Animal welfare

Animal Welfare (English: animal welfare ) comprises the aspects Animal Health (animal health), the feasibility of natural behavior (natural behavior ) and the well-being (positive emotional state) of an animal.

Definitions and disambiguation

In the definition proposed here, animal welfare is understood as corresponding translation of the English animal welfare. In contrast to animal welfare (animal protection), which refers to human activities, animal welfare is based on the perception of the individual animal by humans. Alternatively, the concept of animal welfare is often used. He appears, for example, in connection with the campaigns of slaughter companies ( Westfleisch, Vion NV), at fast- food chains ( McDonald 's, Burger King) as well as the product name (eg animal welfare - riding arena deposit) on.

Basically, the concept of animal welfare, the use and maintenance of animals not in question and is therefore in contrast to the animal rights debate. Animal welfare is closely linked to the question of evaluation of animal husbandry and livestock farming systems and therefore plays in the economic, zoo, circus, experiment, home, domestic and wild animal husbandry a role. The following is the field of animal husbandry is (see animals) in the foreground.

Ethical concepts

The animal rights debate is concerned since the 1970s with the question of whether people have the right to use animals. Animal rights philosophers, such as Tom Regan and Peter Singer reject the use of animals from largely.

In contrast, practitioners and academics from different disciplines (ethology, veterinary medicine, animal science, economics and social sciences, etc.) employ in their work on animal welfare with the improvement of the status quo and the question of how animals - can humanely treat and keep - despite use.

In the assessment of animal welfare values ​​play an important role. Different values ​​are a cause for differing conclusions on animal welfare of husbandry and management procedures. If the animal health given a high priority, so you can, for example, a stable posture on a strictly limited space, the (strong) restricts the animal behavior, yet be considered positive when it allows a good health status of the animals. In return, be extensive farming methods, even if they are associated with health problems in animals ( eg parasites in free-range laying hens ) of people assessed positively. Fraser (2008) distinguishes three different perceptions, which have a common intersection in this context.

Measurement and assessment of animal welfare

From the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council ( FAWC ) in the 80 years the concept has been developed " five freedoms ". It forms the basis for various measurement and evaluation systems for animal welfare. The concept of the five freedoms involves the values ​​mentioned systems and provides an approach to operationalize, so for practical measurement of animal welfare in animal husbandry. The five freedoms are:

The measurement of various aspects of animal welfare is made on the basis of indicators. A distinction is made in:

• Resource -related indicators that provide information on, for example, accounting procedures and space
• But management -related indicators that practices such as dehorning of cattle, or the castration of pigs also detect the feeding and handling of animals.
• Animal -related indicators that are measured directly on the animal. Examples of animal-related indicators (animal based indicators ) are football inflammation ( pododermatitis ) in fattening poultry, lameness in dairy cows and pulmonary findings on the carcass in fattening pigs.

The measurement of animal welfare are always based on several indicators. Here some assessment procedures involve animal -, resource - and management-oriented indicators, others only cover a group of indicators. So far there is no generally accepted set of indicators for the measurement and assessment of animal welfare is available. However, there is a large number of proven indicators and a series of indicator systems, which are briefly outlined below. It should be noted that the measurement and evaluation methods for different user groups and purposes are designed. Examples are the policy design and evaluation by administration and scientific policy advice, operational planning and self- monitoring by farmers and counseling or product labeling (Animal Protection Label) of trading and marketing company.

Measurement and assessment procedures for animal welfare

In addition, to be developed in cooperation between various stakeholders in the food chain in the context of label or certification systems and indicators used. Similar to the organic seal keepers must meet certain requirements and demonstrate a particular health status of the animals to get the markings. The requirements are different depending on the label and certification system. Examples are " uncharted territory ", "For more animal welfare ", " animal welfare controls " and " AssureWel " ( http://www.assurewel.org/ ).

Basically, between the pure measurement of an indicator ( eg proportion of lame cows in a herd ) and its evaluation should ( what can be called "good"? ) Can be distinguished. During the measurement can be made on the basis of scientific findings, the evaluation is already at the level of the individual indicator, the inclusion of social groups and the knowledge to their systems of values ​​ahead. If, for example, the proportion of cows with lameness in a company 28%, this may result depending on the selected rating scale to a negative evaluation (red) or a positive evaluation (green).

This valuation problem occurs to a greater extent in the summary of data and information on an overall assessment of animal welfare, for example, for an operation on. Although there are a number of environmental resources ( such as size of the stable design of the bed surface, presence of manipulable material separated berthing areas ) prior knowledge about the preferences of the animals for this purpose. These to bring together for an overall, but it would be necessary to know the relative importance of the various resources to each other. This would mean, for example, the question can be answered whether a pig a soft mattress is more important than undisturbed food intake. Although there are experimental approaches for such problems, they are complicated methodologically and conceptually. Is even more difficult when the relevance of indicators of various aspects of animal welfare should be aggregated for an overall assessment. This would have to be answered, what relevance such a healthy lung compared to the ability to live in a stable social group. Is further complicated an overall, if adversely affect various indicators are mutually exclusive. While there are ways to make an assessment of the relevance of the various indicators through interviews with experts and / or social groups. However, the results remain conceptually unsatisfactory, because solves the rating to a certain degree on the animal-related perspective. Therefore, it is questionable whether it makes sense in favor of better communicating Overall rating (in the sense of an index for animal welfare around ) to take a significant blur in the explanatory power in purchasing.

Animal welfare issues in livestock operations

A survey on farms that would allow a reliable statement about the status quo and the development of animal welfare for the different Produktionsberieche livestock, is still missing. ( See, eg, the EFSA opinions but also studies on organic farming ) Nevertheless, it is based on scientific studies possible to outline some problem areas in the field of entertainment - ie those areas where animal health, behavior or emotions are affected:

Poultry

Cattle

Pigs

Animal transport and at slaughter following aspects of lack of animal welfare is often highlighted: During transport: travel times, heat and cold stress, as well as deficiencies in the equipment (eg, access to water, air conditioning) and the overcrowding of transport trolleys. At slaughter: the animals are in front of the bleeding (see slaughter) partially improperly stunned, injured animals are treated raw, a high overall level of stress especially when unloading and driving the animals for slaughter, high turnover and inadequate qualifications and motivation of the battle staff. The demarcation which procedures and conditions are to be assessed as not appropriate for animals, depends on the state of scientific knowledge but also by social preferences from. The legislature decides, by the definition of minimum requirements where, within this continuum, the boundaries are set.