Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Information and technology transfer in farm animal welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

P. J. Goddard
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH
Get access

Abstract

Considerable information is available on which to base practical recommendations for enhanced animal welfare. There is evidence of a reasonable flow of information between researchers, farmers, producers' organizations, legislators and the public, although more readily assimilated forms of information are required. New approaches to welfare assessment may allow the public to evaluate production systems in a more balanced way. As the urbanization of society increases, the rôle of education becomes more important to provide information about the reality of on-farm practices. Increasing use will be made of information technology to implement technological advances. Using interactive methods of on-farm assessment of welfare and decision support tools, it would seem possible to engage the producer to a greater extent in the process of improving standards. Measures of public willingness to pay for enhanced welfare provide valuable information about the utility value of animal welfare, influence the views of politicians and producers and ultimately determine production systems.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abeyesinghe, S. M. and Goddard, P. J. 1998. The preferences and behaviour of farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) in the presence of other farmed species. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 56: 5969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R. M. 1996. People's willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 5: 311.Google Scholar
Bennett, R. M. 1998. Measuring public support for animal welfare legislation: a case study of cage egg production. Animal Welfare 7: 110.Google Scholar
Bennett, R. and Larson, D. 1996. Contingent valuation of the perceived benefit of farm animal welfare: an exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics 47: 224235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betz, F. 1994. Basic research and technology transfer. International Journal of Technology Management 9: 784796.Google Scholar
Boivin, X., Boissy, A., Chupin, J. M. and Le Neindre, P. 1998. Herbivores, caretakers and range management. In: Animal health and welfare in extensive system (ed. Goddard, P. J.), proceedings of an EU workshop, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Bouche, R., Choisis, J. P., Casabianca, F. and Dubeuf, B. 1997. Designing negotiation aids for milk quality in the Corsican dairy sheep sector. In: Livestock farming systems — more than food production (ed. Sørensen, J. T.), proceedings of the fourth international symposium on livestock farming systems, Foulum, Denmark, pp. 183189.Google Scholar
Bracke, M. B. M., Metz, J. H. M. and Udink ten Cate, A. J. 1997. Assessment of animal welfare in husbandry systems. In: Livestock farming systems — more than food production (ed. Sørensen, J. T.), proceedings of the fourth international symposium on livestock farming systems, Foulum, Denmark, pp. 231237.Google Scholar
Cockram, M. S., Kent, J. E., Goddard, P. J., Waran, N. K., McGilp, I. M., Jackson, R. E., Muwanga, G. M. and Prytherch, S. 1996. Effect of space allowance during transport on the behavioural and physiological responses of lambs during and after transport. Animal Science 62: 461477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockram, M. S., Kent, J. E., Jackson, R. E., Goddard, P. J., Doherty, O. M., McGilp, I. M., Fox, A., Studdert-Kennedy, T. C., McConnell, T. I. and O'Riordan, T. 1997. Effect of lairage during 24 h of transport on the behavioural and physiological responses of sheep. Animal Science 65: 391402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. 1990. From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I. J. H. 1993. Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Special Supplement 2: 814.Google Scholar
Duncan, I. J. H. and Petherick, J. C. 1991. The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 69: 50175022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekesbo, I. 1998. European animal welfare legislation and codes of practice. In: Animal health and welfare in extensive system (ed. Goddard, P. J.), proceedings of an EU workshop, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
European Biomedical Research Association. 1997. The ethics of the genetic manipulation of animals. EBRA Bulletin, February 1997, p. 7.Google Scholar
Ewbank, R., Parker, M. J. and Mason, C. W. 1992. Reactions of cattle to head-restraint at stunning: a practical dilemma. Animal Welfare 1: 5563.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council. 1993. Report on the priorities for animal welfare research and development. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.Google Scholar
Guise, J. 1991. Humane animal management — the benefits of improved systems for pig production, transport and slaughter. In: Farm animals: it pays to be humane (ed. Carruthers, S. P.), C.A.S. paper no. 22, pp. 5058. Centre for Agricultural Strategy, Reading.Google Scholar
Guise, H. J. and Penny, R. H. C. 1989. Factors influencing the welfare and carcass and meat quality of pigs. 1. The effects of stocking density in transport and the use of electric goads. Animal Production 49: 511515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanlon, A. J. 1997. The welfare of farmed red deer. I. Recent research. Deer Farming 53: 1416.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Breuer, K., Barnett, J. L., Coleman, G. J. and Matthews, L. R. 1995. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Proceedings of the 29th international congress of the ISAE, Exeter, UK, pp. 175176.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J. and Barnett, J. L. 1994a. Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 349362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J., Barnett, J. L. and Jones, R. B. 1994b. Behavioural responses to humans and the productivity of commercial broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 101114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, E. J., Riches, H. L., Guise, H. J. and Penny, R. H. C. 1997. The behaviour of pigs in lairage in relation to their post-weaning management: results of a postal survey. Animal Welfare 6: 139144.Google Scholar
Hunter, E. J., Weeding, C. M., Guise, H. J., Abbott, T. A. and Penny, R. H. C. 1994. Pig welfare and carcase quality: a comparison of the influence of slaughter handling systems at two abattoirs. Veterinary Record 135: 423425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, C. 1995. Why is technology transfer so hard? Computer, June 1995, pp. 8687.Google Scholar
Knowles, T. G., Brown, S. N., Warriss, P. D., Phillips, A. J., Dolan, S. K., Hunt, P., Ford, J. E., Edwards, J. E. and Watkins, P. E. 1995. Effects on sheep of transport by road for up to 24 hours. Veterinary Record 136: 431438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, T. G., Warriss, P. D., Brown, S. N., Kestin, S. C., Edwards, J. E., Perry, A. M., Watkins, P. E. and Phillips, A. J. 1996. Effect of feeding, watering and resting intervals on lambs transported by road and ferry to France. Veterinary Record 139: 335339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, J. A. 1997. Decision support systems to aid management of the vegetation of the uplands of Scotland. Scottish Forestry 51: 108109.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1995. The welfare of animals (slaughter or killing) regulations 1995. MAFF, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1998. Assessment of practical experience in the handling, transport and care of animals. MAFF, London.Google Scholar
National Proficiency Tests Council. 1994. Certificate of competence in the safe use of sheep dips. National Proficiency Tests Council, Kenilworth, UK.Google Scholar
Paxman, P. J. 1986. Consumer reaction to cost and health consequences of free range systems for veal and poultry production. Proceedings of the Society of Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, pp. 116121.Google Scholar
Piper, W. S. and Naghshpour, S. 1996. Government technology-transfer — the effective use of push and pull marketing strategies. International Journal of Technology Management 12: 8594.Google Scholar
Ritson, C. 1997. Marketing, agriculture and economics: presidential address. Journal of Agricultural Economics 48: 279299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P., Munksgaard, L., Bådsgård, N. P. and Jensen, K. H. 1997. How to manage the management factor — assessing animal welfare at the farm level. In: Livestock farming systems — more than food production (ed. Sørensen, J. T.), proceedings of the fourth international symposium on livestock farming systems, Foulum, Denmark, pp. 221230.Google Scholar
Schmid, E. 1998. Minimum care for maximum welfare. In: Animal health and welfare in extensive system, (ed. Goddard, P. J.), proceedings of an EU workshop, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Scott, G. R. and Smith, A. J. 1996. Technology-transfer in tropical animal health and production. The Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine (CTVM). Tropical Animal Health and Production 28: 6067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, A. A., Hurnik, J. F. and Lehman, H. 1995. The application of cost-benefit dominance analysis to the assessment of farm animal quality of life. Social Indicators Research 35: 313329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 5 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 27th February 2018 - 24th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-cdxmh Total loading time: 0.798 Render date: 2021-01-24T10:29:59.867Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Information and technology transfer in farm animal welfare
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Information and technology transfer in farm animal welfare
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Information and technology transfer in farm animal welfare
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *