Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T19:01:02.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflicting goals of welfare assessment schemes: a case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

R Ingemann ,
P Sandøe ,
P Enemark  and
B Forkman
R Ingemann*
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark Danish Cattle Federation, Danish Agricultural Advisory Service, National Centre, Udkærsvej 15, 8200 Århus N, Denmark
P Sandøe
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
P Enemark
Affiliation:
Danish Cattle Federation, Danish Agricultural Advisory Service, National Centre, Udkærsvej 15, 8200 Århus N, Denmark
B Forkman
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: rii@landscentret.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this article is to discuss the farming industry's development and use of welfare assessment schemes. A welfare assessment scheme developed by the Danish Cattle Federation (DCF) is used as a case study. The declared aim of the DCF scheme is to improve animal welfare, farm profitability and dialogue with the public. It is the purpose of this article to attempt to understand the dilemmas arising from this broad aim. We ask how DCF measures of welfare compare with alternative measures in which economic factors receive less emphasis. We bring in farmers’ views on whether the DCF's parameters of welfare track welfare effectively and are economically feasible. We also discuss how the views of the Scandinavian public on animal welfare influences the likelihood that the DCF scheme will improve dialogue with the public. The DCF definition of welfare is broad, but the measures it deploys are more limited and indeed very narrow compared with those in other welfare assessment schemes. This may not be a problem if the goal is to improve farm profitability. However, if the goal is to improve welfare, limited measures are problematic, and this may undermine attempts to improve dialogue with the public.

Keywords

animal-based measuresanimal welfarecitizens’ views on welfaredairy cattlefarmers’ views on welfarefarming industry welfare scheme
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 487 - 495
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Danish Cattle Federation 2006a Danish Cattle Federation's Policy Paper on Animal Welfare. http://www.lr.dk/kvaeg/diverse/1547.htm. (Accessed 12th December 2008)Google Scholar
Danish Cattle Federation 2006b Registration Chart from Danish Swedish Project. http://www.lr.dk/kvaeg/diverse/kv_maaling.htm. (Accessed 12th December 2008)Google Scholar
Danish Cattle Federation 2008 The Voice of Cattle Farming. http://www.kvaeg.dk/Danskkvaeg/Hvaderdanskkvaeg/dkKvaegbrTaleror.htm. (Accessed 12th December 2008)Google Scholar
Dellmeier, G, Friend, T and Gbur, E 1990 Effects of changing housing on open-field behavior of calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 215–230Google Scholar
Ellegård, KH 2001 Analysis of Attitudes among Danish Consumers. Arla Foods and DMA/Research: DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Enemark, P 2003 Milk Production - Dynamic Assessment of Animal Welfare. Better Animal Welfare Seen from a Value Chain Perspective, unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
Enemark, P 2005 Milk Production: Operational Assessment of Animal Welfare, unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2008 http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm. (Accessed 12th December 2008)Google Scholar
Fisher, AD, Crowe, MA, Kiely, PO and Enright, WJ 1997 Growth, behaviour, adrenal and immune responses of finishing beef heifers housed on slatted floors 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0 m2 space allowance. Livestock Production Science 51: 245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladewig, J and Smidt, D 1989 Behavior, episodic secretion of cortisol, and adrenocortial reactivity subjected to tethering. Hormones and Behaviour 23: 344–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeb, C, Main, CJ, Whay, HR and Webster, AJF 2004 BWAP British Welfare Assurance Programme, Version 2. University of Bristol: Bristol, UK. http://www.vetschool.bris.ac.uk/animalwelfare/docs/dairyassessment.pdfGoogle Scholar
Müller, C, Ladewig, J, Thieschler, HH and Smidt, D 1989 Behavior and heart rate of heifers housed in tether stanchions without straw. Physiology & Behavior 46: 751–754CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nissen, TB and Vaarst, M 2004 Manual for Calf Life 100. http://www.okologi.dk/Eksterne/Eksperimenter/dokumenter/Kalvelivmanual-web.pdf. (Accessed 12th December 2008)Google Scholar
Petterson, L and Bergman, H 2007 Sweden. In: Evans, A and Miele, M (eds) Consumers’ Views about Farm Animal Welfare, Part 1: National Reports based on Focus Group Research pp 205–252. School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University: Wales, UKGoogle Scholar
Rousing, T and Enemark, P 2007 Tools for Measurement and Assessment of Animal Welfare. http://www.lr.dk/kvaeg/informationsserier/lk-meddelelser/1720.htm. (Accessed 12th December 2008)Google Scholar
RSPCA 2008 RSPCA Welfare Standards for Dairy Cattle, January 2008 http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=Producersection&marker=1&articleI d=1121758148522. (Accessed 12th December 2008)Google Scholar
Sundrum, A 1997 Assessing livestock housing conditions in terms of animal welfare - possibilities and limitations. In: S⊘rensen, JT (ed) Livestock Farming Systems Symposium, More Than Food Production pp 238–246. EAAP Production No 89: Foulum, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Terragni, L and Torjusen, H 2007 Norway. In: Evans, A and Miele, M (eds) Consumers’ Views about Farm Animal Welfare, Part 1: National Reports Based on Focus Group Research pp 253–322. School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University: Wales, UKGoogle Scholar
Vaarst, M and Nissen T, B 2006 Manual for Cow Life 100. http://www.okologi.dk/Landmand/Projekter/Velfaerd/Koliv-100-web.pdf. (Accessed 12th December 2008)Google Scholar
Vaarst, M, Nissen T, B and Lauridsen, K 2007 Manual for Heifer Life 100. http://orgprints.org/13732/01/13732.pdf. (Accessed 12th December 2008)Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2008 http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone. (Accessed 12th December 2008)Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, EA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000 The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 193–215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winckler, C 2008 Practical experiences with the cattle on-farm assessment. In Update 9 Electronic newsletter of the Welfare Quality®. http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/34056/41398 (Accessed 12th December 2008)Google Scholar