation to a number of factors including animal type and region. Socio-demographic characteristics explained the most variation in the data. An evidence gap was highlighted in relation to reduced WTP for specific production diseases associated with the intensification of production, with only 4 of the 54 studies identified being related to this. A combination of market and government based policy solutions appears to be the best solution for improving farm animal welfare standards in the future, enabling the diverse public preferences to be taken into consideration.
24 pages, This research examines how sheep farmers and industry actors in the United Kingdom (UK) understand and conceptualize what animal welfare scientists term ‘positive animal welfare’. It explores their awareness of the concept, and how they interpret it using a qualitative approach. Participants were recruited using a snowballing, purposive sample approach, resulting in 25 sheep farmers and 11 industry actors (veterinarians, farming organizations, advisors, and supply chain) being interviewed. To collect data, a combined approach involving semi-structured interviews and a facilitated workshop were used between April 2021 and March 2022. Data were then thematically analyzed using a hybrid of inductive and deductive coding process. The findings suggested that the perceptions of farmers and industry actors in the study regarding positive welfare differ from contemporary academic discourses. Overall, around 7 of the farmers equated positive welfare with “positive stockmanship”, while six of them expressed “good animal welfare” definitions associated with the Five Freedoms. In contrast, most industry actors (6) expressed interpretations associated with high welfare standards (going above minimum recommended practices) and positive mental experiences (3). Emerging discourses revealed the link between self-identity, social identity and what positive welfare is, the importance of knowledge exchange, and the need for practical indicators through language rephrasing. There is a clear need to enhance and improve knowledge dissemination strategies, particularly in the UK, where much research is being conducted on positive animal welfare.
7 pages., Via online journal., Policy makers in the European Union are envisioning the introduction of a community farm animal welfare label which would allow consumers to align their consumption habits with their farm animal welfare preferences. For welfare labeling to be viable the market for livestock products produced to higher welfare standards has to be sufficiently segmented with consumers having sufficiently distinct and behaviourally consistent preferences. The present study investigates consumers’ preferences for meat produced to different welfare standards using a hypothetical welfare score. Data is obtained from a contingent valuation study carried out in Britain. The ordered prohbit model was estimated using Bayesian inference to obtain mean willingness to pay. We find decreasing marginal WTP as animal welfare levels increase and that people’s preferences for different levels of farm animal welfare are sufficiently differentiated making the introduction of a la belling scheme in the form of a certified rating system appear feasible.
