Cargando…
The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare
SIMPLE SUMMARY: We studied different EU production standards and initiatives to determine whether there is still room or not for further animal welfare improvement, and which should be the best way to achieve it. Many of the adopted measures in these standards and initiatives are scientifically supp...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494436/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26479534 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani3030786 |
_version_ | 1782380095062671360 |
---|---|
author | Averós, Xavier Aparicio, Miguel A. Ferrari, Paolo Guy, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Carmen Schmid, Otto Ilieski, Vlatko Spoolder, Hans A. M. |
author_facet | Averós, Xavier Aparicio, Miguel A. Ferrari, Paolo Guy, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Carmen Schmid, Otto Ilieski, Vlatko Spoolder, Hans A. M. |
author_sort | Averós, Xavier |
collection | PubMed |
description | SIMPLE SUMMARY: We studied different EU production standards and initiatives to determine whether there is still room or not for further animal welfare improvement, and which should be the best way to achieve it. Many of the adopted measures in these standards and initiatives are scientifically supported, but other aspects that are equally important for animal welfare are not included in any of them. Animal welfare improvement should consider, for each country, those aspects actually benefiting animals, but also the social expectations within each country. Economic constraints might explain the gap between what society demands, and what farm animals actually need. ABSTRACT: Information about animal welfare standards and initiatives from eight European countries was collected, grouped, and compared to EU welfare standards to detect those aspects beyond minimum welfare levels demanded by EU welfare legislation. Literature was reviewed to determine the scientific relevance of standards and initiatives, and those aspects going beyond minimum EU standards. Standards and initiatives were assessed to determine their strengths and weaknesses regarding animal welfare. Attitudes of stakeholders in the improvement of animal welfare were determined through a Policy Delphi exercise. Social perception of animal welfare, economic implications of upraising welfare levels, and differences between countries were considered. Literature review revealed that on-farm space allowance, climate control, and environmental enrichment are relevant for all animal categories. Experts’ assessment revealed that on-farm prevention of thermal stress, air quality, and races and passageways’ design were not sufficiently included. Stakeholders considered that housing conditions are particularly relevant regarding animal welfare, and that animal-based and farm-level indicators are fundamental to monitor the progress of animal welfare. The most notable differences between what society offers and what farm animals are likely to need are related to transportation and space availability, with economic constraints being the most plausible explanation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4494436 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44944362015-09-30 The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare Averós, Xavier Aparicio, Miguel A. Ferrari, Paolo Guy, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Carmen Schmid, Otto Ilieski, Vlatko Spoolder, Hans A. M. Animals (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: We studied different EU production standards and initiatives to determine whether there is still room or not for further animal welfare improvement, and which should be the best way to achieve it. Many of the adopted measures in these standards and initiatives are scientifically supported, but other aspects that are equally important for animal welfare are not included in any of them. Animal welfare improvement should consider, for each country, those aspects actually benefiting animals, but also the social expectations within each country. Economic constraints might explain the gap between what society demands, and what farm animals actually need. ABSTRACT: Information about animal welfare standards and initiatives from eight European countries was collected, grouped, and compared to EU welfare standards to detect those aspects beyond minimum welfare levels demanded by EU welfare legislation. Literature was reviewed to determine the scientific relevance of standards and initiatives, and those aspects going beyond minimum EU standards. Standards and initiatives were assessed to determine their strengths and weaknesses regarding animal welfare. Attitudes of stakeholders in the improvement of animal welfare were determined through a Policy Delphi exercise. Social perception of animal welfare, economic implications of upraising welfare levels, and differences between countries were considered. Literature review revealed that on-farm space allowance, climate control, and environmental enrichment are relevant for all animal categories. Experts’ assessment revealed that on-farm prevention of thermal stress, air quality, and races and passageways’ design were not sufficiently included. Stakeholders considered that housing conditions are particularly relevant regarding animal welfare, and that animal-based and farm-level indicators are fundamental to monitor the progress of animal welfare. The most notable differences between what society offers and what farm animals are likely to need are related to transportation and space availability, with economic constraints being the most plausible explanation. MDPI 2013-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4494436/ /pubmed/26479534 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani3030786 Text en © 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Averós, Xavier Aparicio, Miguel A. Ferrari, Paolo Guy, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Carmen Schmid, Otto Ilieski, Vlatko Spoolder, Hans A. M. The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare |
title | The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare |
title_full | The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare |
title_fullStr | The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare |
title_full_unstemmed | The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare |
title_short | The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare |
title_sort | effect of steps to promote higher levels of farm animal welfare across the eu. societal versus animal scientists’ perceptions of animal welfare |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494436/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26479534 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani3030786 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT averosxavier theeffectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT apariciomiguela theeffectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT ferraripaolo theeffectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT guyjonathanh theeffectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT hubbardcarmen theeffectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT schmidotto theeffectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT ilieskivlatko theeffectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT spoolderhansam theeffectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT averosxavier effectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT apariciomiguela effectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT ferraripaolo effectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT guyjonathanh effectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT hubbardcarmen effectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT schmidotto effectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT ilieskivlatko effectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare AT spoolderhansam effectofstepstopromotehigherlevelsoffarmanimalwelfareacrosstheeusocietalversusanimalscientistsperceptionsofanimalwelfare |