Moral Convictions and Meat Consumption — A Comparative Study of the Animal Ethics Orientations of Consumers of Pork in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden

By T. B. Lund, S. Denver, J. Nordström, T. Christensen & P. Sandøe (2021) 
Animals. MDPI

Simple summary

In western Europe, national animal welfare legislation since the 1980s in combination with EU legislation has served to ensure minimal requirements for the welfare of farm animals. For many consumers, however, these requirements do not go far enough. Market-driven initiatives where farmers, processors of animal products, and retailers raise the standards via labelling schemes and price premiums may further improve the welfare of farm animals, but such initiatives are only viable solutions if there is sufficient consumer support. To find out to what extent such support exists, we studied the relationship between animal ethics orientations and consumer demand for welfare-enhanced pork in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden. In all three countries, we identified a consumer segment that endorses the ideal behind schemes to enhance farm animal welfare, i.e., that it is ethically justified to eat meat provided the animals enjoy a good level of welfare. Consumers in this segment are highly concerned about animal welfare, and also purchase welfare pork more often than other consumers. More than one fourth of consumers in all three countries belong to this segment; therefore, we believe that market actors can be reassured that there will be persistent consumer demand for welfare-enhanced meat.

Abstract

Background: The relationship between animal ethics orientations and consumer demand for meat with high standards of animal welfare, and the way this relationship plays out in different countries, is not well understood. Using pork as a case study, this comparative study aims to identify the animal ethics orientations that drive purchases of welfare meat in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden. Methods: Cross-sectional questionnaire data from representative samples of approximately 1600 consumers in each country were collected. A segmentation of pork consumers (using latent profile analysis) was carried out. Results: In all three countries, two subgroups were concerned about farm animal welfare: the first subgroup was driven by animal rights values; the second subgroup by animal protection values, where the main principle was that “it is all right to use animals as long as they are treated well”. Other consumer groups are less concerned about farm animal welfare and display little or no preference for welfare pork. Conclusions: In all three countries, dual demand for welfare pork exists. The findings of this study can be used, among others, to understand the marketability of enhanced welfare animal products and the potential for market-driven animal welfare improvements.

Moral Convictions and Meat Consumption — A Comparative Study of the Animal Ethics Orientations of Consumers of Pork in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden (pdf)

A multidimensional measure of animal ethics orientation – developed and applied to a representative sample of the Danish public

By T. B. Lund, S. V. Kondrup & P. Sandøe
PLoS ONE. PLOS

Abstract

We present a questionnaire-based measure of four animal ethics orientations. The orientations, which were developed in light of existing empirical studies of attitudes to animal use and ethical theory, are: animal rights, anthropocentrism, lay utilitarianism, and animal protection. The two latter orientations can be viewed as variants of animal welfarism. Three studies were conducted in Denmark in order to identify the hypothesised orientations, evaluate their concurrent validity, and report their prevalence and relevance in animal-related opinion formation and behaviour. Explorative factor analysis (Study 1) and confirmative factor analysis (Study 2) successfully identified the four orientations. Study 2 revealed good measurement invariance, as there was none or very modest differential item functioning across age, gender, living area, and contrasting population segments. Evaluation of concurrent validity in Study 2 found that the orientations are associated with different kinds of behaviour and opinion when the human use of animals is involved in the hypothesised directions. In Study 3, a representative population study, the animal protection orientation proved to be most prevalent in the Danish population, and as in study 2, the four orientations were associated with different behaviours and opinions. Remarkably, the animal protection orientation does not lead to increased animal welfare-friendly meat consumption, the main reason for this being non-concern about the current welfare status of farm animals. We argue that the developed measure covers a wide range of diversity in animal ethics orientations that is likely to exist in a modern society such as Denmark and can be used in future studies to track changes in the orientations and to understand and test hypotheses about the sources and justifications of people’s animal-related opinions and behaviours.

A multidimensional measure of animal ethics orientation – developed and applied to a representative sample of the Danish public (pdf)

The Role of Quality Labels in Market-Driven Animal Welfare

L.R. Heerwagen, M.R. Mørkbak, S. Denver, P. Sandøe & T. Christensen (2015)
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Springer

Abstract

In policy-making the consumption of specially labelled products, and its role in improving the welfare of livestock, has attracted considerable attention. There is in many countries a diverse market for animal welfare-friendly products which is potentially confusing and may lack transparency. We ask whether special quality labels that involve medium levels of animal welfare, as compared with labels promoting premium levels of animal welfare, have a role to play in promoting improvements in animal welfare. The Danish pork market is our reference case, but we also widen the context by comparing the markets for pork in three other European countries. Our findings suggest that in order to improve animal welfare through demand for welfare-friendly products it is important to maintain separate the market for products with strong animal welfare profiles from markets for products with medium levels of animal welfare where, often, animal welfare is bundled together with other food quality attributes. We conclude that such quality labels may indeed play an important role in promoting higher animal welfare standards provided that they offer real improvements in animal welfare as compared with standard products. They will be attractive to consumers with a positive, but not especially strong interest in animal welfare as an individual food attribute who would otherwise be inclined to purchase standard products.

The Role of Quality Labels in Market-Driven Animal Welfare (pdf)

Closer to Nature? A Critical Discussion of the Marketing of ‘‘Ethical’’ Animal Products

Borkfelt, S. Kondrup, S.V., Röcklinsberg, H., Bjørkdahl, K, & Gjerris, M. (2015) 
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Springer

Abstract

As public awareness of environmental issues and animal welfare has risen, catering to public concerns and views on these issues has become a potentially profitable strategy for marketing a number of product types, of which animal products such as dairy and meat are obvious examples. Our analysis suggests that specific marketing instruments are used to sell animal products by blurring the difference between the paradigms of animal welfare used by producers, and the paradigms of animal welfare as perceived by the public. These instruments rely on ethical, political and sustainable consumption discourses in order to sell one image of animal welfare in intensive animal production while the actual production at the same time presupposes a quite different paradigm of animal welfare. Specifically, product advertising utilizes representations tied to concepts of naturalness in depictions of both animal lives and product processes as ‘‘natural’’. Product marketing suggests a coherence between nature, production process (farm, animal), and end product, thereby creating associations that the lives of production animals are lived in nature and that their products bring a wholesome and sustainable naturalness to the consumer —thus attempting to display a green, eco-, climate-, and animal friendly production. By analyzing a number of cases from the Scandinavian food market, this paper thus illustrates the tensions between paradigms of animal welfare and concepts of naturalness as these are used in animal product marketing, discusses the ethical implications of this type of marketing communication, and stresses the need for transparency in the area of animal welfare.

Closer to Nature? A Critical Discussion of the Marketing of ‘‘Ethical’’ Animal Products (URL)

Breeding Blues: An ethical evaluation of the plan to reduce calving difficulties in Danish Blue cattle

By P. Sandøe, L.F. Theut & M. Denwood (2018)
Preprint version of contribution to the EurSafe 2018 Conference

Abstract

Danish Blue Cattle is a breed of cattle originating from the Belgian White Blue Cattle (BWB), a breed that is characterized by double muscling, which in turn may lead to difficult calving. In Belgium, difficult calving in this breed is typically pre-empted by means of planned caesarean sections (CS). The breed association, under some pressure from its parent organisation the National Cattle Committee, first implemented an action plan to reduce the rate of CS following a media event and subsequent reactions from politicians in Denmark in 1998. Later, the breed association renamed the breed from Belgian White Blue to Danish Blue Cattle in an effort to distance the breed from its Belgian origin. The aim of this paper is to undertake an ethical evaluation of how this issue was handled, with specific focus on the actions of the breed association and the National Cattle Committee. This evaluation involves an objective assessment of the outcome of the action plan as well as a wider ethical assessment of the rationale and actions of the professional organisations in charge. We begin by describing the controversy in 1998, which led to the aforementioned action plan. Then, we evaluate how successful the action plan has been in achieving its stated goals. These results show that the action plan has achieved a decrease in the rate of CS from over 50% between 1990-1998 to below 10% between 2000-2013. There has also been a significant decrease in the rate of other types of difficult births in the breed. Finally, we evaluate the implementation of the action plan from the perspective of professional ethics, where the aim is to handle public controversies in such a way as to maintain acceptance from the surrounding society. This has clearly been a success. However, viewed from a consequentialist perspective with a focus on animal welfare, the outcome is more ambiguous. The welfare for Danish Blue cattle has improved, but on the other hand the breed still has a much higher level of CS than comparable breeds of cattle in Denmark.

Breeding Blues: An ethical evaluation of the plan to reduce calving difficulties in Danish Blue cattle (pdf)

Genomic dairy cattle breeding: Risks and opportunities for cow welfare

By T. Mark & P. Sandøe (2010)
Animal Welfare. UFAW

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss the potential consequences of modern dairy cattle breeding for the welfare of dairy cows. The paper focuses on so-called genomic selection, which deploys thousands of genetic markers to estimate breeding values. The discussion should help to structure the thoughts of breeders and other stakeholders on how to best make use of genomic breeding in the future. Intensive breeding has played a major role in securing dramatic increases in milk yield since the Second World War. Until recently, the main focus in dairy cattle breeding was on production traits, but during the past couple of decades more emphasis has been placed on a few rough, but useful, measures of traits relevant to cow welfare, including calving ease score and 'clinical disease or not'; the aim being to counteract the unfavourable genetic association with production traits. However, unfavourable genetic trends for metabolic, reproductive, claw and leg diseases indicate that these attempts have been insufficient.

Today, novel genome-wide sequencing techniques are revolutionising dairy cattle breeding; these enable genetic changes to occur at least twice as rapidly as previously. While these new genomic tools are especially useful for traits relating to animal welfare that are difficult to improve using traditional breeding tools, they may also facilitate breeding schemes with reduced generation intervals carrying a higher risk of unwanted side-effects on animal welfare. In this paper, a number of potential risks are discussed, including detrimental genetic trends for non-measured welfare traits, the increased chance of spreading unfavourable mutations, reduced sharing of information arising from concerns over patents, and an increased monopoly within dairy cattle breeding that may make it less accountable to the concern of private farmers for the welfare of their animals. It is argued that there is a need to mobilise a wide range of stakeholders to monitor developments and maintain pressure on breeding companies so that they are aware of the need to take precautionary measures to avoid negative effects on animal welfare and to invest in breeding for increased animal welfare. Researchers are encouraged to further investigate the long-term effects of various breeding schemes that rely on genomic breeding values.

Genomic dairy cattle breeding: Risks and opportunities for cow welfare (pdf)

By R. B. D'Eath, J. Conington, A. B. Lawrence, I. A. S. Olsson & P. Sandøe (2010)
Animal Welfare. UFAW 

Abstract

In farm animal breeding, behavioural traits are rarely included in selection programmes despite their potential to improve animal production and welfare. Breeding goals have been broadened beyond production traits in most farm animal species to include health and functional traits, and opportunities exist to increase the inclusion of behaviour in breeding indices. On a technical level, breeding for behaviour presents a number of particular challenges compared to physical traits. It is much more difficult and time-consuming to directly measure behaviour in a consistent and reliable manner in order to evaluate the large numbers of animals necessary for a breeding programme. For this reason, the development and validation of proxy measures of key behavioural traits is often required. Despite these difficulties, behavioural traits have been introduced by certain breeders. For example, ease of handling is now included in some beef cattle breeding programmes. 

While breeding for behaviour is potentially beneficial, ethical concerns have been raised. Since animals are adapted to the environment rather than the other way around, there may be a loss of 'naturalness' and/or animal integrity. Some examples, such as breeding for good maternal behaviour, could enhance welfare, production and naturalness, although dilemmas emerge where improved welfare could result from breeding away from natural behaviour. Selection against certain behaviours may carry a risk of creating animals which are generally unreactive ('zombies'), although such broad effects could be measured and controlled. Finally, breeding against behavioural measures of welfare could inadvertently result in resilient animals ('stoics') that do not show behavioural signs of low welfare yet may still be suffering. To prevent this, other measures of the underlying problem should be used, although cases where this is not possible remain troubling.

Breeding for behavioural change in farm animals: Practical, economic and ethical considerations (limited access)

Taking Ethics into Account in Farm Animal Breeding: What can the Breed Companies Achieve? 

By I. A. S. Olsson, C. Gamborg & P. Sandøe (2006)
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Springer Verlag

Abstract

Animal welfare and the ethical issues it raises have been discussed intensively for a couple of decades. The emphasis has been on the direct effects of housing and husbandry, but more attention is now being given to problems originating in selective breeding. European attempts to adjust animal welfare legislation to deal with these problems have been largely unsuccessful, but the fact that selective breeding can introduce welfare problems continues to place an ethical responsibility on the animal breeding industry. Since breeding decisions are made centrally and, increasingly, internationally, strategic change is only likely to occur if it is embedded in an international agreement of some kind. The aim of this paper is to describe the key ethical issues facing animal breeding and assess the suggestion that the breeding industry itself can deal with ethical issues by means of an ethical code. Results from recent projects involving commercial breeding enterprises are presented. 

Taking Ethics into Account in Farm Animal Breeding: What can the Breed Companies Achieve? (pdf)

Sustainability in farm animal breeding: A review

By C. Gamborg & P. Sandøe (2005)
Livestock Production Science. Elsevier

Abstract

The paper examines the notion of sustainable farm animal breeding. A brief explanation of why sustainability matters is offered first. After this, the historical development of the concept of sustainability is charted. The authors then turn to review published literature with a bearing on sustainable farm animal breeding. Little has been written directly on the subject: the requirements of sustainable farm animal breeding await serious clarification. The paper looks at SEFABAR (Sustainable European Farm Animal Breeding and Reproduction), a project designed to identify sustainable practices in farm animal breeding which ran for nearly three years from 2000.

In this project commercial breeders and breeding scientists were required, with the professional assistance of bioethicists, economists, social scientists and NGO representatives, to develop a definition of sustainable farm animal breeding. The authors describe initial attempts to carry out this task. They then describe a general method of building a definition of sustainability the so-called concern-criteria-indicators method that was used in SEFABAR to good effect. They note the progress that was made once this method was introduced. Finally, the importance of communication is explained. The authors suggest that the concept of sustainability can be effectively used to organise and facilitate dialogue between stakeholders, including the breeding industry and society as a whole.  

Can increased organic consumption mitigate climate changes?

L.R. Heerwagen, L.M. Andersen, P. Sandøe, & T. Christensen (2014) 
British Food Journal. Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the evidence for a positive correlation between increased consumption of organic products and potential climate change mitigation via decreased consumption of meat and it is discussed to what extent organic consumption is motivated by climate change concerns.

Design/methodology/approach – A fixed effects model together with a factor analysis and ordinary least square are used to analyse household purchase data for 2,000 households in 2006-2010 combined with survey questionnaire data from 2008.

Findings – A small but statistically significant correlation between increasing organic budget shares and decreasing meat budget shares is found. People include food-related behaviour such as the purchase of organic food and reduced meat consumption as ways to mitigate climate change. However, other behavioural modifications such as reduction of car usage and household heating are perceived as more important strategies.

Research limitations/implications – Other food-related mitigation strategies could be investigated. The climate effect of different diets – and how to motivate consumers to pursue them – could be investigated. Individual as opposed to household data would supplement the analyses.

Practical implications – Demand-side policies aiming at climate-friendly consumption could be a central factor in combating climate change. Already, food-related mitigation strategies such as lowered meat consumption are established practices among a group of organic consumers. As some consumers believe that climate change can be mitigated by consuming organic food, the authors propose that this is taken into account in the development of organic farming.

Originality/value – The authors propose a shift from analysing the climate-friendliness of production to addressing the climate-friendliness of consumption using consumption of organic food as a case. The authors link stated concerns for climate changes with actual food-related behaviour.

Can increased organic consumption mitigate climate changes? (limited access)

The price of responsibility: ethics of animal husbandry in a time of climate change

Gjerris, M., Gamborg, C., Röcklinsberg, H., & Anthony, R. (2011) 
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Springer

Abstract

This paper examines the challenges that climate change raises for animal agriculture and discusses the contributions that may come from a virtue ethics based approach. Two scenarios of the future role of animals in farming are set forth and discussed in terms of their ethical implications. The paper argues that when trying to tackle both climate and animal welfare issues in farming, proposals that call for a reorientation of our ethics and technology must first and foremost consider the values that drive current livestock production. This paper sets forth and discusses the broader societal values implicit in livestock production. We suggest that a virtues approach would improve our thinking and practice regarding animal agriculture, facilitating a move from livestock production to animal husbandry. This change in animal agriculture in a time of climate change would stress virtues such as attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness as central elements in any mitigation or adaptation program.

The price of responsibility: ethics of animal husbandry in a time of climate change (pdf)

Slaughter of Pregnant Cattle in Denmark: Prevalence, Gestational Age, and Reasons

By S. S. Nielsen, P. Sandøe, S. U. Kjølsted, & J. S. Agerholm (2019) 
Animals. MDPI

Abstract

The slaughter of pregnant cattle gives rise to ethical controversy. We estimated the prevalence of pregnant cattle, elucidated the reasons for their slaughter, and in light of our findings, discussed the ethics of sending pregnant cattle for slaughter. Among 825 female cattle >353 days of age admitted to a Danish abattoir, 187 (23%) were found to be pregnant. There was no apparent difference in the proportion of pregnant animals between dairy and non-dairy cattle. “Health”-related slaughter was most frequent in dairy herds (70%), whereas “production”-related slaughter was most frequent in non-dairy herds (63%). While many farmers considered it unethical to slaughter pregnant cows without a good reason for doing so, many dairy farmers identified animal welfare as an important parameter in the decision, which was typically when the general condition of the cow or heifer would make it difficult for her to pass through calving and subsequent lactation. The many pregnant animals sent for slaughter were often the result of deliberate choices. Non-dairy farmers often kept a bull with their female cattle, and in many instances, this resulted in the mating of cattle intended for slaughter. Although considered ethically problematic by many dairy farmers, the slaughter of pregnant dairy cattle was often considered better for the cow compared to a stressful lactation period.

Slaughter of Pregnant Cattle in Denmark: Prevalence, Gestational Age, and Reasons (pdf)

Can animal-based welfare assessment be simplified? A comparison of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle and the simpler and less time consuming protocol developed by the Danish Cattle Federation

By S. N. Andreasen, P. Sandøe, & B. Forkman (2014)
Animal Welfare. UFAW

Abstract

Welfare Assessments Based on Lifetime Health and Production Data in Danish Dairy Cows

By H. Houe, P. Sandøe & P. T. Thomsen (2011)
Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. Taylor & Francis

Abstract

The objective of this study was to describe how information about the whole lifetime of the cow can be used when defining nonhuman animal-based criteria of the welfare of animals on the farm. Often measured over a short period, disease occurrence provides information relevant for assessing the current welfare state of the herd. Arguably, however, if disease records are to be used as ethically relevant welfare indicators, it is also important to record disease occurrence over the individual animal's entire life span.

Thus, it matters ethically whether the burden of an outbreak of disease or other condition affecting animal welfare is carried by a few individuals or is distributed more evenly. To illustrate this principle, the study obtained data on disease treatment records and production from 392,287 cows from the Danish Cattle Database. The average cow had lived for 5 years and produced more than 22,000 L of milk. The medium number of treatments a cow had received for any disease was 2, but 10% of the cows had received more than 8 treatments for a disease. The study concluded that lifetime description provides a measure of disease occurrence that gives added value of ethical relevance to single-point prevalence or short-term incidence.

Welfare Assessments Based on Lifetime Health and Production Data in Danish Dairy Cows (limited access)

How best to improve farm animal welfare? Four main approaches viewed from an economic perspective

By T. Christensen, S. Denver & P. Sandøe (2019)
Animal Welfare. UFAW

Abstract

Looking at the issues from an economic perspective, we examine four approaches to the improvement of farm animal welfare: legislative initiatives, and initiatives driven by producers, consumer choice (labelling), and food companies (Corporate Social Responsibility; CSR). We take as our starting point the assumption that to obtain the best possible improvements in animal welfare, a combination of all four approaches will be needed. The main focus of the paper is to show that (and how) economics and other social sciences can play an important role in determining how to design and implement these approaches most effectively. We argue that insights from animal welfare science on what constitutes an improvement in animal welfare, and how such improvements are best measured, are a necessary input to the economic analyses. Economic analyses can guide the form and extent of welfare legislation so as to set decent minimum standards of animal welfare. To exploit producer-driven animal welfare opportunities, understanding the relationship between animal welfare, productivity and other product or production characteristics is essential. To make best use of initiatives driven by consumer choice and CSR, the focus needs to be on, not simply aspects of animal welfare for which consumers are known to be willing to pay, but also other welfare dimensions viewed as essential by animal welfare experts. Finally, recent, rapid developments in the marketing of animal welfare-friendly products have demonstrated the need for more knowledge about the ways in which consumers perceive the different kinds of information used in labels and CSR strategies.

How best to improve farm animal welfare? Four main approaches viewed from an economic perspective (URL)

When the working environment is bad, you take it out on the animals – Lessons from employees on Danish farms

By I. Anneberg & P. Sandøe (2019) 
Food Ethics. Springer Nature Switzerland 

Abstract

Little is known about how employees on husbandry farms perceive animal welfare and the factors influencing the relationship between them and the animals they engage with in their daily work. Reporting the findings of qualitative interviews with 23 employees on five Danish farms (mink, dairy and pig production), this paper describes how the employees viewed animal welfare, and discusses how they dealt with animal welfare issues in their daily work. Four distinct rationales for animal welfare were identified. 1) Animal welfare was supported by concerns about production and health, and could be negotiated – especially when it came to the ability of the animals to perform natural behaviour. 2) Animal welfare was connected with the working conditions on the farm. 3) The employees’ views about animal welfare were affected by working conditions over which they had no influence. 4) An awareness of the condition of the animals was seen as obviously needed in relation to production, but a deeper attachment to some animals was also seen. A specific challenge is presented by the increasingly diverse workforce in farming, with one third of the employees on Danish farms coming from abroad. If farm owners are not able to integrate these employees, there is a risk of creating a second-tier of foreign workers who are isolated. Furthermore, it was seen that negative working conditions can be taken out on the animals, or that animal welfare can come to be seen as unimportant as compared with human welfare.

When the working environment is bad, you take it out on the animals – Lessons from employees on Danish farms (pdf)

Beyond Castration and Culling: Should we use Non-Surgical, Pharmacological Methods to Control the Sexual Behavior and Reproduction of Animals?

By C. Palmer, H. G. Pedersen & Peter Sandøe (2018) 
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Springer Nature

Abstract

This paper explores ethical issues raised by the application of non-surgical, pharmaceutical fertility control to manage reproductive behaviors in domesticated and wild animal species. We focus on methods that interfere with the effects of GnRH, making animals infertile and significantly suppressing sexual behavior in both sexes. The paper is anchored by considering ethical issues raised by four diverse cases: the use of pharmaceutical fertility control in (a) male slaughter pigs (b) domesticated stallions and mares (c) male companion dogs and (d) female white-tailed deer. Ethical concerns explored include animals' welfare, the possible violation of animals' rights, including rights to life, reproduction and bodily integrity; and potential concerns about loss of wildness. We compare ethical concerns about pharmaceutical fertility control with alternative strategies for managing animals' reproductive behavior including (where appropriate) spaying and neutering, sex separation, sex sorting, culling, and doing nothing. The paper concludes that there are some cases where pharmaceutical fertility control is the best ethical choice in current circumstances; but that there are other cases where alternative choices, including doing nothing, would be ethically preferable. This suggests that in ethical terms a case-by-case approach should be taken to the use of pharmaceutical fertility control in animals.

Beyond Castration and Culling: Should we use Non-Surgical, Pharmacological Methods to Control the Sexual Behavior and Reproduction of Animals? (URL)

Who cares about fish welfare? A Norwegian study

By K. Ellingsen, K. Grimsrud, H. M. Nielsen, C. Mejdell, I. Olesen, P. Honkanen, S. Navrud, C. Gamborg, & P. Sandøe (2015)
British Food Journal. Emerald

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is threefold: first, to assess how concerned Norwegians are about fish welfare; second, to investigate Norwegians’ willingness to pay for salmon filet made from welfare-assured farmed fish with high levels of welfare; and third, to examine Norwegian opinions about the appropriate way to pay for better welfare standards in fish production. On the basis of two focus group sessions, a survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to a representative sample of 2,147 Norwegian households via e-mail.

Results showed that the Norwegian public is concerned about fish welfare and is willing to pay a price premium for products made from welfare-assured fish. Norwegian consumers do not, however, want to be the only ones paying for fish welfare, as the main responsibility for fish welfare lies with producers and the Government. In this study willingness to pay is measured using a hypothetical choice experiment. Values people express as citizens, however, may not accurately predict true consumer behaviour. This is generally referred to as “citizen-consumer duality” and may have affected the results.

The study shows that there is a national market for welfare-assured fish products, but education initiatives focusing on fish farming and fish welfare issues would further influence the attitudes and purchasing habits of Norwegian consumers. Although concern about animal welfare is growing in the western world, very little attention has been given to the welfare of fish. This paper aims to make up for this by presenting a study of how Norwegians view the welfare of farmed salmon.

Who cares about fish welfare? A Norwegian study (limited access)

Fish welfare, environment and food security: a pragmatist virtue ethics approach

Anthony, R., Gjerris, M., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2013)
Book chapter in Röcklinsberg, & P. Sandin (Eds.), The ethics of consumption: The citizen, the market and the law. (pp. 257-262). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers

Abstract

With continued population growth, potentially negative impacts of climate change, and potential impacts of food access and security among poorer and more vulnerable communities fish as food resource is becoming more and more important. The growing recognition of fish as sentient beings must be considered in tandem with other concerns such as the relative weighting of their welfare, human equity, environmental protection, food security and food safety. Sensible environmental practices are needed and must be tied closely to effective policies around food security as well as regulation that take into account the issues of fish welfare. We suggest a pragmatic virtue ethics approach would be relevant and fundamental for such policies – both regarding process and substance – and show how it can contribute to the discussion on how to relate fish welfare to environmental concern and the issue of equity in a more secure global food system.

Fish welfare, environment and food security: a pragmatist virtue ethics approach (limited access)

Balancing the needs and preferences of humans against concerns for fishes: how to handle the emerging ethical discussions regarding capture fisheries?

By P. Sandøe, C. Gamborg, S. Kadri & K. Millar (2009)
Journal of Fish Biology. Wiley-Blackwell

Abstract 

How can stakeholders within the fisheries community engage in constructive ethical discussions? Drawing on experiences from previous debates surrounding the human use of animals, this paper presents a proactive approach whereby stakeholders can create a framework for ethical discussion of capture fisheries.

Balancing the needs and preferences of humans against concerns for fishes: how to handle the emerging ethical discussions regarding capture fisheries? (pdf)

The implications of a feelings-based approach to fish welfare: A reply to Arlinghaus et al.

By F. Huntingford, C. Adams, V. A. Braithwaite, S. Kadri, T. G. Pottinger, P. Sandøe & J. F. Turnbull (2007)
Fish and Fisheries. Wiley-Blackwell 

Abstract

The welfare of fish is a topic of increasing debate touching on a number of complex scientific and ethical issues and constructive dialogue between groups with differing approaches to the topic requires mutual understanding from both perspectives. In a recent review aimed at stimulating debate on this topic, Arlinghaus et al. (2007) explore the question of fish welfare in the particular context of recreational angling, by means of a critique of a review of fish welfare in general written by ourselves (Huntingford et al. 2006).

We entirely agree with the desirability of debate on this topic and recognise a number of valuable qualities in the commentary by Arlinghaus et al. However, we argue that the critique has some serious flaws. In the first place, by rejecting a feelings-based approaches to welfare, it fails to address the aspect of welfare that is at the heart of much legitimate public concern. Secondly, while advocating an objective, scientific approach to fish welfare, Arlinghaus and co-authors fail to present their own agenda (that recreational angling is morally acceptable) in a transparent way. Thirdly, they seriously misrepresent the position taken in Huntingford et al. (2006) on a number of important issues. In this reply, we address these points and then discuss briefly the areas of agreement and constructive disagreement between the two reviews.  

The implications of a feelings-based approach to fish welfare: A reply to Arlinghaus et al. (pdf)

Current issues in fish welfare: Review paper

By F. A. Huntingford, C. Adams, V.A. Braithwaite, S. Kadri, T.G. Pottinger, P. Sandøe & J. F. Turnbull (2006)
Journal of fish biology. Wiley-Blackwell

Abstract

Human beings may affect the welfare of fish through fisheries, aquaculture and a number of other activities. There is no agreement on just how to weigh the concern for welfare of fish against the human interests involved, but ethical frameworks exist that suggest how this might be approached.

Different definitions of animal welfare focus on an animals condition, on its subjective experience of that condition and/or on whether it can lead a natural life. These provide different, legitimate, perspectives, but the approach taken in this paper is to focus on welfare as the absence of suffering.

An unresolved and controversial issue in discussions about animal welfare is whether non-human animals exposed to adverse experiences such as physical injury or confinement experience what humans would call suffering. The neocortex, which in humans is an important part of the neural mechanism that generates the subjective experience of suffering, is lacking in fish and non-mammalian animals, and it has been argued that its absence in fish indicates that fish cannot suffer. However, a strong alternative view is that complex animals with sophisticated behaviour, such as fish, probably have the capacity for suffering, though this may be different in degree and kind from the human experience of this state.

Recent empirical studies support this view and show that painful stimuli are, at least, strongly aversive to fish. Consequently, injury or experience of other harmful conditions is a cause for concern in terms of welfare of individual fish. There is also growing evidence that fish can experience fear-like states and that they avoid situations in which they have experienced adverse conditions.

Current issues in fish welfare: Review paper (pdf)

Willed blindness: a discussion of our moral shortcomings in relation to animals

M. Gjerris (2015)
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. Springer

Abstract

This article describes how we seem to live in a willed blindness towards the effects that our meat production and consumption have on animals, the environment and the climate. A willed blindness that cannot be explained by either lack of knowledge or scientific uncertainty. The blindness enables us to see ourselves as moral beings although our lack of reaction to the effects of our actions tells another story. The article describes the consequences of intensive meat production and consumption to animal welfare and environmental degradation and discusses different strategies to overcome the willed blindness focusing on the development of either a new moral vision of our obligations or new visions of what a good life is.

Willed blindness: a discussion of our moral shortcomings in relation to animals (pdf)

The Prospect of Market-Driven Improvements in Animal Welfare: Lessons from the Case of Grass Milk in Denmark

By L. R. Heerwagen, T. Christensen & P. Sandøe (2013)
Animals. MDPI

Abstract

Citizens in many European countries urge that the welfare of farm animals should be improved. Policy-makers propose that this could, at least to some extent, be achieved through increased consumption of animal products produced under labeling schemes guaranteeing higher standards of animal welfare. Yet considerable uncertainties exist about the ability of the market to promote animal welfare. So far the consumption of most welfare-friendly products has been limited, and the impact of driving and limiting factors is poorly understood. Reviewing market studies, we identify the factors that have shaped the relatively successful market for grass milk in Denmark. We conclude that the positive drivers such as an appealing animal welfare attribute and animal welfare being bundled with other qualities are essentially the same as those operating in connection with less successful animal welfare-friendly products. It is therefore to be expected that other animal welfare-friendly food products marketed via “natural behaviors” in the farm animals will catch the interest of consumers. However, grass milk consumption has been supported by proper labeling, ready availability and low price premiums as well as multifaceted public support. This suggests that successful cases require the joint presence of a number of positive drivers as well as low consumption barriers.

The Prospect of Market-Driven Improvements in Animal Welfare: Lessons from the Case of Grass Milk in Denmark (pdf)

The Idea of Animal Welfare – Developments and Tensions

By P. Sandøe & K. K. Jensen (2012)
UFAW Animal Welfare Series. Wiley-Blackwell

Abstract

This paper focuses on developments and tensions within the idea of animal welfare. There is divergence among those who believe in the idea of animal welfare. First, we discuss what it takes for farm animal welfare to be good enough. How far should society go beyond the starting point of the Brambell Committee, which was to prevent avoidable suffering? Secondly, we turn to the tricky question of how welfare should be distributed between animals. Here, a tension within the concept of animal welfare, between a focus on the individual animal and on the herd, flock or shoal, is pointed out. Finally, the role of economic considerations is considered, given that animal production takes place in a global market with free trade between countries with various standards of animal welfare.

The Idea of Animal Welfare – Developments and Tensions (limited access)

How can economists help to improve animal welfare?

By T. Christensen, A. Lawrence, M. Lund, A. Stott & P. Sandøe (2012)
Animal Welfare. UFAW

Abstract

To-date, the dominant approach to improving farm animal welfare has consisted of a combination of voluntary improvements undertaken by farmers and the tightening of legal requirements. However, history suggests that there is a limit to the improvements capable of being secured by this approach. In this paper, it is argued that economic principles can and should have an important role when new, market-driven and other approaches are set up to improve farm animal welfare. The paper focuses on two ways in which economic principles can improve analyses of animal welfare. The first is by helping to define priorities as to which aspects of animal welfare should be promoted. Here, economic approaches can be used to capture and synthesise the perspectives of all the stakeholders, including the animals, in a transparent and systematic way. The second way is by helping to ensure that incentives are set up in the right way. Where the benefits and costs of improving animal welfare are initially distributed unevenly across stakeholders so that a socially desirable situation will not develop automatically, or be implemented, suitable economic principles may help to create incentives which correct this situation. Thus, if society is to achieve its goal of improving animal welfare, scholars from different disciplines should collaborate in identifying animal needs, assessing stakeholder preferences, making priorities transparent and providing incentives that make solutions realistically attainable.

How can economists help to improve animal welfare? (limited access)

The interaction of ethical questions and farm animal welfare science

By P. Sandøe, B. Forkman & K. K. Jensen (2012)
Proceedings of the 2012 RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar. RSPCA Australia

Abstract

In the early days of farm animal welfare science it was often claimed that a sharp distinction should be drawn between, on one hand, the science-based study of animal welfare and, on the other hand, ethical investigation of what is right, and what is wrong, in our dealings with animals. However, following debates starting in the early 1990s, it is now widely recognised that scientific assessments of animal welfare simply cannot avoid making ethical assumptions. Using simple but realistic examples, the presentation will explain how ethical assumptions inform the study and assessment of animal welfare at different levels.

First, and most obviously, it matters a great deal how animal welfare is defined in the first place. Should we think of welfare in terms of animal function, or in terms of the avoidance of pain and other suffering? Or should we focus on the net balance of negative and positive states (pain and enjoyment or pleasure)? Perhaps we should try to assess preference satisfaction, or the extent to which the animal lives in a natural way. By choosing a specific definition of animal welfare the researcher will be taking a stance on what matters in our dealings with animals.

Secondly, the indicators selected as measures of animal welfare may introduce biases which are relevant from an ethical perspective. Thus, indicators connected with pathologies and other states which are signs of pain and other types of physical suffering will inevitably favour production systems which are safe but barren. Would such a narrow focus miss something of ethical importance?

Thirdly, ethical assumptions are hugely important when researchers aggregate their results in an effort to say something about the net welfare of a group of animals. Here decisions have to be taken as to how different aspects of animal welfare should be balanced against each other – for example, the incidence of disease and injury versus the ability to exercise a wide range of natural behaviours. Difficult trade-offs may also have to be struck between the

situation of the worst off animals in a group and the general welfare of the flock, often defined in terms of average welfare. Finally, it matters, ethically, how scientific uncertainty is dealt with. Many welfare researchers, for example, regard it as highly likely, but not absolutely certain that farm animals are unconscious until after birth. However, would it be ethically advisable to exercise caution here? Should we assume, unless and until we are shown to be mistaken, that unborn animals may well be conscious, and protect them accordingly?

Following the presentation of these ethical issues it will be argued that if we are to maintain the objectivity of welfare science, animal welfare researchers need to present their underlying ethical assumptions in a transparent way. Transparency of this kind allows potential users of research to assess its wider ethical significance and importance.

The interaction of ethical questions and farm animal welfare science (pdf)

Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme

I. Veissier, K.K. Jensen, R. Botreau & P. Sandøe (2011) 
Animal Welfare. UFAW

Abstract

All systems of scoring animal units (groups, farms, slaughter plants, etc) according to the level of the animals’ welfare are based inevitably on normative decisions. Similarly, all methods of labelling, in terms of acceptability, are based on choices reflecting ethical values. The evaluative dimension of scoring and labelling does not mean that we should reject them, but it does mean that we need to make the normative and ethical background explicit. The Welfare Quality® scoring system is used as a case study in order to highlight the role of underlying value-based decisions. In this scoring system, which was designed in accordance with assessments and judgments from experts in animal and social sciences and stakeholders, we identify value-based decisions at the following five levels.

First, there are several definitions of animal welfare (eg hedonist, perfectionist, and preferentialist), and any welfare scoring system will reflect a focus upon one or other definition. In Welfare Quality®, 12 welfare criteria were defined, and the entire list of criteria was intended to cover relevant definitions of animal welfare. Second, two dimensions can structure an overall evaluation of animal welfare: the individual animals and the welfare criteria (here 12). Hence, a choice needs to be made between the aggregation of information at the individual level (which results in a proportion of animals from the unit in a good vs bad state) and the aggrega- tion at criterion level (which results in a proportion of criteria to which the unit complies vs does not comply). Welfare Quality® opted for the second alternative to facilitate the provision of advice to farmers on solving the welfare problems associated with their farms. Third, one has to decide whether the overall welfare assessment should reflect the average state of the animals or give priority to worse-off animals. In the Welfare Quality® scoring system the worse-off animals are treated as much more important than the others, but all welfare problems, major or minor, count. Fourth, one has to decide whether good scores on certain criteria can compensate for bad scores on others. In the opinion of most people, welfare scores do not compensate each other. This was taken into account in the Welfare Quality® scoring system by using a specific operator instead of mere weighted sums. Finally, a scoring system may either reflect societal demands for high levels of welfare or be based on what can be achieved in practice — in other words, an absolute assessment or a relative one may be proposed.

Welfare Quality® adopted an intermediate strategy: absolute limits between welfare categories (Not classified, Acceptable, Enhanced, or Excellent level of welfare) were set, but the rules governing the assign- ment of an animal unit to a category take into account what had been observed on European farms. The scientists behind Welfare Quality® are keen to make the value-based choices underlying assessments of animal welfare transparent. This is essential to allow stakeholder groups to understand the extent to which their views are acknowledged and acted upon.

Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme (pdf)

Conflicting goals of welfare assessment schemes: A case study

By R. Ingemann, P. Sandøe, P. Enemark & B. Forkman (2009)
Animal Welfare. UFAW

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.

Conflicting goals of welfare assessment schemes: A case study (limited access)

Farm animal welfare: The interaction between ethical questions and animal welfare science

By P. Sandøe, S.B. Christiansen & M.C. Appleby (2003)
Animal Welfare. UFAW 

Abstract

Farm animal welfare has now been studied, within a scientific framework, for several decades. The framework does not include ethical issues, but unless measurements of animal welfare at farm level are embedded in an ethical context, there is a danger that these measurements will not be properly utilised. This paper considers the relationship between ethical questions and animal welfare assessment. In it, the following four key ethical questions are identified. What is the baseline standard for morally acceptable animal welfare? What is a good animal life? What farming purposes are legitimate? What kinds of compromise are acceptable in a less-than-perfect world? The authors suggest that animal welfare scientists need to reflect carefully on these questions if welfare assessments are to be properly interpreted and put to practical use. Such reflection will lead to a more transparent appreciation of the values underlying welfare assessment. In this way, it will both offer welfare scientists a greater awareness of their own value-assumptions and enable the same scientists to communicate effectively with the wider audience farmers, consumers, pressure groups, policy-makers and so on for which the results of animal welfare assessments are of concern.

Farm animal welfare: The interaction between ethical questions and animal welfare science (limited access)

By J. T. Sørensen, P. Sandøe & N. Halberg (2001)
Agriculturae Scandinavica. Taylor & Francis

Abstract

A proposal as to how to combine animal welfare with other goals using an ethical account for livestock farming is presented. The purpose of an ethical account is to report on the consequences of individual events and routine methods on the farm for all affected parties, and to ensure that the farmer is conscious of his ethical priorities. A procedure for an annual account is presented and the concepts involved in it are explained. Welfare assessment involves information from four sources: the system, the systems application, animal behaviour and animal health. Welfare assessment is an aid for operational management as well as for strategic planning. This ethical account was developed in collaboration with twenty livestock farms over a period of three years. In the course of its evaluation farmers were interviewed by a social scientist who was not directly involved in the project. It was concluded from these interviews that the implementation of welfare assessment, in this way, in the ethical account was a success.

Animal Welfare as One among Several Values to be Considered at Farm Level: The Idea of an Ethical Account for Livestock Farming (pdf)

Assessment of Farm Animal Welfare at Herd Level: Many Goals, Many Methods

By P. F. Johnsen, T. Johannesson & P. Sandøe (2001)
Agriculturae Scandinavica. Taylor & Francis

Abstract

This paper describes and compares nine methods of assessing the welfare of farm animals at herd level. A distinction is made between two types of welfare parameter: the environmental and the animal-based. The relative weight of these parameters, together with variation in their measurability, explains many of the differences between the methods with which the paper is concerned. To discuss the merits of a given method it is necessary to look at the goal it is intended to serve. Some methods compare production systems well. Others are better used in assisting the individual farmer to improve the welfare of animals within his production system.

Assessment of Farm Animal Welfare at Herd Level: Many Goals, Many Methods (pdf)

Modeling the cost of eradicating livestock-associated methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in countries with a high proportion of positive herds

By J. V. Olsen, F. F. Calvo-Artavia, P. Sandøe & N. Toft (2018) 
Preventive Veterinary Medicine. Elsevier

Abstract

Due to an increased incidence of human infections, livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (LA-MRSA) in pigs and its spread into the human population has been a major public and political issue in Denmark. Similar concerns are also being raised about LA-MRSA in other Western European countries. At a time when the proportion of LA-MRSA-positive pig farms was low, Norway adopted a ‘trace and destroy’ strategy aimed at keeping LA-MRSA out of the pig population. However, to date, no country with a high proportion of LA-MRSA-positive pig herds has chosen to use an eradication strategy. This study analyses the cost and complexities of conducting an LA-MRSA eradication program in a situation where a large proportion of herds are positive. The total cost of the eradication program was estimated based on the following components: 1) planning, 2) monitoring and testing, 3) cleaning and disinfection, 4) production gains and losses, 5) net reduction in breeding exports, and 6) loss of genetic progress, including the costs of a mitigating caesarean section strategy in breeding herds. Costs were related to the depopulation of 1 million sows, to gilt supply (as this was an important limiting factor during an eradication program in Denmark), and to aggregated losses linked to a temporary halt on breeding progress. Using conservative assumptions, the total eradication costs were estimated at €1.8 billion, broken down into: planning costs (3%), monitoring and testing (6%), cleaning and disinfection (19%), production gains and losses (33%), net loss from breeding exports (19%) and loss of genetic progress (20%). The long-term effects of an LA-MRSA eradication program for Danish pig production were uncertain and were therefore not taken into account in the analysis.

Modeling the cost of eradicating livestock-associated methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in countries with a high proportion of positive herds (pdf)

A study of associations between gastric ulcers and the behaviour of finisher pigs

By K.M.D. Rutherford, C.S. Thompson, J.R. Thomson, A.B. Lawrence, E.O. Nielsen, M.E. Busch, S. Haugegaard & P. Sandøe (2018) 
Livestock Science. Elsevier

Abstract

Gastric ulcers are a common condition in finisher pigs. A study was conducted to investigate the hypothesis that gastric ulceration alters the behaviour of finisher pigs. Two one-hour observations (from video recordings) of home pen behaviour were conducted in finisher pigs, at two farms (one in Denmark and one in Scotland), in the days immediately prior to slaughter. Stomach condition was assessed post mortem according to a pre-established ulcer score index. The behaviour of pigs with healthy stomachs (n = 36) was compared with the behaviour of pigs with deep ulceration of the pars oesophagea (n = 26). Assessment of various predefined postures and behaviours was made by an observer blind to the gastric ulcer status of the observed pigs. Behavioural data from the two sites were combined in a single analysis. Pigs with gastric ulcers tended to spend less time idle (p = 0.081) and less time lying on their left side (p = 0.064), and significantly more time standing (p = 0.009), or walking (p = 0.038) compared to healthy pigs. Pigs with ulcers also showed an increased frequency of posture changes (p = 0.02). A decrease in time spent lying on the left and an increase in standing/walking could both be interpreted as attempts to avoid liquid gastric contents pooling in the cranial region of the stomach. This along with the higher level of posture changes observed may indicate some degree of pain/discomfort associated with the presence of gastric ulcers in pigs. This study is the first to identify apparent behavioural differences between finisher pigs with or without gastric ulcers, and further work is needed to establish to what extent the apparent behavioural differences are a consequence of pain or discomfort for the animals concerned. Since gastro-oesophageal ulceration of pigs is associated with pelleting and fine grinding of feed which in turn is linked to increased growth efficiency there may be a dilemma between on one hand concern for preventing gastric ulcers and on the other hand concern for the efficiency and sustainability of pig production.

A study of associations between gastric ulcers and the behaviour of finisher pigs (pdf)

Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes

By R.B. D’Eath, J.K. Niemi, B. Vosough Ahmadi, K.M.D. Rutherford, S.H. Ison, S.P. Turner, H.T. Anker, T. Jensen, M.E. Busch, K.K. Jensen, A.B. Lawrence & P. Sandøe (2015) 
Animal. Cambridge University Press

Abstract

To limit tail biting incidence, most pig producers in Europe tail dock their piglets. This is despite EU Council Directive 2008/120/EC banning routine tail docking and allowing it only as a last resort. The paper aims to understand what it takes to fulfil the intentions of the Directive by examining economic results of four management and housing scenarios, and by discussing their consequences for animal welfare in the light of legal and ethical considerations. The four scenarios compared are: ‘Standard Docked’, a conventional housing scenario with tail docking meeting the recommendations for Danish production (0.7 m2/pig); ‘Standard Undocked’, which is the same as ‘Standard Docked’ but with no tail docking, ‘Efficient Undocked’ and ‘Enhanced Undocked’, which have increased solid floor area (0.9 and 1.0 m2/pig, respectively) provision of loose manipulable materials

(100 and 200 g/straw per pig per day) and no tail docking. A decision tree model based on data from Danish and Finnish pig production suggests that Standard Docked provides the highest economic gross margin with the least tail biting. Given our assumptions, Enhanced Undocked is the least economic, although Efficient Undocked is better economically and both result in a lower incidence of tail biting than Standard Undocked but higher than Standard Docked. For a pig, being bitten is worse for welfare (repeated pain, risk of infections) than being docked, but to compare welfare consequences at a farm level means considering the number of affected pigs. Because of the high levels of biting in Standard Undocked, it has on average inferior welfare to Standard Docked, whereas the comparison of Standard Docked and Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked is more difficult. In Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked, more pigs than in Standard Docked suffer from being tail bitten, whereas all the pigs avoid the acute pain of docking endured by the pigs in Standard Docked.

We illustrate and discuss this ethical balance using numbers derived from the above-mentioned data. We discuss our results in the light of the EU Directive and its adoption and enforcement by Member States. Widespread use of tail docking seems to be accepted, mainly because the alternative steps that producers are required to take before resorting to it are not specified in detail. By tail docking, producers are acting in their own best interests. We suggest that for the practice of tail docking to be terminated in a way that benefits animal welfare, changes in the way pigs are housed and managed may first be required.

Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes (limited access)

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

By R.B. D’Eath, G. Arnott, S.P. Turner, T. Jensen, H.P. Lahrmann, M.E. Busch, J.K. Niemi, A.B. Lawrence, & P. Sandøe (2014)
Animal. Cambridge University Press

Abstract

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare and economic problem in pig production. Tail docking, which reduces but does not eliminate tail biting, remains widespread. However, in the EU tail docking may not be used routinely, and some ‘alternative’ forms of pig production and certain countries do not allow tail docking at all. Against this background, using a novel approach focusing on research where tail injuries were quantified, we review the measures that can be used to control tail biting in pigs without tail docking. Using this strict criterion, there was good evidence that manipulable substrates and feeder space affect damaging tail biting. Only epidemiological evidence was available for effects of temperature and season, and the effect of stocking density was unclear. Studies suggest that group size has little effect, and the effects of nutrition, disease and breed require further investigation.

The review identifies a number of knowledge gaps and promising avenues for future research into prevention and mitigation. We illustrate the diversity of hypotheses concerning how different proposed risk factors might increase tail biting through their effect on each other or on the proposed underlying processes of tail biting. A quantitative comparison of the efficacy of different methods of provision of manipulable materials, and a review of current practices in countries and assurance schemes where tail docking is banned, both suggest that daily provision of small quantities of destructible, manipulable natural materials can be of considerable benefit. Further comparative research is needed into materials, such as ropes, which are compatible with slatted floors. Also, materials which double as fuel for anaerobic digesters could be utilised. As well as optimising housing and management to reduce risk, it is important to detect and treat tail biting as soon as it occurs.

Early warning signs before the first bloody tails appear, such as pigs holding their tails tucked under, could in future be automatically detected using precision livestock farming methods enabling earlier reaction and prevention of tail damage. However, there is a lack of scientific studies on how best to respond to outbreaks: the effectiveness of, for example, removing biters and/or bitten pigs, increasing enrichment, or applying substances to tails should be investigated. Finally, some breeding companies are exploring options for reducing the genetic propensity to tail bite. If these various approaches to reduce tail biting are implemented we propose that the need for tail docking will be reduced.

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking? (limited access)

The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig II: management factors

By E.M. Baxter, K.M.D. Rutherford, R.B. D'Eath, G. Arnott, S.P. Turner, P. Sandøe, V.A. Moustsen, F. Thorup, S.A. Edwards & A.B. Lawrence (2013) 
Animal Welfare. UFAW 

Abstract

Increasing litter size has long been a goal of pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) breeders and producers in many countries. Whilst this has economic and environmental benefits for the pig industry, there are also implications for pig welfare. Certain management interventions are used when litter size routinely exceeds the ability of individual sows to successfully rear all the piglets (ie viable piglets outnumber functional teats). Such interventions include: tooth reduction; split suckling; cross-fostering; use of nurse sow systems and early weaning, including split weaning; and use of artificial rearing systems. These practices raise welfare questions for both the piglets and sow and are described and discussed in this review. In addition, possible management approaches which might mitigate health and welfare issues associated with large litters are identified. These include early intervention to provide increased care for vulnerable neonates and improvements to farrowing accommodation to mitigate negative effects, particularly for nurse sows.

An important concept is that management at all stages of the reproductive cycle, not simply in the farrowing accommodation, can impact on piglet outcomes. For example, poor stock handling at earlier stages of the reproductive cycle can create fearful animals with increased likelihood of showing poor maternal behaviour. Benefits of good sow and litter management, including positive human-animal relationships, are discussed. Such practices apply to all production situations, not just those involving large litters. However, given that interventions for large litters involve increased handling of piglets and increased interaction with sows, there are likely to be even greater benefits for management of hyper-prolific herds.

The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig II: management factors (pdf)

The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig I: biological factors

By K.M.D. Rutherford, E.M. Baxter, R.B. D'Eath, S.P. Turner, G. Arnott, R. Roehe, B. Ask, P. Sandøe, V.A. Moustsen, F. Thorup, S.A. Edwards, P. Berg & A.B. Lawrence (2013)
Animal Welfare. UFAW 

Abstract

Increasing litter size has long been a goal of pig breeders and producers, and may have implications for pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) welfare. This paper reviews the scientific evidence on biological factors affecting sow and piglet welfare in relation to large litter size. It is concluded that, in a number of ways, large litter size is a risk factor for decreased animal welfare in pig production. Increased litter size is associated with increased piglet mortality, which is likely to be associated with significant negative animal welfare impacts. In surviving piglets, many of the causes of mortality can also occur in non-lethal forms that cause suffering.

Intense teat competition may increase the likelihood that some piglets do not gain adequate access to milk, causing starvation in the short term and possibly long-term detriments to health. Also, increased litter size leads to more piglets with low birth weight which is associated with a variety of negative long-term effects. Finally, increased production pressure placed on sows bearing large litters may produce health and welfare concerns for the sow. However, possible biological approaches to mitigating health and welfare issues associated with large litters are being implemented. An important mitigation strategy is genetic selection encompassing traits that promote piglet survival, vitality and growth. Sow nutrition and the minimisation of stress during gestation could also contribute to improving outcomes in terms of piglet welfare. Awareness of the possible negative welfare consequences of large litter size in pigs should lead to further active measures being taken to mitigate the mentioned effects.

The welfare implications of large litter size in the domestic pig I: biological factors (pdf)

The Ethical and Welfare Implications of Large Litter Size in the Domestic Pig: Challenges and Solutions

By K.M.D. Rutherford, E.M. Baxter, B. Ask, P. Berg, R.B. DEath, S. Jarvis, K. K. Jensen, A. B. Lawrence, V. A. Moustsen, S.K. Robson, R. Roehe, F. Thorup, S.P. Turner & P. Sandøe (2011)
Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment & SAC (Scottish Agricultural College). Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment Project report 17 

Abstract

Driven by production efficiency, increasing litter size has long been a goal of pig producers, although this trend has accelerated in the past 15 years, particularly in Denmark and in other countries such as Holland, Germany and France. 

This report aims to review the pertinent scientific and practical evidence on sow and piglet welfare in relation to large litter size, and discusses the relevant ethical issues in order to inform a societal debate about the ethical acceptability of large litter size. In addition, possible approaches to mitigating health and welfare issues associated with large litter are identified.

The Ethical and Welfare Implications of Large Litter Size in the Domestic Pig: Challenges and Solutions (pdf)

Behavioural consequences of visual deprivation occurring early or later in the life of chickens

By P. M. Hocking, K. A. Haldane, E. A. Davidson, P. Sandøe & H. H. Kristensen (2015)
Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Elsevier

Abstract

The development of behaviour in a line of chickens that are born sighted (rdd) but turn blind after hatching was compared with a line that is blind at hatch (beg) and with sighted White Leghorn controls (WL) to test the hypothesis that birds that become blind later in their life will show characteristic behaviours of both blind and sighted birds. Individual behaviour, group aggregation and behavioural synchrony were compared at 1, 5 and 9 weeks of age (experiment 1) and in the parents of these chicks at 9–13 months of age (experiment 2). Responses to visual and physical isolation were assessed at 1, 5 and 9 weeks.

Analyses of home-pen behaviour showed that both rdd and beg had difficulty locating or consuming food during the first week of life. WL and rdd did not engage in abnormal behaviour (circle walking, air pecking, star gazing) at 1, 5 and 9 weeks whereas both beg and rdd adults did so. At 9 weeks beg and rdd birds showed decreased behavioural synchrony compared with WL, whereas group aggregation in rdd and WL was similar and higher than in beg. WL adults showed increased environmental pecking and higher rates of behavioural synchrony and group aggregation than both beg and rdd. Under visual isolation from conspecifics rdd chicks behaved like blind birds in some respects (e.g. decreased movement) and as sighted birds in others (e.g. peeping). The vision of rdd was apparently diminished compared with sighted controls (WL) even from an early age.

It was concluded that abnormal behaviours are a response to a complete loss of vision regardless of initial sight. Birds that became blind during rearing (rdd) may be more active as adults than birds that were blind throughout life but in general the behaviour of blind birds was similar regardless of early sight.

Behavioural consequences of visual deprivation occurring early or later in the life of chickens (limited access)

The Blind Hens' Challenge - Does it undermine the view that only welfare matters in our dealings with animals?

By P. Sandøe, P. M. Hocking, B. Forkman, K. Haldane, H. H. Kristensen & C. Palmer (2014)
Environmental Values. White Horse Press

Abstract

Animal ethicists have recently debated ethical questions raised by disenhancing animals to improve welfare. Here, we focus on the particular case of breeding hens for commercial egg-laying systems to become blind to benefit their own welfare.

Many people find breeding blind hens intuitively repellent, yet 'welfare only' appear to be committed to endorsing this possibility, if it produces welfare gains. We call this the 'Blind Hens Challenge'. In this paper, we argue that there are both empirical and theoretical reasons why even those adopting 'welfare only' views should be concerned about breeding blind hens. But we also argue that alternative views, which - for example - claim that it is important to respect the telos or rights of an animal, do not offer a more convincing solution to questions raised by the possibility of disenhancing animals for their own benefit.   

The Blind Hens' Challenge - Does it undermine the view that only welfare matters in our dealings with animals? (limited access)

Investigating the importance of vision in poultry: comparing the behaviour of blind and sighted chickens

By S. Collins, B. Forkman, H. H. Kristensen, P. Sandøe & P. M. Hocking (2011)
Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Elsevier

Abstract

Behaviour in poultry is predominately visually mediated and vision is important to the welfare of poultry. The relationship between vision, behaviour and welfare has primarily been investigated in relation to artificial lighting. Genetically blind chickens provide an alternative experimental paradigm for further investigating the importance of sight. The primary aim of the study was to investigate the importance of vision in the development and maintenance of behaviour in poultry by comparing the behaviour of 20 genetically blind chicks with that of 20 normally sighted chicks.

Behaviour was assessed in a social isolation test post hatch and at 28-30 days old, and in the chicks 8 home pens (4 blind; 4 sighted) at 42 days old. All birds were weighed at 0, 14, 28 and 42 days old. Analysis of home pen behaviour indicated that, compared to normally sighted chicks, blind chicks displayed increased preening and sitting behaviour, but reduced environmental pecking, behavioural synchrony and group aggregation. Blind chicks also exhibited abnormal behaviours - namely air pecking, star gazing, circle walking. Blind chicks weighed less than sighted chicks at 14, 28 and 42 days of age and appeared to be less stressed by social isolation compared to sighted chicks. It was concluded that blind chicks, as expected, have difficulty expressing behaviours that are normally visually mediated, and that their welfare is likely to be compromised as a result. 

Investigating the importance of vision in poultry: comparing the behaviour of blind and sighted chickens (pdf)

Animal Ethics Profiling of Vegetarians, Vegans and Meat-Eaters

By T.B. Lund, D.E.F. McKeegan, C. Cribbin, & P. Sandøe (2016) 
Anthrozoös. Routledge

Abstract

The aims of this study were to identify the animal ethical profile of vegetarians, vegans, and meat-eaters. Using questionnaire data collected in 2013 (n = 356), we measured propensity to subscribe to five different positions within animal ethics based on a novel measure of animal ethical stance (adopted from the “Animal Ethics Dilemma” learning tool). We found clear relationships between diet choice and ethical profile. The responses of meat-eaters indicated that they were relying on a mixture of ethical positions (relational, respect for nature, contractarian, and animal rights), but predominantly the utilitarian position. Propensity to hold animal rights and relational views increased with the number of meat products not consumed by meat-eaters. Vegans and vegetarians revealed more consistent animal ethics viewpoints, especially the vegan group which had a very high propensity to hold an animal rights position. Vegetarians were also inclined to hold the animal rights position, but additionally had a tendency to draw on utilitarian reasoning. Subscription to animal rights views was a defining characteristic of vegans regardless of the number of years they had followed the diet, while this was not the case for vegetarians. Contrary to expectations, the number of years a vegetarian diet had been followed was not positively associated with animal rights views. This study should be followed up in a larger and more representative population, but it is the first to attempt to quantitatively profile vegetarians, vegans, and meat-eaters across a range of animal ethics frameworks. We argue that the novel approach used in this study to assess animal ethics stances could be applied to a wide range of animal-related activities.

Animal Ethics Profiling of Vegetarians, Vegans and Meat-Eaters (limited access)

Benchmarking Farm Animal Welfare — A Novel Tool for Cross-Country Comparison Applied to Pig Production and Pork Consumption

By P. Sandøe, H. O. Hansen, H. L. H. Rhode, H. Houe, C. Palmer, B. Forkman, T. Christensen (2020)
Animals. MDPI

Abstract

A pluralist approach to farm animal welfare, combining animal welfare legislation with market-driven initiatives, has developed in many countries. To enable cross-country comparisons of pig welfare, a number of welfare dimensions, covering the features typically modified in legisla- tive and market-driven welfare initiatives aimed at pig production, were defined. Five academic welfare experts valued the different welfare states within each dimension on a 0–10 scale, then as- sessed the relative contribution of each dimension to overall welfare on a 1–5 scale. By combining these values and weights with an inventory of pig welfare initiatives in five countries, the additional welfare generated by each initiative was calculated. Together with information on the national cov- erage of each initiative, the Benchmark value for each country’s production and consumption of pork could be calculated on a scale from 0 to 100. Two (Sweden and the UK) had a much higher Benchmark value than the rest. However, there was a drop in the Benchmark for consumption in Sweden and the UK (indicating imports from countries with lower-Benchmark values for produc- tion). Even though the experts differed in the values and weights ascribed to different initiatives, they were largely in agreement in their ranking of the countries.

Benchmarking Farm Animal Welfare — A Novel Tool for Cross-Country Comparison Applied to Pig Production and Pork Consumption (pdf)

Benchmarking farm animal welfare – Ethical considerations when developing a tool for cross-country comparison

By P. Sandøe, H. O. Hansen, H. H. Kristensen, T. Christensen, H. Houe & B. Forkman  
Preprint version of a contribution to the EurSafe 2019 congress

Abstract

A tool enabling animal welfare to be benchmarked across countries would make it possible to monitor and compare the status of animal welfare at both disaggregated and aggregated levels. The results of the international benchmarking would be useful for a wide range of stakeholders taking a positive interest in farm animal welfare.

We aim to build a model for pigs and chickens with the following elements: 1) For each type of animal production considered a number of parameters linked to housing and management are defined. The parameters relate to features of production that are modified in legislative and market-driven initiatives to improve welfare. 2) By means of assessments made either by consumers or by experts, each value of these parameters is assigned a weight. 3) In each country the welfare level (beyond the basic level defined by EU regulation) found in the production, or the consumption, of pork and chicken meat is calculated. 4) The total state of farm animal welfare across different forms of production (here only two forms) is calculated for each country.

A number of ethical considerations must be addressed in the process of building the model. In the paper, we explain how we deal with the following considerations: The first concerns how to measure what affects animal welfare – whether the focus should be on environmental or outcome-based measures. Secondly, weights will need to be assigned to the different parameters, raising the question whether this should be done by animal welfare experts or consumers. Thirdly, it will be necessary to decide what to include for each country, and specifically whether it should be the welfare of animals produced in a country, including exports, or the amount of animal products consumed in the country, including imports. Fourthly, a decision will need to be taken on how to add welfare across pigs and chickens, and whether to count number of individuals, the volume of products or the value of products.

Benchmarking farm animal welfare – Ethical considerations when developing a tool for cross-country comparison (pdf)

Should the contribution of one additional lame cow depend on how many other cows on the farm are lame?

By P. Sandøe, B. Forkman, F. Hakansson, S. N. Andreasen, R. Nøhr, M. Denwood & T. B. Lund (2017) 
Animals. MDPI

Simple Summary

To give a complete picture of animal welfare on a farm, different welfare measures must be combined. The aim of this paper is to assess the method by which this is achieved within the EU-funded project Welfare Quality® (WQ). According to the protocols of WQ, individual animals with welfare problems contribute disproportionately more to a lower animal welfare score when they are associated with farms with an otherwise low prevalence of welfare problems compared to farms with a higher prevalence. As a consequence, the addition of a single lame cow on a farm with relatively few lame cows will have a greater consequence for the welfare score than on a farm with more lame cows. The stated aim of this aspect of the protocols is to prevent welfare problems being masked as a result of attaining better scores in other areas. By combining a case study of 44 Danish dairy farms and a questionnaire study of over 150 animal welfare experts, we test whether the system successfully prevents masking of problems that experts find to be unacceptable. Our findings indicate that this is not the case, and we conclude that better methods of summarizing farm-level animal welfare measures are required.

Abstract

Welfare Quality® proposes a system for aggregation according to which the total welfare score for a group of animals is a non-linear effect of the prevalence of welfare scores across the individuals within the group. Three assumptions serve to justify this: (1) experts do not follow a linear reasoning when they assess a welfare problem; (2) it serves to prevent compensation (severe welfare problems hidden by scoring well on other aspects of welfare); (3) experts agree on the weight of different welfare measures. We use two sources of data to examine these assumptions: animal welfare data from 44 Danish dairy farms with Danish Holstein Friesian cows, and data from a questionnaire study with a convenience sample of 307 experts in animal welfare, of which we received responses from over 50%. Our main results were: (1) the total group-level welfare score as assigned by experts is a non-linear function of the individual animal welfare states within the group; (2) the WQ system does not prevent what experts perceive as unacceptable compensation; (3) the level of agreement among experts appears to vary across measures. Our findings give rise to concerns about the proposed aggregation system offered by WQ.

Should the contribution of one additional lame cow depend on how many other cows on the farm are lame? (pdf)

To inspect, to motivate — or to do both? A dilemma for on-farm inspection of animal welfare

I. Anneberg, M. Vaarst & P. Sandøe (2013)
Animal Welfare. UFAW

Abstract

The ultimate aim of this paper is to study and discuss a central dilemma within inspection of animal welfare. On the one hand, it may be argued that controllers should check only whether farmers comply or not with animal welfare regulation. Here, the key value is the rule of law, and that all offenders should be treated equally. On the other hand, it may be argued that an important component of inspections is to enter into dialogue with farmers. This may be based on a more forward-looking view aimed at motivating farmers to look after the welfare of the animals in their care. In European countries, authorities try to enforce animal welfare legislation through inspections followed up by penalties in instances where a lack of compliance is found. However, the fairness and efficiency, and ultimately the public acceptance of the system, critically depend on the performance of the individual inspector.

This paper presents the results of an interview-study into how Danish animal welfare inspectors view their own role and tasks. In the main results, a theme of disagreement presented itself and revealed different attitudes in terms of the possibility of engaging in a dialogue with the farmers. The first theme focused on the preventive aspect. The second had its focus on compliance and on the avoidance of engaging in dialogue with the farmer regarding the reasons for the regulations. Moreover, a theme of agreement showed interpretation as unavoidable. We discuss how the points of view or strategies of the inspectors may affect the outcome of animal welfare inspections, both on a short- and long-term basis. We argue that this study can initiate a necessary and more open discussion of the aforementioned dilemma.

To inspect, to motivate — or to do both? A dilemma for on-farm inspection of animal welfare (limited access)

Aggregating animal welfare indicators: can it be done in a transparent and ethically robust way?

By P. Sandøe, S. A. Corr, T. B. Lund & B. Forkman (2019)
Animal Welfare. UFAW

Abstract

A central aim of animal welfare science is to be able to compare the effects of different ways of keeping, managing or treating animals based on welfare indicators. A system to aggregate the different indicators is therefore needed. However, developing such a system gives rise to serious challenges. Here, we focus specifically on the ethical aspects of this problem, taking as our starting point the ambitious efforts to set up an aggregation system within the project Welfare Quality® (WQ). We first consider the distinction between Intra- and inter-individual aggregation. These are of a very different nature, with inter-individual aggregation potentially giving rise to much more serious ethical disagreement than intra-individual aggregation. Secondly, we look at the idea of aggregation with a focus on how to compare different levels and sorts of welfare problems. Here, we conclude that animal welfare should not be understood as a simple additive function of negative or positive states. We also conclude that there are significant differences in the perceived validity and importance of different kinds of welfare indicators. Based on this, we evaluate how aggregation is undertaken in WQ. The main conclusion of this discussion is that the WQ system lacks transparency, allows important problems to be covered up, and has severe shortcomings when it comes to the role assigned to experts. These shortcomings may have serious consequences for animal welfare when the WQ scheme at farm or group level is applied. We conclude by suggesting ways to overcome some of these shortcomings.

Aggregating animal welfare indicators: can it be done in a transparent and ethically robust way? (pdf)