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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Averós, Xavier, Aparicio, Miguel A., Ferrari, Paolo, Guy, Jonathan H., Hubbard, Carmen, Schmid, Otto, Ilieski, Vlatko, Spoolder, Hans A. M.
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