Year 2020, Volume 3 , Issue 1, Pages 61 - 65 2020-01-01

Can Improving Animal Welfare Contribute to Sustainability and Productivity?

Cathy M. Dwyer [1]


Globally we need to feed an increasingly urban and expanding population with a growing demand for meat, milk and eggs, against a background of reducing the carbon footprint of food production. Under these conditions is farm animal welfare a luxury that cannot be sustained? Animal welfare has been characterised in a number of different ways: to include aspects of the animal’s biological functioning, ability to live a natural life, and affective state. The oldest conception of animal welfare is the Five Freedoms, which has been adapted to the Five welfare Needs for a suitable environment, a suitable diet, to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, to be with, or apart from, other animals and to be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease. In lowly productive extensive livestock production systems, animals are often kept in conditions of variable nutrition, and experience high mortality and morbidity from preventable disease. For these systems animal welfare can be improved through actions which will simultaneously improve productivity (e.g. vaccination against disease, education in animal hygiene and management, and provision of improved nutrition, such as improved grassland management). Under these conditions animal welfare improvements are an integral part of improving production efficiency, and can benefit humans and animals simultaneously. Highly productive, intensive systems have increasing control of nutrition and health of the animals, and high productivity but reduce the space and opportunity for animals to express highly motivated behaviour (such as dust-bathing in chickens, or exploration in pigs). Under these conditions productivity gains have been achieved with animal welfare costs. However, these systems often have high inputs, require the use of antibiotics to sustain growth, and may have detrimental impacts on the immune function, fertility and longevity of animals within these systems. Paying attention to the needs of the animal can have both welfare and production efficiency benefits, and animal welfare should be seen as an integral component in improving sustainability of livestock production.

Animal welfare, Sustainability, Productivity, Behaviour, Health
  • Animal Welfare Act (2006) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents.
  • Barnes AP, Rutherford KMD, Langford FM, Haskell MJ. 2011. The effects of lameness prevention on technical efficiency at the dairy farm level: An adjusted data envelopment analysis approach. Journal of Dairy Science, 94: 5449-5457.
  • Baxter EM, Adeleye OO, Jack M, Farish M, Ison SH, Edwards SA. 2015. Achieving optimum farrowing performance in a loose-housed system for sows: the effects of space and temperature. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 169: 9-16.
  • Dawkins MJ. 2004. Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 13: 3-7.
  • D’Eath RB, Arnott G, Turner SM, Jensen T, Lahrmann HP, Busch ME, Niemi JK, Lawrence AB, Sandøe P. 2014. Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking? Animal, 8(9): 1479-1497.
  • D’Eath RB, Tolkamp BJ, Kyriazakis I, Lawrence AB. 2009. ‘Freedom from hunger’ and preventing obesity: the animal welfare implications of reducing feed quantity or quality. Animal Behaviour, 77: 275-288.
  • Driessen C, Korthals M. 2012. Pig towers and in vitro meat: Disclosing moral worlds by design. Social Studies of Science, 42: 797-820.
  • Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). 2009. Farm animal welfare in Great Britain: Past, present and future. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319292/Farm_Animal_Welfare_in_Great_Britain_-_Past__Present_and_Future.pdf. Foresight Report. 2011. The future of food and farming: Challenges and choices for Global sustainability. https://www.foresight4food.net/2018/02/14/the-future-of-food-and-farming-challenges-and-choices-for-global-sustainability/. Fraser D. 2008. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandanavica, 50(1): S1.
  • Garnett T. 2015. Three perspectives on sustainable food security: efficiency, demand restraint, food system transformation. What role for life cycle assessment? Journal of Cleaner Production, 73: 10-18.
  • Hocquette JF. 2018. In in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Science, 120: 167-176.
  • Jarvis S, Lawrence AB, McLean KA, Deans LA, Chirnside J, Calvert SK. 1997. The effect of environment on behavioural activity, ACTH, beta-endorphin and cortisol in pre-farrowing gilts. Animal Science, 65: 465-472.
  • Jarvis S, Reed BT, Lawrence AB, Calvert SK, Stephenson J. 2004. Peri-natal environmental effects on maternal behaviour, pituitary and adrenal activation and the progress of parturition in the primiparous sow. Animal Welfare, 13: 171-181.
  • Knapp JR, Laur GL, Vadas PA, Weiss WP, Tricario JM. 2014. Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. Journal of Dairy Science, 97: 3231-3261.
  • Knowles TG, Kestin SC, Haslam SM, Brown SN, Green LE, Butterworth A, et al. 2008. Leg disorders in broiler chickens: Prevalence, risk factors and prevention. PLoS ONE, 3(2): e1545.
  • McInerney J. 2004. Animal Welfare, Economics and Food. Defra report http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/animalwelfare.pdf.
  • Mellor DJ, Patterson-Kane E, Stafford KJ. 2009. The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
  • Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ. 2015. Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare, 24: 241-253. Nicol CJ, Gregory NG, Knowles TG, Parkman ID, Wilkins LJ. 1999. Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65: 137-152.
  • Rutherford KMD, Langford FM, Jack MC, Sherwood L, Lawrence AB, Haskell MJ. 2009. Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom. Veterinary Journal, 180: 95-105.
  • van Dixhoorn IDE, Reimert I, Middelkoop J, Bolhuis JE, Wisselink HJ, Groot Koerkamp PWG, Kemp B, Stockhofe-Zurweiden N. 2016. Enriched housing reduces disease susceptibility to co-infection with Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Virus (PRRSV) and Actinobactillus pleuropneumonidae in young pigs. PLoS ONE, 11: e0161832.
  • Van Boeckel TP, Brower C, Gilbert M, Grenfell BT, Levin SA, Robinson TP, Teillant A, Laxminarayan R. 2015. Global trends in antibiotic use in food animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112: 5649-5654.
  • Vee Randall L, Thomas HJ, Remnant JG, Bollard NJ, Huxley JN. 2019. Lameness prevalence in a random sample of UK dairy herds. Veterinary Record, 184(11): 350.
  • Webster J. 2016. Animal Welfare: Freedoms, Dominions and “A Life Worth Living”. Animals, 6(6): 35.
  • Yeates JW, Main DCJ. 2008. Assessment of positive welfare: A review. Veterinary Journal, 175: 293-300.
Primary Language en
Subjects Agriculture, Dairy and Animal Science
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0001-7511-2056
Author: Cathy M. Dwyer (Primary Author)
Institution: Animal Behaviour and Welfare, SRUC
Country: United Kingdom


Dates

Publication Date : January 1, 2020

Bibtex @review { bsagriculture627436, journal = {Black Sea Journal of Agriculture}, issn = {}, eissn = {2618-6578}, address = {bsjagri@blackseapublishers.com}, publisher = {Hasan ÖNDER}, year = {2020}, volume = {3}, pages = {61 - 65}, doi = {}, title = {Can Improving Animal Welfare Contribute to Sustainability and Productivity?}, key = {cite}, author = {Dwyer, Cathy M.} }
APA Dwyer, C . (2020). Can Improving Animal Welfare Contribute to Sustainability and Productivity?. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture , 3 (1) , 61-65 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bsagriculture/issue/49364/627436
MLA Dwyer, C . "Can Improving Animal Welfare Contribute to Sustainability and Productivity?". Black Sea Journal of Agriculture 3 (2020 ): 61-65 <https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bsagriculture/issue/49364/627436>
Chicago Dwyer, C . "Can Improving Animal Welfare Contribute to Sustainability and Productivity?". Black Sea Journal of Agriculture 3 (2020 ): 61-65
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Can Improving Animal Welfare Contribute to Sustainability and Productivity? AU - Cathy M. Dwyer Y1 - 2020 PY - 2020 N1 - DO - T2 - Black Sea Journal of Agriculture JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 61 EP - 65 VL - 3 IS - 1 SN - -2618-6578 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 Black Sea Journal of Agriculture Can Improving Animal Welfare Contribute to Sustainability and Productivity? %A Cathy M. Dwyer %T Can Improving Animal Welfare Contribute to Sustainability and Productivity? %D 2020 %J Black Sea Journal of Agriculture %P -2618-6578 %V 3 %N 1 %R %U
ISNAD Dwyer, Cathy M. . "Can Improving Animal Welfare Contribute to Sustainability and Productivity?". Black Sea Journal of Agriculture 3 / 1 (January 2020): 61-65 .
AMA Dwyer C . Can Improving Animal Welfare Contribute to Sustainability and Productivity?. BSJ Agri.. 2020; 3(1): 61-65.
Vancouver Dwyer C . Can Improving Animal Welfare Contribute to Sustainability and Productivity?. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture. 2020; 3(1): 65-61.