Integrating practical, regulatory and ethical strategies for enhancing farm animal welfare

Abstract

Objective: To provide an integrated view of relationships between assessment of animal welfare. societal expectations regarding animal welfare standards, the need for regulation, and two ethical strategies for promoting animal welfare, emphasising farm animals.

Approach: Ideas in relevant papers and key insights were outlined and illustrated, where appropriate, by New Zealand experience with different facets of the welfare management of farm animals.

Conclusions: An animal's welfare is good when its nutritional, environmental, health, behavioural and mental needs are met. Compromise may occur in one or more of these areas and is assessed by scientifically-informed best judgement using parameters validated by directed research and objective analysis in clinical and practical settings. There is a wide range of perceptions of what constitutes good and bad welfare in society, so that animal welfare standards cannot be left to individual preferences to determine. Rather, the promotion of animal welfare is seen as requiring central regulation, but managed in a way that allows for adjustments based on new scientific knowledge of animals' needs and changing societal perceptions of what is acceptable and unacceptable treatment of animals. Concepts of 'minimal welfare', representing the threshold of cruelty, and 'acceptable welfare', representing higher, more acceptable standards than those that merely avoid cruelty, are outlined. They are relevant to economic analyses, which deal with determinants of animal welfare standards based on financial costs and the desire of the public to feel broadly comfortable about the treatment of the animals that are used to serve their needs. Ethical strategies for promoting animal welfare can be divided broadly into the 'gold standard' approach and the 'incremental improvement' approach. The first defines the ideal that is to be required in a particular situation and will accept nothing less than that ideal, whereas the second aims to improve welfare in a step-wise fashion by setting a series of achievable goals, seeing each small advance as worthwhile progress towards the same ideal. 'Incremental improvement' is preferred. This also has application in veterinary practice where the professional commitment to maintain good welfare standards may at times conflict with financial constraints experienced by clients.