Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Concerns about the negative aspects of inten-
sification have led to the emergence of the field of
animal welfare science. Researchers working in this
field use a multi-disciplinary approach to under-
stand all three of the broad categories of concern
and have provided science-based information to
address them (see books such as Fraser, 2008b;
Appleby
et al
., 2011). As an example, tail docking
of dairy cattle (removal of the tail below the sixth
or seventh vertebrae) emerged as a management
practice in the US in the early 1990s (Johnson,
1992). Although adopted by many farmers due to
perceived benefits, it was also criticized within and
outside the dairy industry and thus became the
subject of scientific study and has been the subject
of scientific study within the last 20 years. Tail
docking began for several reasons, including impro-
ved worker comfort and because it was thought to
improve cow cleanliness and udder health by pre-
venting transfer of debris and faeces from the tail
to the udder. However, scientific evaluation of
this practice has found that tail docking does not
influence udder cleanliness (Eicher
et al
., 2001;
Tucker
et al
., 2001; Schreiner and Ruegg, 2002), nor
any aspect of udder health (Tucker
et al
., 2001;
Schreiner and Ruegg, 2002; Fulwider
et al
., 2008).
Although there is only limited evidence that
the procedure causes pain, the ability to remove
flies is impaired by tail docking (reviewed by
Sutherland and Tucker, 2011). The importance
of the scientific information gained from this type
of research is evident from the extent to which it
has now been incorporated into industry codes of
practice, retailer standards and legislation (Appleby,
2013; Mench 2008). As a result of the scientific
evidence and public concerns about tail docking
(Weary
et al
., 2011), for example, this practice has
been banned or discouraged in most countries
(Sutherland and Tucker, 2011). Science will hope-
fully continue to inform decisions about all aspects
of animal production from entire housing system
(see section 2) to specific management practices.
the egg industry. Worldwide, the vast majority
of commercial egg-laying hens are housed in
conventional (battery) cages (Mench
et al
.,
2011). The conventional cage system was
developed in the 1930s as an alternative to free-
range and barn production systems, which
exposed hens to health and predation risks.
Conventional cages were also more efficient
economically than barn and free-range systems,
such that in a span of 30 years the majority of
hens in developed countries were housed in
these cages. However, as the use of conventional
cages grew, so too did public concerns about
the welfare of the hens, mainly because of the
extent to which these small, barren enclosures
restricted the behaviour of the hens. In effect,
concerns about hens' physical functioning
(e.g. health) had been dealt with by placing them
in a housing system that restricted their ability
to perform their natural behaviours to such an
extent that the public in some countries found
that system to be unacceptable.
As mentioned above, animal welfare began
to receive more attention in the 1960s, as the
result of the publication of Ruth Harrison's topic
Animal Machines
(1964) and the subsequent
release of a UK government report (Brambell,
1965) on intensive animal farming systems. The
so-called Brambell report was extremely critical
of production systems that restricted the move-
ment of animals such that that they could not
sit, stand, lie down, turn around and/or groom
without restriction. By 1976, the Council of
Europe had developed the
Convention on the
Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes
,
which stated that tethered or confined farm ani-
mals should be given space appropriate to their
physiological and ethological (behavioural) needs
(Appleby, 2003). In keeping with the language
of the Convention, the European Union adopted
minimum space standards for hens kept in con-
ventional cages. However, despite this public
concern continued to grow (Savory, 2004) and
in 1999 the European Union banned conven-
tional cages, effective 2012. Subsequently, sev-
eral European countries independently passed
legislation that either banned the use of these
cages immediately or required additional cage or
stocking density modifications (Appleby, 2003;
Jendral, 2005).
Similar issues have now arisen in the USA,
where there is currently no framework for federal
Animal Welfare as a Driver
of Sustainability: the Egg Industry
The important role that animal welfare con-
cerns can play in shaping how animals are pro-
duced, and thus the sustainability of production
systems, is illustrated by the recent changes in
