One Welfare Animal Health and Welfare, Food Security and Sustainability 1789249341, 9781789249347

Table of contents :
Cover
One Welfare: Animal Health and Welfare, Food Security
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
Contributors
Preface – I – Rebeca García Pinillos
Preface – II – Stella Maris Huertas
Foreword
Notes
Acknowledgements
Image Credits
Animal Health and Welfare, Food Security and Sustainability – Introduction
The Global Interconnections
Climate change
Pollution
Biodiversity loss
Aquatic animals
Education, research, policy and NGO interventions.
The PPILOW project (PPILOW, 2022)
References
1 The Interconnection Between Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Understanding ‘Animal Welfare’
1.3 The Importance of Human–Animal Relationships to Farm Animal Welfare
1.4 Farmers Under Pressure
1.5 What Is ‘Animal Neglect’?
1.5.1 When farmers are under pressure there is a risk of animal neglect and animal cruelty
1.6 The Role of Veterinary Inspections in Driving Animal Welfare Improvements
1.7 The Potential for an Early Warning System to Mitigate Farm Risk
1.8 Supporting Farmers to Enhance Animal Welfare
1.9 Conclusion
Note
References
2 Food Production Systems and How They Relate to Animal Welfare
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Whose Welfare?
2.3 Which Food Production Systems Affect Welfare?
2.4 Obtaining Non-farmed Food and Welfare
2.5 Plant Production and the Welfare and Mortality of Animals
2.6 The Welfare of Animals Kept for Food Production
2.6.1 Farmed animal welfare studies
2.6.2 Bees and other insects
2.6.3 Farmed fish and other aquatic animals
2.6.4 Dairy cows
2.6.5 Broiler chickens
2.6.6 Pigs
2.7 Cell-cultured Food Production
References
3 Integrating Animal Welfare as a Component of Sustainable Farming Systems
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Linking Animal Welfare to Sustainable Farming Systems
3.2.1 Animal welfare and environmental health
3.2.2 Animal welfare and economic growth
3.2.3 Animal welfare and social equity
3.3 The Provision of Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation
3.4 Conclusion
References
4 Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Stress and Animal Welfare
4.3 Influence of Host Homeostasis Disturbance (Stress) on the Intestinal Microbiota
4.4 Animal Welfare and Food Safety
4.5 Slaughter-chain Hazards
4.6 Housing Systems
4.7 Environmental Contaminants
4.8 Genetics
References
5 Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Long and Complex History of Human–Animal Relationships
5.3 Livestock Production Systems
5.3.1 Modelling the dynamics of beef cattle production system components within the One Welfare framework
5.3.2 Finishing stage
5.3.3 Conceptual model of a high-density feedlot system
5.3.4 Slaughter stage
5.4 Conceptual Model of One Welfare Applied to a Beef Cattle Production System
5.5 Conclusions
Note
References
6 Animal Welfare Indicators and their Relation to Workers’ Wellbeing and their Environment
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Animal Welfare Indicators: Animal-based versus Resource-based Indicators
6.3 Validity, Reliability and Feasibility
6.4 New Developments: Precision Livestock Farming, Precision Slaughter, Indicators of Good Welfare and Extensive Systems
6.5 Welfare Indicators I: On-farm Welfare Assessment
6.5.1 Indicators related to feeding
6.5.1.1 Body condition
6.5.1.2 Water
6.5.2 Indicators related to the environment
6.5.2.1 Injuries related to the environment
6.5.2.2 Animal-based indicators related to the environment
6.5.2.3 Indicators related to thermal stress
6.5.3 Indicators related to health
6.5.3.1 Mortality
6.5.3.2 Multifactorial disease
6.5.3.3 Pain
6.5.4 Indicators related to behaviour
6.5.4.1 Variations in normal behavioural patterns
6.5.4.2 Occurrence of abnormal behaviours
6.5.4.3 Behavioural indicators of emotions or affective states
6.6 Welfare Indicators II: Welfare Assessment During Transport
6.7 Welfare Indicators III: Welfare Assessment at Slaughter
6.8 Animal Welfare Indicators and Workers’ Wellbeing
References
7 The Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements within Livestock Production Systems, State Aid and Trade
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The Use of Public Funding to Support Agriculture
7.3 Investments in Agriculture – a Path to Support Animal Welfare, Human Health and the Environment
7.4 The Cost Implications of Improving Animal Welfare
7.5 Negative Externalities of Food Systems
7.6 Mending our Price System
7.7 Provision of Incentives and Disincentives
7.7.1 Measures that affect farmers
7.7.1.1 ‘Feebates’
7.7.2 Measures that affect consumers
7.8 A Fresh Approach to Economics
7.9 International Trade
7.9.1 Rules and guidelines for international trade
7.9.2 Private standards
7.9.3 Development policies
7.9.4 Public education
7.10 One Welfare in the Trade Environment
Notes
References
Index
Back Cover

Citation preview

One Welfare Animal Health and Welfare, Food Security and Sustainability

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

One Welfare Animal Health and Welfare, Food Security and Sustainability

Edited by

Rebeca García Pinillos One Welfare CIC, London, UK

Stella Maris Huertas Canén

Universidad de la República, Uruguay; WOAH Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare and Sustainable Livestock Systems, Chile-Uruguay-México

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

CABI is a trading name of CAB International CABI CABI Nosworthy Way 200 Portland Street Boston Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE MA 02114 UK USA Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cabi.org

Tel: +1 (617)682-9015 E-mail: [email protected]

© CAB International 2023. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of, and should not be attributed to, CAB International (CABI). Any images, figures and tables not otherwise attributed are the author(s)’ own. References to internet websites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. CAB International and, where different, the copyright owner shall not be liable for technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The information is supplied without obligation and on the understanding that any person who acts upon it, or otherwise changes their position in reliance thereon, does so entirely at their own risk. Information supplied is neither intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional advice. The reader/user accepts all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this information. CABI’s Terms and Conditions, including its full disclaimer, may be found at https:// www.cabi.org/terms-and-conditions/. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK. ISBN-13: 9781789249347 (hardback) 9781789249354 (paperback) 9781789249491 (ePDF) 9781789249507 (ePub) DOI: 10.1079/9781789249507.0000 Commissioning Editor: Alexandra Lainsbury Editorial Assistant: Emma McCann Production Editor: James Bishop Typeset by Straive, Pondicherry, India Printed and bound in the UK by Severn, Gloucester

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

“A seed neither fears light nor darkness, but uses both to grow.” Matshona Dhliwayo To Luciandra Macedo de Toledo and Ariel Marcel Tarazona Morales, both young researchers who provided their last documented career contribution to One Welfare in Chapter 5 of this book.

Image: Jequitibá Rosa (Santa Rita do Passa Quatro, São Paulo, Brazil). Credit: M. C. Ceballos

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Contents

Contributors

xi

Preface – I – Rebeca García Pinillos

xiii

Preface – II – Stella Maris Huertas

xv

Foreword

xix

Acknowledgements

xxi

Image Credits

xxii

Introduction

xxiii

1 The Interconnection Between Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Understanding ‘Animal Welfare’ 1.3 The Importance of Human–Animal Relationships to Farm Animal Welfare 1.4 Farmers Under Pressure 1.5 What Is ‘Animal Neglect’? 1.5.1 When farmers are under pressure there is a risk of animal neglect and animal cruelty 1.6 The Role of Veterinary Inspections in Driving Animal Welfare Improvements 1.7 The Potential for an Early Warning System to Mitigate Farm Risk 1.8 Supporting Farmers to Enhance Animal Welfare 1.9 Conclusion 2

Food Production Systems and How They Relate to Animal Welfare 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Whose Welfare? 2.3 Which Food Production Systems Affect Welfare?

1 1 2 3 5 6 8 14 16 18 19 25 25 25 26 vii

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

viii

3

Contents

2.4 Obtaining Non-farmed Food and Welfare 2.5 Plant Production and the Welfare and Mortality of Animals 2.6 The Welfare of Animals Kept for Food Production 2.6.1 Farmed animal welfare studies 2.6.2 Bees and other insects 2.6.3 Farmed fsh and other aquatic animals 2.6.4 Dairy cows 2.6.5 Broiler chickens 2.6.6 Pigs 2.7 Cell-cultured Food Production

27 28 29 29 31 31 32 33 34 36

Integrating Animal Welfare as a Component of Sustainable Farming Systems 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Linking Animal Welfare to Sustainable Farming Systems 3.2.1 Animal welfare and environmental health 3.2.2 Animal welfare and economic growth 3.2.3 Animal welfare and social equity 3.3 The Provision of Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation 3.4 Conclusion

43 43 45 45 49 50 52 55

4 Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Stress and Animal Welfare 4.3 Infuence of Host Homeostasis Disturbance (Stress) on the Intestinal Microbiota 4.4 Animal Welfare and Food Safety 4.5 Slaughter-chain Hazards 4.6 Housing Systems 4.7 Environmental Contaminants 4.8 Genetics

62 62 63

5

89 89

Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment 5.1 Introduction 5.2 The Long and Complex History of Human–Animal Relationships 5.3 Livestock Production Systems 5.3.1 Modelling the dynamics of beef cattle production system components within the One Welfare framework 5.3.2 Finishing stage 5.3.3 Conceptual model of a high-density feedlot system 5.3.4 Slaughter stage 5.4 Conceptual Model of One Welfare Applied to a Beef Cattle Production System 5.5 Conclusions

64 66 67 69 75 77

91 94 95 99 99 101 102 104

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Contents

6 Animal Welfare Indicators and their Relation to Workers’ Wellbeing and their Environment 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Animal Welfare Indicators: Animal-based versus Resource-based Indicators 6.3 Validity, Reliability and Feasibility 6.4 New Developments: Precision Livestock Farming, Precision Slaughter, Indicators of Good Welfare and Extensive Systems 6.5 Welfare Indicators I: On-farm Welfare Assessment 6.5.1 Indicators related to feeding 6.5.1.1 Body condition 6.5.1.2 Water 6.5.2 Indicators related to the environment 6.5.2.1 Injuries related to the environment 6.5.2.2 Animal-based indicators related to the environment 6.5.2.3 Indicators related to thermal stress 6.5.3 Indicators related to health 6.5.3.1 Mortality 6.5.3.2 Multifactorial disease 6.5.3.3 Pain 6.5.4 Indicators related to behaviour 6.5.4.1 Variations in normal behavioural patterns 6.5.4.2 Occurrence of abnormal behaviours 6.5.4.3 Behavioural indicators of emotions or affective states 6.6 Welfare Indicators II: Welfare Assessment During Transport 6.7 Welfare Indicators III: Welfare Assessment at Slaughter 6.8 Animal Welfare Indicators and Workers’ Wellbeing 7 The Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements within Livestock Production Systems, State Aid and Trade 7.1 Introduction 7.2 The Use of Public Funding to Support Agriculture 7.3 Investments in Agriculture – a Path to Support Animal Welfare, Human Health and the Environment 7.4 The Cost Implications of Improving Animal Welfare 7.5 Negative Externalities of Food Systems 7.6 Mending our Price System 7.7 Provision of Incentives and Disincentives 7.7.1 Measures that affect farmers 7.7.1.1 ‘Feebates’ 7.7.2 Measures that affect consumers 7.8 A Fresh Approach to Economics

ix

108 108 110 110 111 113 113 113 113 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116 117 117 117 118 119 122 127 137 137 138 141 142 143 145 146 146 147 147 148

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Contents

x

7.9

International Trade 7.9.1 Rules and guidelines for international trade 7.9.2 Private standards 7.9.3 Development policies 7.9.4 Public education 7.10 One Welfare in the Trade Environment Index

149 152 153 155 156 156 163

Tables Table 1.1. Variables that influence farmer–animal relations. From Coleman and Hemsworth, 2014. Table 6.1. Barriers and possible solutions to adoption of precision livestock farming (PLF). Table 6.2. Indicator of lameness according to the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. From Welfare Quality®, 2009. Table 7.1. Livestock conversion efficiencies of human-edible cereals in calories and protein. From Cassidy et al., 2013.

5 112 121 141

Case Studies Case Study 1: The over-stressed farmer leaving his pigs to die (Andrade et al., 2014) 10 Case Study 2: The robot worker as the pigs scream (Anneberg et al., 2013a) 11 Case Study 3: When employees suffer, they take it out on the animals (Anneberg and Sandøe, 2019) 12 Case Study 4: Adoption of silvopastoral systems (SPS) as a strategy for beef cattle production systems in Uruguay 48 Case Study 5: Balance between the provision of ecosystem services, animal welfare and cattle production in the tropics – assessing sustainability of food and agricultural systems 54 Case Study 6: Positive effects of the adoption of good handling practices on cattle welfare and human wellbeing 98 Case Study 7: Management of adult animals without previous experiences with humans 127 Case Study 8: Poultry red mites 128 Case Study 9: Predation 130

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Contributors

Inger Anneberg, Senior Adviser, emerita, Department of Veterinary and Animal Science, Aarhus University, Denmark. Donald M. Broom, St Catharine’s College and Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ES, UK. Maria Camila Ceballos, University of Calgary, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Production Animal Health, Calgary, Canada. Antoni Dalmau, Animal Welfare Program, Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA), Monells, Veinat de Sies s/n. 17121, Spain. Catherine Devitt, Social Science consultant, Wicklow, Ireland. Francisco Galindo, Departamento de Etología y Fauna Silvestre, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 04510, CDMX, México; OIE Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare and Livestock Production Systems, Chile-Uruguay-México. Carmen Gallo, Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia 5090000, Chile; OIE Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare and Livestock Production Systems, Chile-Uruguay-México. Rebeca García Pinillos, One Welfare CIC, London, UK. E-mail: director@ onewelfareworld.org Warren Hidalgo-Jara, Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal, Heredia, Costa Rica. Stella Maris Huertas Canén, Departamento de Salud Publica Veterinaria, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Uruguay. Ruta 8, km 18 CP 12100, Uruguay; OIE Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare and Livestock Production Systems, Chile-Uruguay-México. E-mail: [email protected] Luciandra Macedo de Toledo, Agência Paulista de Tecnologia dos Agronegócios (APTA), Instituto de Zootecnia, 14.030-670, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brasil. Xavier Manteca, Animal Welfare Education Center (AWEC), Campus of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08193, xi

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

xii

Contributors

Spain; Department of Animal and Food Science, School of Veterinary Science, Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Cerdanyola del Valles, 08193, Spain. Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas, Laboratorio de Salud Pública e Inocuidad de Alimentos [Public Health and Food Safety], Programa de Investigación en Enfermedades Tropicales (PIET), Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Universidad Nacional, Heredia 40104, Costa Rica. Mateus Paranhos da Costa, Universidad Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinária, Departamento de Zootecnia, 14.884-900, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brasil. Adolfo Sansolini, Director, Animal Welfare and Trade, London, UK. Peter Stevenson OBE, Chief Policy Advisor, Compassion in World Farming, Godalming, UK. Tamara Tadich, Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia 5090000, Chile; OIE Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare and Livestock Production Systems, Chile-Uruguay-México. Ariel Marcel Tarazona, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Departamento de Producción Animal, Medellín, Colombia. Déborah Temple, Animal Welfare Education Center (AWEC), Campus of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08193, Spain. Antonio Velarde, Animal Welfare Program, Institute of Agrifood and Technology (IRTA), Monells, Veinat de Sies s/n. 17121, Spain. Rebeca Zamora-Sanabria, Escuela de Zootecnia, Centro de Investigación en Nutrición Animal (CINA), Universidad de Costa Rica, Ciudad Universitaria Rodrigo Facio, San Pedro de Montes de Oca 11501-2060, San José, Costa Rica.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Preface – I – Rebeca García Pinillos

Following the publication of the One Welfare Framework Book in 2018 this book opens a series of edited books, engaging experts in the different subject matters, to focus in the different parts of the One Welfare Framework. Given the increasing global debate about population growth, global consumption of food, farming of animals in connection with food security, sustainability and the impacts that farming has on the welfare of animals, environment and human wellbeing, I thought it would be important to continue the series with this book, to ensure that key up to date work and thinking in this area is disseminated and publicly available, providing an overview of relevant areas where the One Welfare concept applies to farm animals. There is also wider debate about how sustainability in agriculture impacts on human wellbeing aspects such as women empowerment and gender equality. Efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems depend on preserving the welfare of animals (both kept and wild), people, including the empowerment of all women and gender equality, and our natural environment. We hope that this also helps contribute to supporting global efforts to improve animal welfare standards through the animal welfare chapters in the Terrestrial Code of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly OIE) and move towards recognition of this within global agenda policies related to sustainable development. This is by showcasing how the interconnections between people, animals and the environment exist and contributing towards the evidence base that underpins progression towards inclusion of animal welfare within topics relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals and other key policies. Sustainability includes elements related to animal welfare, the environment, as well as ethical and economic factors that guide people’s choices. The idea of sustainability in relation to One Welfare is that the interconnections between the welfare of people, animals and the environment are considered and that there is a goal to move towards approaches that maximize the benefits for all involved. Through the years I have been developing and disseminating the concept of One Welfare I have seen in different scenarios xiii

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

xiv

Preface – I – Rebeca García Pinillos

how, at times, there may be conflicts between positive welfare and other aspects, however I remain firm that the aspiration is to achieve the best possible outcome for all to be obtained. Sustainable animal agriculture should be undertaken in a way that is environmentally, ethically and economically acceptable for consumers, producers and the wider society. As part of this, animal health and welfare should not be unnecessarily compromised to address human needs. In order to be considered sustainable, agricultural systems must work towards the positive health and welfare of all farmed animals raised within them with due consideration to the natural environment, wildlife, people and planet, looking not just at the short-term needs, but also to the long term prospect of our planet.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Preface – II – Stella Maris Huertas

From the 1970s to the present days, definitions of Animal Welfare (AW) have been elaborated, and this concept is increasingly included in production systems as well as in our daily routine. As an example, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH ex OIE) defines animal welfare as “the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies”. It affirms that AW is a complex issue with multiple scientific, ethical, economic, cultural, social, religious and political dimensions and that it is having a growing interest in civil society, constituting one of the priorities of this world organization (Art 7.1.1. Terrestrial Code). Subsequently, the concept of One Health has been gaining more and more strength in the global community, trying to emphasize the importance of the animal health and the strong relationship with human health. Recently, in 2015 appeared the concept of One Welfare coined by Dr. Rebeca García Pinillos, trying to reaffirm the concept of animal welfare, its influence on the wellbeing of people and its close relationship with their physical and social environment, that was very well documented in her book One Welfare, A framework to improve animal welfare and human well-being (CABI, 2018). In this scenario, and with the excellent impact of the first book, Dr. García Pinillos identified in particular section 3 of the One Welfare Framework, related to farmed animals, as a key priority area in the midst of ongoing farm animal welfare discussions globally and she kindly invited myself to be co-author and co-editor of the book One Welfare – Animal Health and Welfare, Food Security and Sustainability. Having known Dr. García Pinillos for many years and her career work on the area of One Welfare, I immediately accepted with great gratitude, being a honour to be able to contribute with my expertise, knowledge and network in the area where I have worked much of my career, based in South America, supporting the improvement of animal welfare within the region as well as globally within my work in the WOAH reference centre for animal welfare. It has been a great pleasure participating in a book and working alongside such prestigious researchers, from a multifaceted and multidisciplinary approach including case studies. xv

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

xvi

Preface – II – Stella Maris Huertas

This book has the great advantage that it presents different points of view from experts and researchers from many regions and countries around the globe, bringing English and Spanish speakers from the European continent together with those of Central and South American countries, something that is not common in this type of books published in English language. A major concern about the welfare of farm animals is the intensification of production in order to achieve more food for a constantly growing population. Likewise, the importance of the link between humans and animals is already undeniable, arising from the animal welfare point of view but without leaving aside the human being. Chapter 1 opens the book introducing this approach, “The interconnection between animal and human welfare and their environment” by Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg, from Ireland and Denmark respectively. Sustainability and its relation to animal welfare is also an important element of this book, Chapters 2 and 3 deal with food production systems, their impact on animal welfare and the integration from a sustainability perspective. Food production systems must be sustainable and animal welfare is a crucial element of this sustainability. According to FAO, a sustainable food system is one that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental basis are not compromised for the future generations1. In addition, Prof. Don Broom (Chapter 2) affirms that a system or procedure is sustainable if it is acceptable now and if its effects will be acceptable in the future. In relation to farming systems, the key elements or pillars on which sustainability is based are very much aligned with One Welfare: human wellbeing, animal welfare and environment as detailed in Chapter 3 “Integrating animal welfare as a component of sustainable farming systems” (Huertas, S., Gallo, C., Tadich, T. and Galindo, F.), Latin American authors presenting local case studies. Animal welfare and food safety have progressively gained importance and are perceived by consumers as synonymous of quality. The health of an animal is an intrinsic part of their welfare. This means that factors such as stress during farm animals transport, as an example, is related to the shedding of pathogens which may lead to an increased risk of cross-contamination in the food chain impacting on food safety. Chapter 4 “Animal welfare, stress and food safety” by Muñoz, L., Zamora, R. and Hidalgo, W. all from Central America, deals with these issues in depth and with actual practical examples. The physical and social environment affect the welfare of farm animals. Chapter 5 “Livestock production: physical and social environment” (Paranhos, M.,Tarazona, A., Ceballos, M. and Macedo, L.) shows that we live in complex environments made up of biotic and abiotic systems that interact with each other, sustaining life on land, water and air. This chapter reflects on development and design of conceptual models that establish different possible scenarios as ways to implement the concepts of One Health and One Welfare.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Preface – II – Stella Maris Huertas

xvii

An important foundation element is the way we measure animal welfare and how there are different types of indicators that can be used in certain scenarios, always underpinned by science and their relationship with the wellbeing of workers and the environment. Examples of best practice on the use of indicators within farming systems are provided in Chapter 6 “Animal welfare indicators and their relation to workers’ wellbeing and their environment” by Temple, D., Dalmau, A., Manteca, X. and Velarde A. all from Spain. Last but not least, within livestock production systems, improvements in animal welfare could result in wellbeing, sustainability, direct and/or indirect economic improvements for producers and countries. The One Welfare concept can support and underpin international trade, especially in setting down basic ground rules within production systems, sale and consumption of food of animal origin that consider the holistic impacts, rather than individual elements of productivity. In Chapter 7 “The economics of animal welfare improvements within livestock production systems, state aid and trade” by Sansolini, A. and Stevenson, P. from the UK, the authors provide an exhaustive analysis of all the variables at stake on the international scene. This book is intended to be a tool both for professional and students in animal, agricultural or any other science and profession related to the use of land and natural resources as well as the general public. The book captures very important global topic highlights as part of the interconnections between animal Health and Welfare, Food Security and Sustainability under the One Welfare concept from a practical point of view, with scientifically based arguments and case studies of diverse realities from different countries and continents.

Note FAO (2010) What is meant by the term “sustainability”? http://www.fao.org/3/ ai388e/AI388E05.htm

1

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Foreword

Animal welfare is a science that recognizes animal sentience and underpins animal care. It is interconnected with the wellbeing of people and the environment around them, where farm to fork elements, including natural resources such as fresh air, clean water, healthy soil and biodiversity, are important for all, strengthening the resilience of food systems and farming. Animal welfare is multidisciplinary and key to underpin a sustainable farm to fork approach engaging farmers, producers and consumers day to day lives across scientific, technical, economic, and cultural, implications. The concept of One Health has gained momentum with the growth of global challenges such as AMR or the global COVID-19 Pandemic. This is because they expose and reinforce the understanding of the multiple interconnections between the health and welfare of animals, people and the planet. The fact that animal welfare could contribute to reduce the use of medicaments and to fight anti-microbial resistance (AMR) (declared as one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity in 2019 by the World Health Organization (WHO) and one of the top three priority health threats within the EU in July 20221) is well recognized as stated in the EU Farm to Fork Strategy. A confirmation of these elements comes at global level in February 2022 when the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), under the Resolution on the nexus between animal welfare, the environment and sustainable development (UNEA 5.2/1)2 notes that “animal welfare can contribute to addressing environmental challenges, promoting the “One Health” approach and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals”. This resolution is the first official document to acknowledge globally that “the health and welfare of animals, sustainable development and the environment are connected to human health and wellbeing”. Integrating animal welfare with other policies and practices and expanding the One Health approach with One Welfare should be encouraged to support sustainable livestock policies. The EU recognizes the key value of animal welfare improvements and how these interconnect with human wellbeing and the environment, underpinning sustainability, as part of the EU Green Deal3. Animal welfare xix

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

xx

Foreword

improvements can contribute to fight environmental degradation, greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable resource use and inclusive societies. The contents of this book are an important contribution to the wider understanding and further development of the concept within global policy frameworks. Andrea Gavinelli Head of Animal Welfare Unit, European Commission

Notes 1 https://health.ec.europa.eu/antimicrobial-resistance/eu-action-antimicrobialresistance_en 2 https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39731/K2200707%20 -%20UNEP-EA.5-Res.1%20-%20ADVANCE.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 3 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europeangreen-deal_en

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Acknowledgements

The book editors would like to thank first and foremost their families and close friends for their unconditional support through the length of editing this book; to all chapter authors that have contributed their knowledge, time and expertise to the different book chapters and without whom this book would never have been a reality; to the editing team who has patiently supported us through the length of putting together this book, to all the researchers that have and are undertaking One Welfare research on farm animals providing the evidence base to enable interventions that protect our environment and improve the welfare of animal’s lives and those around them.

xxi

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Image Credits

Page xxiv - Isabel Rodrigo Lorenzo Page 28 - Isabel Rodrigo Lorenzo Page 30 - Cesar M Amor Page 93 - Mateus Paranhos da Costa Page 97 - Mateus Paranhos da Costa Page 101 - Mateus Paranhos da Costa

xxii Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Health and Welfare, Food Security and Sustainability – Introduction Rebeca García Pinillos1 1

Founder and Director, One Welfare CIC

One Welfare is defined as the interconnection between animal welfare, human wellbeing and the physical and social environment. It is a multifaceted concept that captures a broad range of areas arranging them within the five sections of the One Welfare Framework (García Pinillos, 2018). The framework helps us to better understand the multidimensional aspects of the concept and the many facets of the interconnections between animal welfare, human wellbeing and the environment. It is important to be mindful of the differences between the concept of One Welfare and One Health. In the same way we talk about animal health and welfare we should be able to talk about One Health and One Welfare. Both concepts are centred around transdisciplinary work across different animal and human professions, One Welfare has welfare and wellbeing as the main central focus, whilst One Health prioritizes health. Both of them encourage closer collaboration that can result in benefits within each of the areas it is applied to. By adopting a One Welfare approach we are able to identify and expose the direct and indirect benefits of animal welfare alone, which are often lost when mixed within animal health topics given how broad this area is. A One Welfare lense enables understanding and showcases the nexus between animal welfare and other disciplines, something that many times is clear to those with knowledge in animal welfare but not to others. Food security is defined, according to the 1996 world food summit, as a state when “all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” (FAO, 1996) Animal Health and Welfare are intrinsically connected to food security and sustainability. Farm animals live in environments that are shared with us and utilize in different ways natural resources and different plant foods that we may or may not be able to consume as food.

xxiii Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

xxiv

Introduction

As a result of these interconnections the health and welfare of animals also has an impact, direct or indirect on human health and wellbeing as well as on the environment. Whilst for those working in close contact with animals these interconnections might be clear, this is not always the case for everyone. This book, alongside the rest of the One Welfare Framework books, is a tool that can help this understanding.

The Global Interconnections The health and welfare of animals, food security and sustainability can be studied at local, national and global level. As a result of the multiple interconnections across the food chain changes at local levels will ultimately have an impact on a global scale. Whilst there are specific interconnections at individual level between the welfare of an animal, and that of the people and environment directly connected to it, there are wider global interconnections which do need to also be accounted for. These are more holistic and demonstrate how local and targeted interventions on welfare and wellbeing improvements can support improvements to global targets, such as those established by the Sustainable Development Goals. There are key areas that have been identified globally as the centre of a planetary crisis that closely connect to the focus of this book. These are:

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Introduction

xxv

Climate change Referring to “long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns that in the long run will completely alter the ecosystems that support life on the planet” (UN, 2022). The cause of this unprecedented warming at least in the last 2000 years is multifaceted and mostly driven by human activities (IPCC, 2021). This includes activities which release emissions to the atmosphere, namely energy use, industry, transport, buildings and agriculture as key ones. We are all already experiencing weather changes with warmer temperatures earlier in the year and increasing episodes of droughts, flooding, wildfires, increases in sea levels etc. across the world. All of these alterations modify our environments and ecosystems impacting on the welfare of animals and people who are not adapted to live in those higher temperatures, able to escape or survive fooding, or similarly escape or survive wildfres as an example. Mitigating solutions have to focus on “reaching at least net zero CO2 emissions, along with strong reductions in other greenhouse gas emissions” which can be achieved by reducing, as an example, aerosol pollution and improving air quality (IPCC, 2021), however every tonne of emissions reduced contributes to mitigating efforts and as such animal keeping has a part to play in supporting these efforts.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Introduction

xxvi

For example, there is a big focus on the production of food, but equally waste of that food can exacerbate the situation by misusing resources and thereafter using further ones to dispose of the wasted food. It also aggravates food security issues, there are some past estimates of up to 1.3 billion tons of food for humans lost and wasted each year globally as an example (Gustavsson et al., 2011). This food would be enough to feed more than one billion people (Dou et al., 2018).

Pollution Pollution is an area which has an impact on the welfare of animals, people and the environment. An area that has been high on the global agenda has been plastic pollution, including the marine environment, with a global resolution ‘End Plastic Pollution: Towards an internationally legally binding instrument’1 agreed. This aims to establish an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that will develop the specific content of the new plastic pollution treaty, with the aim of completing its work by the end of 2024. The resolution recognizes that pollution has a negative impact not only at environmental level but also within the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development. Whilst the environmental impacts are often discussed, animal welfare or human wellbeing may not be directly mentioned, however there are many communications reporting the suffering of animals, such as camels, equines and others, as a result of ingestion of different types of plastic; mutilation due to limbs trapped by plastic waste (i.e. ghost gear) etc. These impacts cause suffering in many people that care for animals and become aware of their suffering, but also impact on people whose livelihoods depend on animals affected, as an example, by plastic ingestion. Focusing on animal production and wider pollution areas it is always important to be aware of practices that may contribute to pollution, for example, by releasing untreated farm waste into freshwater or by overtreating animals with antimicrobials that may end up in human food, rivers or even wildlife that lives around the farmed animals contributing to the challenge of bacteria that may become resistant to antimicrobials. On the other hand, some livestock keeping practices can help support natural areas by helping to maintain the land and pastures in a good state. Thinking about the wider impacts of animal keeping, both positive and negative, is important to fully adopt a One Welfare approach. Biodiversity loss Biodiversity loss has an impact on food security by, for example, altering ecosystems where foods are produced. On the other hand, food security and

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Introduction

xxvii

sustainability have impacts on biodiversity, directly in areas where natural habitats may be replaced by production, manufacturing or retail sites, but also indirectly through impacts on climate, or the human-made genetic variation of food producing animal species/breeds. Our food systems are responsible for around 80% of biodiversity loss2, therefore considering the wider impacts of animal keeping on their welfare, productivity and food security are key. When considering a One Welfare approach it is paramount to be aware of the interconnections between the animal welfare impacts associated with this. One example on how to do this is identifying how a particular production method can help preserve the natural habitat of other species, and prevent any harm that may cause habitat loss for some species. It is also important to take into account areas where biodiversity and preservation of certain species might lead to conflicts between the welfare of farm animals and wildlife, as a result, for example, of competition for outdoor space and resources between them. This may cause human–wildlife

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

xxviii

Introduction

conflicts where humans see wildlife as a factor impairing their wellbeing and that of their livestock (i.e. via livestock attacks by carnivores that lead to losses, injury, distress, economical loss etc.) and take action against the wild carnivores, displacing them from their habitat or even harming or killing them. Identifying ways to manage these human–wildlife conflicts is part of the adoption of a One Welfare approach.

Aquatic animals Whilst this book does not include a specific chapter on aquatic animals, it is important to explain that the concept of One Welfare is relevant to aquatic animals. There are many examples that can be used to highlight a One Welfare approach within aquatic animals. Here we use overfishing as an example, focusing on the impacts and how they align with the three One Welfare areas. Overfishing has a clear impact on aquatic species living within the affected area because this has an impact on biodiversity and the ecosystem. It affects more than one species as it can have a cascading effect and imbalance the ocean ecosystems. For example, overfishing targeting a predator species can lead to prey populations growing larger. Their role, in terms of what they eat and even how their bodies decompose can thereafter affect the ocean bed, having an impact on the ocean ecosystem. It can also affect the food chain of aquatic life, where, for example, one fish is dependent on another species and suddenly lacks food and dies. Overfishing can also affect the number of endangered species which can increase as a result of catching untargeted species, or because of the ecological imbalance caused by this practice. Overfishing also has an impact on the environment as it affects the earth that relies on marine life. Examples of this have already been seen in places such as the Arctic, Galapagos or the Mesoamerican Reef (off the coasts of Belize, Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala) to name a few. This includes destruction of habitats by fishing gear or, when algae-eating species decline, an overgrowth in algae can smother corals. It is key to remember that the ocean generates 50 per cent of the oxygen we need, absorbs 25 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions and captures 90 per cent of the excess heat generated by these emissions3, buffering the impacts of global warming and supporting our wellbeing and the environment. Maintaining ecosystems that support or even increase this impact is crucial.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Introduction

xxix

Overfishing goes beyond aquatic life and the environment, affecting human wellbeing. It can result in food crisis, financial losses and even loss of employment for those who work directly and indirectly in the fishing industry. The figures quoted under SDG 14 are that marine fisheries provide 57 million jobs globally and provide the primary source of protein to over 50% of the population in least developed countries (Source: UN, 2015). If we look closely at SDG 14, life under water, we can find other One Welfare examples, such as ocean acidification which affects aquatic life, marine environments and ecosystems services. The definition of One Welfare and the One Welfare framework sparked an evidence-based body that goes beyond one discipline. Academia has taken up the concept as this fills a transdisciplinary area which had no name as such or description. In fact, many researchers and professionals identify as working in the One Welfare field. We have started to see research papers including One Welfare that highlight welfare specific interconnections. This helps bringing together in a more comprehensive way how Aquatic Life welfare relates to human wellbeing and the environment. There is, however, an evidence imbalance between land and aquatic animals, in terms of their sentience and animal welfare. It is paramount that research and evidence address this, particularly as animal welfare constitutes a pillar to implement a more holistic aquatic animal welfare-focused, One Welfare approach. One Welfare can help us to identify and address aquatic animal welfare and human wellbeing aspects as an intrinsic part of our approach, considering aquatic animals as sentient individuals alongside the wellbeing of every person connected, directly or indirectly, to oceans. This can lead to better treatment and better welfare for all. One Welfare applies to all animals, however to fully implement it, it is crucial that aquatic animal welfare science is further developed. Adopting a One Welfare approach within ocean policies complements and amplifies the benefits of a One Health approach and the Sustainable Development Goals by integrating further professionals and aiming for a true holistic approach which considers both health and welfare aspects.

Education, research, policy and NGO interventions. Within the context of this book, to fully implement a One Welfare approach is key to ensure there is an evidence base, translated into a language that can be easily understood by non-experts as well as used within an academic

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

xxx

Introduction

setting to highlight the important aspects of the concept of animal welfare in relation to food production. The research field encompasses many varied disciplines, which, in our topic of interest, can cover animal welfare, animal behaviour, animal production, economics, social research exploring consumer preferences etc. Research studies can specialize in one single science area, yet it is always important to put research into context to ensure it can be implemented and adapted within the real world. For this it is key to ensure that scientists and researchers from different disciplines work together, joining efforts to ‘translate’ scientific and research outputs into deliverables and practical ways to adopt them. There are different terms employed for research that is developed through collaboration of scientists across different disciplines, although each term can have its own connotation. These generally are: multidisciplinary research, trans-disciplinary research and inter-disciplinary research. If we look at the dictionary definition for each term we find the following: •

• •

Multidisciplinary: adjective that describes “combining or involving several academic disciplines or professional specializations in approach to a topic or problem.” (Lexico, 2022): This means that each discipline stays within their boundary and the results are additive. Interdisciplinary: adjective that describes “of or relating to more than one branch of knowledge” (Lexico, 2022). Here there is interaction between the different disciplines (Choi and Pak, 2006). Transdisciplinary: adjective that describes “relating to more than one branch of knowledge” (Lexico, 2022). This type of research integrates the different disciplines into a coordinated and coherent whole, transcending their traditional boundaries (Choi and Pak, 2006).

From the above we can see that the three of them could be applied when adopting a One Welfare approach to research. However, to truly acknowledge the interconnections encompassed by One Welfare, a transdisciplinary approach would provide the most comprehensive perspective by using integration rather than a simple additive process. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research performance and evaluation are both generative processes of harvesting, capitalizing, and leveraging multiple expertise (Klein, 2008). For the more complex, holistic global challenges a transdisciplinary approach that takes into account the interconnections of all components involved is preferable. This is not dissimilar to the need to use a transdisciplinary approach to achieve the ‘common good’ of sustainable development. Sustainable development is a global socio-political model for changing practices and institutions in order to achieve more equitable opportunities within and between generations. This can be done by taking into account the limitations imposed by a number of systems such as the state of technology or social organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Introduction

xxxi

future needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1990). Promoting sustainable development therefore necessitates overcoming narrow preoccupations and compartmentalized concerns by involving people from civil society, the private sector and public agencies as actors in participatory deliberation and decision making (Hirsch Hadorn et al. (2008). Research into sustainability transitions and transformations has already proposed that public policy should reflect the complex and multi-faceted nature of sustainability transitions, requiring a multiplicity of policy instruments to pursue a wide range of goals (Rogge et al., 2016). Adopting this practice facilitates implementation of One Welfare at policy level recognising the diversity, complexity and dynamics of the processes involved and their varied nature. The Rio Conference and The World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002 were highlighting the importance of science to sustainable development, and stressing the need to transform research by involving stakeholders and promoting mutual learning between science and the life-world (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2006). Transdisciplinary research relates to three types of knowledge: systems knowledge, target knowledge and transformation knowledge, and reflects their mutual dependencies in the research process, focusing on problem solving for what is perceived to be the common good (Hirsch Hadorn et al. (2008). There are some trends towards reductionism and specialisation, which, per se, are important. However, when considering One Welfare research it is important to understand that Animal Welfare science is not equivalent to One Welfare, but a pillar of One Welfare. One Welfare aids to bring Animal Welfare into a holistic approach under the One Welfare umbrella and One Welfare science. This is clearly explained in the table reproduced below from the first One Welfare Framework book publication. By adopting a One Welfare approach we can integrate the interconnections from People, Planet, Profit to One Welfare: including the animal in the equation of many areas, such as certain types of food, waste or global food security. This has already started a new generation of what are now called ‘One Welfare Scientists’ and some universities such as Uniagraria in Bogotá, Colombia or Unizar in Zaragoza, Spain have created One Welfare groups with members across different universities to undertake One Welfare research. For a research study to adopt a One Welfare approach it is necessary that it covers the three One Welfare key pillars: animal welfare, human wellbeing and the physical and/or social environment. A good example of a research study that has adopted a One Welfare approach including all three key pillars is the EU project Poultry and Pig Low-input and Organic production systems' Welfare (PPILOW).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

xxxii

Introduction

Table 1. Relationship between One Welfare and the fve freedoms, provisions and domains (*adapted from FAWC, 2003 and Mellor, 2016). Five freedoms, provisions and domains*

One Welfare connections

Provision of food and Freedom from Ready access to water to animals is hunger, thirst and fresh water and a key to secure their malnutrition diet to maintain health and welfare, and full health and to underpin human vigour livelihoods Environment Freedom from Providing a suitable Environmental resources are connected to both discomfort environment humans and animals including Suitable accommodation shelter and a for animals improves comfortable their well-being and resting area coexistence with humans Health Freedom from Prevention or rapid Improved animal pain, injury and diagnosis and welfare helps sustain a better disease treatment immune system and underpin human livelihoods, having positive impacts on productivity, reduction of antimicrobial use or longer working lives Animals sick and/or in pain may display unwanted behaviours which may negatively impact animal– human interactions and compromise welfare Mental state Freedom from fear Ensuring conditions Non-violent handling of animals fosters better and distress avoid mental suffering human societies and helps prevent human violence and abuse Behaviour Freedom to express Providing suffcient Animals free from behavioural disorders normal behaviour space, proper will have better facilities and relations with the company of the humans they interact animal’s own with kind Nutrition

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Introduction

xxxiii

The PPILOW project (PPILOW, 2022) The PPILOW project aims to co-construct through a multi-actor approach solutions to improve the welfare of poultry and pigs reared in organic and low-input outdoor production systems. The project targets nonconventional and outdoor rearing systems with reduced (notably drug) inputs and organic systems (as defned by EU, so considering defned rearing conditions, organic and local feed use and preventative approaches to health management with limited use of chemical inputs). Although these high-quality systems enable a high degree of expression of natural behaviour by the animals, there are still several welfare issues in organic and low-input outdoor systems that can be similar to conventional systems (e.g. beak trimming in laying hens, the killing of one-day old layer male chicks, and male piglet castration) or more specifc to these systems (e.g. exposure to outdoor sanitary threats, piglet survival). The PPILOW project adopts three characteristics which help to implement a transdisciplinary One Welfare approach by: 1. Multi-actor involvement: The frst original characteristic of the PPILOW project is the participatory approach, involving all actors of the production chain from farmers to consumers, citizens, scientists and policy makers, for proposing, studying and implementing practical solutions (here called ‘levers’) for welfare improvement. 2. Tools for welfare assessment: The second original characteristic of the project is to provide a combination of practical solutions  for welfare improvement that can be applied on a pan European basis with specifc adjustments depending on the target market (national legislation and consumer preferences). 3. On farm implementation of innovation: The third original characteristic of the PPILOW project is the multi-criteria assessment  of welfare improving practices in order to have an exhaustive view of the global impacts of these practices beyond gains for animal and human welfare. The One Welfare concept that will be used in the context of the PPILOW project embraces all sustainability goals usually allocated between environmental, social and economic dimensions with specific emphasis on animal and human welfare.

Sustainability Environment Environment

Social Animal Welfare

Economy Human Welfare

One Welfare

Education is also key. Methods of education for practitioners such as veterinarians, welfare scientist, medics, biologists, etc. should include subjects which provides a holistic approach, setting into context how each individual discipline, such as animal welfare, sit within the wider context of society, economics, global trade, etc. teaching students to identify risks and impacts beyond the single topic. This can have a great effect on behaviour change within areas such as the keeping of animals in more welfare friendly and

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

xxxiv

Introduction

sustainable ways. Consideration of the possibilities of technology in education, learning and training within professional sectors for example to reduce the use of animals in education or research is also key and can help to adopt a One Welfare approach by reducing the number of farm animals that may be kept for research purposes, and hence subject to procedures that might cause pain, suffering and/or distress, as well as facilitating the work of people undertaking this research and their working environments. The tools and strategies that are used in the context of advocacy can be key to help implement and disseminate a One Welfare approach. Particularly how the concept of One Welfare could assist to explain how, as an example, campaigning for animal welfare is also relevant in a wider framework of elements, affecting people and the environment. They can help identify and showcase, alongside industry, government and academic partners, model food production systems where animal welfare friendly systems have a positive impact on human wellbeing and the environment. In summary, adopting a One Welfare approach serves as a tool for animal welfare and behaviour sciences to link to and interact with other disciplines and to address global challenges in a holistic manner that includes animals, people and the environment.

Notes UNEA, 2022. UNEA Resolution 5/14 entitled “End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument” https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/ 20.500.11822/39812/OEWG_PP_1_INF_1_UNEA%20resolution.pdf 2 UNEP, 2022 – Enabling sustainable lifestyles in a climate emergency https://www. oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/fles/from-crm/SL%2520Policy%2520Brief%2520 Factsheet.pdf 3 The ocean – the world’s greatest ally against climate change - https://www.un.org/ en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/ocean#:~:text=The%20ocean%20generates% 2050%20percent,heat%20generated%20by%20these%20emissions. 1

References Choi, B.C.K. and Pak, A.W.P. (2006) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine 29(6), 351–364. PMID: 17330451. Dou, Z., Toth, J.D, and Westendorf, M.L (2018) Food waste for livestock feeding: Feasibility, safety, and sustainability implications. Global Food Security 17, 154–161, ISSN 2211-9124. FAO (1996) Food Security information for Action – Practical Guides. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/al936e/al936e00.pdf (accessed 10 June 2023) García Pinillos, R. (2018) One Welfare: A Framework to Improve Animal Welfare and Human Wellbeing. CABI, Wallingford, UK.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Introduction

xxxv

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R. and Meybeck, A (2011) Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. FAO, United Nations, Rome Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S. and Wiesmann, U. (2006) Implications of Transdisciplinarity for Sustainability Research. Ecological Economics 60, 119–128. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U. and Zemp, E. (2008) The Emergence of Transdisciplinarity as a Form of Research. In: Hirsch Hadorn, G., HoffmannRiem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U. and Zemp, E. (eds) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_2 IPCC (2021) Climate change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis. Summary for policy makers. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/ IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf (accessed 25 February 2023) Klein, J.T. (2008) Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(Issue 2 Supplement), S116–23. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010. PMID: 18619391. Lexico (2022) www.lexico.com (accessed 1 August 2022) Mellor, D.J. (2016) Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond the ‘Five Freedoms’ towards ‘A Life Worth Living’. Animals 6(3), 21. DOI: 10.3390/ ani6030021. PPILOW (2022) Poultry and Pig Low-input and Organic production systems’ welfare. Available at: https://www.ppilow.eu/dissemination/publications/ (accessed 1 August 2022) Rogge, K.S. and Reichardt, K. (2016) Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy 45, 1620–1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004 UN (2015) Sustainable Development Goals.Available at: http://www.un.org/sustainable development/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed 25 February 2023) UN (2022) What is the triple planetary crisis. Available at: https://unfccc.int/blog/ what-is-the-triple-planetary-crisis (accessed 25 February 2023) World Commission on Environment and Development (1990) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

The Interconnection Between Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment

1

Catherine Devitt1 and Inger Anneberg2

Social Science consultant, Wicklow, Ireland; 2Senior Adviser, emerita, Aarhus University, Denmark

1

1.1

Introduction

Changes in agriculture over recent decades, including intensification, industrialization, and specialization in food production, have elevated animal welfare as a topic of concern into mainstream public, policy and political conversations (Buller and Morris, 2003; Fraser, 2014; Broom, 2016). While the intensification of agriculture has enabled the production of food to feed billions of people across the globe, at the same time, these changes have resulted in bigger farms, increased output and on-farm mechanization, and a decline in the ratio of farmers to animals (Fraser, 2008; Hendrickson and Miele, 2009). Across most European countries, farming, and rural life more generally, are undergoing processes of change. Farm workers now carry many of the everyday farming tasks once done by the farm owner. Changes in livestock production have altered our relationship with farm animals and have adversely affected farm animal welfare standards – the welfare implications of which were first documented in Ruth Harrison’s 1964 book Animal Machines. This chapter introduces the reader to the link between farmers, farm workers, farm animal welfare and their environment. We draw on the sizeable body of research that documents the importance of the human–animal bond, and we refer to more recent research, including three case studies, that demonstrate what can happen to animal welfare when the human–animal relationship is under pressure. These case studies relate to industrial farming, ranging from intensive pig farming with thousands of pigs under one roof and many employees to less intensive mixed-livestock farms. We seek to position animal neglect, not as an individual act, but rather within the social interactions that take place between farm animals, farmers, stockpersons and veterinarians/animal welfare inspectors. Understanding the complexities

DOI: 10.1079/9781789249507.0001

1

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

2

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

of these interactions and the wider context in which these complexities are situated is central to developing and implementing interventions to improving farm animal welfare.

1.2

Understanding ‘Animal Welfare’

Animal welfare is defined as ‘the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies’ (World Organisation for Animal Health, 2021). Good animal welfare means that the animal is healthy and well nourished, comfortable and safe, able to express innate behaviour, and is not in pain, fear and distress. Needed to maintain good animal welfare is disease prevention, an appropriate level of veterinary treatment, shelter, humane management, and handling, adapted transport and humane slaughter. The guiding principles that inform what defines good animal welfare are relevant to this chapter. These guiding principles include an acknowledgement of: (i) the critical link between animal health and animal welfare; (ii) that animals in agriculture can contribute to human wellbeing; and (iii) that improvements in farm animal welfare can translate into improvements in productivity and farm safety (World Organisation for Animal Health, 2021). Better understanding of the relationship between animal and human health, a recognition of non-human animals as sentient beings, changing rural/urban dynamics, and changes in farm governance have all influenced societal perceptions and expectations of appropriate animal welfare standards. Animal welfare is now a topic of mainstream public and political concern (Buller and Morris, 2003; Fraser, 2014; Broom, 2016). In the past, the five freedoms and Provisions framework (FAWC, 1993) helped define the welfare status of an animal, indicating their nutritional, health, behavioural, environmental, cognitive and physical needs, and the required provisions to meet these needs. Greater scientific understanding in recent decades has revealed that the Freedoms framework fails to ‘capture the more nuanced knowledge of the biological processes that is germane to understanding animal welfare and which is now available to guide its management’ (Mellor, 2016, p. 1). The understanding of animal welfare has expanded, more recently, to incorporate ‘a life worth living’. This concept recognizes that animals have both positive and negative experiences, and to ensure they can have a life worth living, it is necessary to reduce their negative experiences, while maximizing opportunity for significant welfare enrichments (Mellor, 2016). Conceptually, farm animal welfare is multi-dimensional – it can be viewed from numerous disciplines, including anthropology, biology, philosophy, sociology, ethology and history. Farmers, including farm workers, are one of the key stakeholders for the successful application of enhanced animal welfare standards. Their perceptions of animal welfare affect the way they treat animals (see Fig. 1.1) (Hemsworth et al., 1994; Matthews et al., 2000; Bock and van Huik, 2007a; Anneberg et al., 2021). Animal welfare is

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment

Animal

Stockperson

Attitudes

3

Behaviour

Fear

Productivity and welfare

Job satisfaction

Work motivation Stockperson work performance Motivation

Technical skills and knowledge

Fig. 1.1. Farmer–animal relations: the relationship between the stockperson and the farm animal is key for good animal welfare and the stockperson’s job satisfaction and motivation are enhanced by a positive farmer–animal relationship. The horizontal blue line shows the reciprocal relationship between the stockperson and the farm animal. From García Pinillos, 2020 (adapted from original diagram in Coleman and Hemsworth, 2014, with permission).

by some, equated with the basic health needs of animals, including essentials such as access to water and food, often in place of veterinary care (Kılıç and Bozkurt, 2013). For farm workers, their attitudes to animal welfare are shaped by the farm working environment (Anneberg and Sandøe, 2019), and for future farmers, maintaining good animal welfare is associated with managing a profitable farm (Anneberg et al., 2021). Daily, farmers and farm workers have to negotiate different domains related to farming and animal welfare: the domain of everyday farm practice shaped by individual values, for example, and diversely, the domain of animal welfare legislation (Anneberg et al., 2013b, 2021). These are all impacted in addition by a number of environmental factors, such as structural modifications, equipment changes or failures, or climate events which require adaptation or dealing with emergencies (i.e. flooding, fires, hurricanes, etc.). Despite awareness of the range of ethical views today’s farmers have on animal welfare and despite the large body of evidence to improve farm animal welfare, implementation of good practice continues to remain an issue.

1.3 The Importance of Human–Animal Relationships to Farm Animal Welfare While good regulation is important for animal welfare, understanding the complexities of human–animal interactions is equally important for improving

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

4

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

farm animal welfare standards (Waiblinger et al., 2006; Balzani and Hanlon, 2020). If the farmer’s own wellbeing and motivation is low, then carrying out animal welfare-improving actions will be challenging (Kauppinen et al., 2010). Securing farmer wellbeing is therefore an important strategy for improving animal welfare. Understanding how this relationship works, what happens when this relationship breaks down, and the wider context in which this relationship is situated is crucial to enhancing farm animal welfare. Past analyses of human interactions with non-human animals concentrated predominantly on the human–animal bond and companion animal ownership. There is now increasing focus, particularly in pig, sheep, goats, cattle, equine and poultry production, on understanding ‘human–animal interactions’ and ‘human–animal relations’ associated with handling and stockmanship and the related implications for animal welfare. Human– animal interactions are the sequence of observable behaviour shown towards an animal (e.g. petting, grooming, hitting, slapping, shouting, rough and unpredictable handling). The number and nature of interactions influence human–animal relations. These relationships can be positive (the animal has a high level of confidence in people and low level of fear), negative (high fear and stress levels) or neutral (the animal exhibits a low fear towards humans, but avoids human contact) (Hosey, 2008). Caring for their animals is, for many farmers, a very positive experience, and positive interactions between farmer and animal have been shown to benefit the welfare of both (Devitt and Hanlon, 2018). Important variables in this relationship include farmer attitudes and behaviour, their feelings of job satisfaction and job motivation, and their empathy towards farm animals. Notably, job satisfaction and farm productivity are enhanced when there exists a positive relationship between the farmer and farm animal (Hemsworth et al., 2002; Kielland et al., 2010; Balzani and Hanlon, 2020; see Fig. 1.1). In their semi-systematic review of the factors that influence farmers’ views on farm animal welfare, Balzani and Hanlon (2020) identified 11 internal factors including empathy, farmer personality and knowledge, their values, and the bond they have with their animals. External factors included communication, economic advantages, time, labour, and cost implications of farm animal welfare. These variables – which are central to influencing farm animal welfare innovation – can be understood in terms of farmer capacity, willingness and opportunity (Coleman and Hemsworth, 2014, see Table 1.1). Amenable to change, interventions such as stockperson training, knowledge transfer, and a higher stockperson to animal ratio can improve human–animal relationships over time (Balzani and Hanlon, 2020). Anneberg and Sandøe (2019) describe how little is known about how farm workers perceive animal welfare, and the variables that shape the relationship between them and the farm animals they engage with daily. This absence is despite the increasing reliance of intensive, specialized production systems on farm workers to carry out farm tasks. Poor working conditions

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment

5

Table 1.1. Variables that infuence farmer–animal relations. From Coleman and Hemsworth, 2014. Variable

Description

Capacity

Farmers’ skills, health, knowledge, and ability to implement and maintain good farm animal welfare standards on their farm Farmer motivation, job satisfaction, work attitude, and attitude towards the animals Working conditions on the farm, the actions of co-workers, and the wider policy and regulatory context

Willingness Opportunity

(such as workers’ hours, their social life, wages) can be taken out on the animals, or animal welfare can come to be seen by farm workers as unimportant in comparison to their own welfare. The farm worker to animal ratio is likely to influence human–animal relations, and related welfare outcomes for the farmer and the animal (Balzani and Hanlon, 2020). Determining the ideal animal ratio will depend on individual farm circumstances and overall farm capacity, and it has been recommended that guidance be developed on staffing ratios tailored for specific production systems and production cycles (e.g. during calving and lambing periods) (Balzani and Hanlon, 2020).

1.4

Farmers Under Pressure

Farmers are pressured to produce larger quantities of outputs, and to do so more efficiently (Fitzgerald, 2008; de Lauwere et al., 2012). Today’s farmers navigate heavy, demanding workloads, paperwork, and volatile pricing and global markets. Changing economic, climatic and environmental circumstances can interact with unpredictable animal health and behaviour, long working hours, and the utter physicality of farm work, to generate a situation where farmer injury, stress and poor wellbeing are not uncommon. They are vulnerable to mental health problems, and in comparison to other professions, experience high rates of suicide (Lobley, 2005; Lunner Kolstrup and Hultgren, 2011; Kunde et  al., 2017; Daghagh Yazd et  al., 2019; Kanamori and Naoki Kondo, 2019). Farmers engaged in animal husbandry are particularly at risk – for example, Kanamori and Naoki Kondo (2019) observed a correlation between suicide levels and engagement in animal husbandry among male and female farmers – this compares to there being no observed correlation between suicide and crop production activity. Some farmers are more at risk than others. Isolated farmers, single male farmers and older farmers are more susceptible to stress. A farm crisis (e.g. an animal disease outbreak) can increase stress and anxiety, as can non-farm issues, such as experiences of illness, relationship breakdown or the death of a family member. The demands of the profession, in addition to low levels of control over variables that can shape farming practice

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

6

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

(e.g. weather, production prices and regulatory requirements) and limited social support, can also create the conditions for a poor social and psychological environment. Farmers in many regions across Europe represent an ageing population amid rural decline, which compounds the difficulties of caring for animals. Other than livestock farming, there are few, if any, sectors of the economy in which individuals, responsible for the care of other lives, continue to work well beyond what would be considered retirement age in other professions. These stressors combine to increase the risk of psychiatric problems, on-farm injuries, marital breakdown and suicide, eroding what it means to be the ‘good farmer’ (Tovey, 2003; Bock and van Huik, 2007b; Bock et al., 2007). Poor access to appropriate support in rural areas, together with poor communication and transport infrastructure networks, may increase social isolation, but irrespective of available support, help may not be sought because of denial, self-reliance and stoicism, or a fear of stigma. On top of all these variables, farming is an unusual occupation in that the farm business and family life are often inseparably connected, resulting in a complex mix of relationships and responsibilities.

1.5 What Is ‘Animal Neglect’? Animal neglect is a poorly defined concept. In its legal context, the term is closely associated with animal cruelty or abuse. However, cruelty and abuse imply intent (e.g. the farmer is aware of the welfare problem but makes an intentional decision not to avail himself of appropriate veterinary care). This contrasts with neglect, which can be associated with an act of omission and a failure or absence to provide for the needs of the animal. Of course, omission can be intended or unintended (e.g. the farmer is not aware of the welfare problem and therefore does not provide appropriate care). Some cases of neglect constitute abuse, while other cases of neglect might be associated with farmer illness, or an absence of skills, or knowledge that undermine the ability of the farmer to provide for the full needs of the animal. For farm animal welfare, infringements to the five freedoms that are severe and persistent, where no remedial action has been taken (e.g. the provision of suitable veterinary care), indicate farm animal neglect. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the judicial system to ascertain the degree of intent or non-intent underlying the offence committed, but as emphasized by Anneberg et al. (2021), complexities and tensions are inevitable, as the domain of animal welfare legislation differs from the worldview and expectations of the farmer. In practice, the focus of government agency responses when dealing with animal neglect is usually directed at an individual farm level rather than on production systems. For example, cases of animal neglect frequently

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment

7

reported at individual farmer level (e.g. Kelly et al., 2013), include chronic underfeeding of animals, lack of sufficient veterinary care or unhygienic housing associated with mortality and morbidity. Yet in contrast, some actions that could be thought as equivalent at a higher scale are tolerated, normalized, and perceived as inherent to intensive food production. Intensive pig production systems, for example, with a high degree of tail biting undermine the behavioural needs of growing pigs and infringe three freedoms (i.e. Pain, injury and disease; Behaviour; Fear, suffering). Tail biting compromises the health and welfare of pigs, but does it constitute farm animal neglect? Could it also be argued that other sorts of physical changes to the body of the animal also constitute neglect (i.e. tail docking, dehorning, castration)? Devitt et al. (2016) have reported a tolerance by pig producers of tail biting, the acceptance of such infringements is considered a necessary evil with ‘bad becoming normal’, a concept used by animal behaviourist Temple Grandin to describe the normalization of poor animal welfare standards (for more on this concept see, for example, Grandin, 2022). Evidence of poor animal health and welfare might reflect physical and mental pressures or distress in a farmer. Putting aside the broader production system and focusing on the individual farm setting, the differential factor between animal neglect and animal cruelty may be the farmer’s affective mental state and intention. In the context of human selfneglect, an important defining characteristic associated with farm animal neglect is the psychological state of the farmer (Kelly et al., 2011; Andrade and Anneberg, 2014; Devitt et  al., 2015). While farmers may acknowledge the significance of the human–animal bond, they also recognize that maintaining their own personal wellbeing and welfare can be challenging (Kauppinen et al., 2012). Andrade and Anneberg (2014) describe how an accumulation of stress, negative life changes, or point of crises in the farmer’s life, can interrupt and harm the normal functioning of the human– animal bond, causing impaired functioning on the farm and disrupting everyday farming patterns and activities. They identify these episodes, triggers and experiences as ‘narratives of disruption’. These experiences may increase the risk to animal welfare standards, and for the potential for farm animal neglect to occur (Andrade and Anneberg, 2014; Devitt et al., 2015). However, the inextricable linkage between work, farm and family life makes it difficult to determine a single causal risk factor that explains farm animal neglect. In complex situations of animal neglect, forcibly removing animals, as may be required by animal welfare legislation, can cause animal keepers to relapse and for their health/wellbeing to deteriorate. For example, it is known from the literature on animal hoarding that forcibly removing animals can cause their owners’ wellbeing to deteriorate (Arluke et al., 2002; Berry et al., 2005). This dilemma creates challenges for professionals charged with the responsibility of ensuring appropriate animal welfare standards are adhered to (Devitt et al., 2013).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

8

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

1.5.1 When farmers are under pressure there is a risk of animal neglect and animal cruelty Assessment and monitoring of farm animal welfare are key objectives of animal welfare strategies in some countries (Commission of the European Communities, 2008). However, not every country covered by similar animal welfare strategies records on-farm animal welfare in the same way. An overall register of the number of cases of mistreatment or neglect of farm animals across different countries does not exist. How cases of neglect are treated depend on (national) legislation, legal enforcement and inspection, and whether there is a focus on prevention and on-farm intervention. These variables vary considerably among different countries. In one country, Kelly et al. (2011, 2013) identified and validated four key performance indicators in case-study livestock herds investigated by the central government for animal neglect incidents. These indicators were: (i) late registration of calves; (ii) animals missing from the herd (referred to as ‘herd unknown’); (iii) use of on-farm burial as a means of carcass disposal; and (iv) a gradual increase in the number of animals that have either died or been euthanized on farm due to disease or injury. Welfare problems on these farms included high levels of animal mortality and unburied carcasses, a history of animal neglect, poor management skills, and failure to complete animal registration requirements (Kelly et al., 2011). Their insights debunked the association made in the country studied of the risk of animal neglect being higher on more isolated farms with older, perhaps less-able farmers. The research methodology used also suggested that farm-specific indicators could be used to detect poor farmer health/wellbeing. An analysis of risk factors associated with animal neglect in highly industrialized agricultural settings in another country found that while the risk of neglect was low, a small percentage of farmers faced severe financial difficulties, marriage breakdown and psychiatric problems. These problems were connected to an increased risk of being convicted for the neglect of farm animals (Andrade and Anneberg, 2014). Andrade and Anneberg (2014) identified ‘narratives of disruption’ – an accumulation, or point of crises in the farmer’s life, which impacted negatively on the normal functioning of the human–animal bond. Similar to insights recorded by researchers in a different country (Kelly et al., 2011; Devitt et al., 2013, 2014, 2015), the narratives presented themes of pressure related to financial trouble, technological breakdown, family problems, stress and a growing tension among the farmers towards governmental control and intervention in farm animal production. Devitt et al.’s (2015) study of selected farms across one country where an animal welfare incident had occurred found that animal neglect often coincided with an accumulation of stressful experiences, age-related physical difficulties, life changes, or triggers (e.g. the death of a parent) which undermined the farmer’s coping ability and eroded their motivation towards farm management. Stories of stress included experiences of

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment

9

ill health, marital and family separation, and financial worries. Narratives around the unpredictable nature of farming in terms of financial insecurity, animal disease, poor weather conditions, and a feeling of losing control were common. Farmers were often reluctant to ask for farm help or to reduce livestock numbers. An inability to cope was reported among farmers who recalled mental health problems, and these cases were associated with animal welfare incidents of a more severe, protracted nature. To summarize, the range of experiences associated with neglect and welfare incidents documented within these studies include: • • • • • • • •

marital and family separation; financial worries and insecurity; feeling of loss of control, associated with the unpredictable nature of farming; inability to cope related to an accumulation of stressful experiences or dramatic life changes; stress related to the tension between government intervention and requirements; ill health, psychiatric problems and physical/mobility-related difficulties; reluctance to reduce livestock numbers; and inability or reluctance to seek help.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

10

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

Farm variables that suggest underlying welfare problems include: • • • •

late registration of calves; animals missing from the herd; use of on-farm burial as a means of carcass disposal; and gradual increase in the number of animals that have either died or been euthanized on farm due to disease or injury.

The following case studies (based on qualitative interviews and ethnographic field work) from three different research studies demonstrate how the occurrence of animal neglect takes place within complex social interactions on the farm. Case Study 1: The over-stressed farmer leaving his pigs to die (Andrade and Anneberg, 2014) Bent, a young farmer, had a large dairy farm he owned with his wife. He also rented stables with slaughter pigs, which at the time provided high price returns. This was a choice his wife disagreed with; she preferred dairy cows and did not like to work with pigs. As a result, the farmer’s wife chose to ignore the additional farm work required by the pigs, leaving the farmer and his employees to handle this aspect of the farm. A serious incident of animal neglect took place on the farm when Bent became a father for the frst time, and concerns were raised about the baby potentially having a life-threatening disease. He explained: It was the most terrible week. A ventilation plant in one section broke down. Some pigs died and I did not take them away … . At home we were told that our new-born child perhaps had a life-threatening disease. This was a total shock to us, all happening over a weekend, and I wanted to stay at home. I left the pigs and I know I then made a huge mistake, but I just stayed home. I thought the pigs were dead anyway … I could handle it later. But somebody looked through the windows and called the police. What I did … leaving it to handle later was stupid of me. Also, in those days we had too many pigs … but I should have called the veterinarian, he would have helped me. (Bent) Ignoring the signs of severe stress and failing to seek adequate help was a core part of Bent’s narrative: I said to myself that the pigs in this stable are not alive any longer, so I will come back myself and take them away later. It will be done … I could have asked the employee to come and help me, but it’s not nice for employees to get their fngers dirty. So I thought, well, I’ll just deal with this myself. (Bent) For Bent, and other farmers involved in this research, occupational stress happened in other professions, but not among farmers. These farmers identifed with a sense of occupational pride in which stress was perceived as a sign of weakness, and as part of this occupational pride, it was the farmer’s responsibility to address and overcome the stress themselves, rather than avail of help. In this case study, Bent was subsequently reported to the police, and after the case became widely known in the local community, Bent expressed considerable frustration about being ignored and stigmatized by his peers.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment

11

Case Study 2: The robot worker as the pigs scream (Anneberg et al., 2013a) This case study involved ethnographic feldwork on a pig farm. The researcher observed Janus, a young farm worker, as he castrated piglets. By law, this practice must take place between 2 and 7 days of age, if it is to be carried out without anaesthesia (as was the case at the time of study, i.e. 2010/2011). Janus needed to wear earphones. This was because of the pigs’ screams while they were being castrated and having their tails docked (during the same procedure). These earphones had a built-in radio – which was tuned to a local channel from Janus’ homeland. Janus was experienced and did not appear concerned by the screams. During a break, however, it became apparent that his lack of distress and detachment with the chaotic and smelly job that clearly hurts the struggling, screaming piglets was carefully learnt and maintained: I am a robot. I don’t think. I just do it. I don’t think. I listen to the radio. If I can’t do that, I start to get nervous. The tail cutting … that is just necessary. It’s not an option not to cut the tails. I have never heard about conventional farms, where they do not cut tails. On my father’s farm in my country of origin,1 he has two pigs, and when I was home recently and I saw these pigs with their normal tails, I wanted to cut them off! It just seemed very unnatural to me to see a pig with a tail. In this country, pig production is a factory, so everybody searches for ways to handle the work with the lowest possible costs. It is a meat factory, low cost but good quality. When they talk about these pigs in my home country, they say that the pigs over here all look the same. Like a copy. In my country of origin they are all different sizes. (Janus) Tail docking and castration are diffcult work, and emotionally taxing. The screams of piglets in pain affect Janus, making him nervous. So he shields himself, turns himself into a robot and listens to songs from his homeland, where the tails of pigs are not cut. Robots, unlike humans, cannot feel empathy, cannot be nervous. So sometimes, when pigs become too human, humans must become robots to ‘do the job’. And yet for Janus, tail docking is necessary. Janus can no longer see a ‘normal tail’ without feeling that it is ‘totally unnatural’, without the urge to cut it off. When queried about the medicine he gave the piglets, Janus again adopts ‘the robot position’: ‘I don’t really know what it’s for, or the name of it, I just do what I am told to do.’ He described castration along similar lines: About this castration, I think it is just a refex. I just do it … . If I started to think about it too much, I would not work here. I guess there are good reasons for doing the castration when the piglets are small. In my homeland, farmers think that if you castrate small piglets, they will become infected, so they wait until the pigs are around 15 kilos, and then it takes two men doing it, one holding the pig, it is complicated … . But you have to be good at it – not to cause the piglets too much pain – and at the same time it’s a routine. (Janus) Continued

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

12

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

Case Study 2. Continued. During his breaks, Janus sat at the table without addressing his work colleagues. He explained that it was diffcult; they did not speak the same language. Later that day, the private veterinarian came by on a routine visit and walked through the farrowing unit with the sows where Janus worked. The farm manager followed the veterinarian, and at one point, the veterinarian saw a wound on the shoulder of a sow and subsequently called Janus. Janus was informed that the sow with the shoulder wound should be provided with a rubber mat. The veterinarian then continued with his visit. It was observed by the researcher that despite the veterinary advice, Janus did not provide the sow with the mat. When asked why, he answered: I don’t feel the vet sees me. He never talks to me like a professional, he just gives orders and only talks to the manager. I feel frustrated the way I am treated by him and do not care about following his orders. He never asks about my experience or my opinion. (Janus)

Case Study 3: When employees suffer, they take it out on the animals (Anneberg and Sandøe, 2019) Research on human–animal relations in farm settings tends to focus predominantly on the farmer. Very little is known about how farm workers on husbandry farms perceive animal welfare, and what infuences the relationship between farm workers and the animals they engage with daily. This case study refers to a qualitative study covering fve farms (comprising mink, dairy and pig production). The social relationship between employees, farm owners/managers and animals provided a key focus for this study. In this research, the importance of a positive atmosphere emerged as a theme among the employees in several situations. One farm employee felt that if his work was appreciated by the manager, or valued by colleagues, it would have a positive impact on animal welfare. Some employees mentioned the importance of being able to make a mistake without being criticized by the boss: It is an important lesson that I have learned where I work now. That it is not bad to make a mistake. It is bad if you do not learn from it. In the country where I came from, a mistake could really be the end of the world. That is worse, because it makes you afraid, and then you start making more mistakes. (farm worker) Working without feeling appreciated was mentioned several times as a problem that could lead to negative impacts on the animals: Perhaps you get frustrated. You feel that you work without being acknowledged. You get your payment but this little extra … You really want to be acknowledged when you contribute to improving things (on the farm). In addition, if you are in a confict with your boss, then you might feel that the boss is not the best to target. So instead, you target the animals, you go and spoil a tractor, or … Continued

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment

13

Case Study 3. Continued. I think humans react like this. Frustrations will grow, and all you want is to go home, sleep, eat and do something completely different. (farm worker) A negative social climate may affect animal welfare more directly, as the animals respond to the poor mood of the employees. In cases where there is lack of confdence between a colleague and me or between the management, and me it could be a real catastrophe. In case [s where] you cannot trust each other getting the job done in the way you agreed, then things might start not to be done at all. You might then think: well, she has to fnd out herself what is wrong with that calf! Therefore, instead of saving the calf, it might end up dying. That of course infuences animal welfare. (10; this number refers to the farmer being interviewed – all interviewees were anonymous so each was allocated a number) If you are in a bad mood, it affects the animals, but if you feel well, like the place where I am now, you also share your good feelings and your behaviour with the animals. The animals will feel it immediately if you are upset or angry, even though you do not talk about it and are just quiet. They sense it, and they get worried. (11) The situation of being an employee from a different country, who is therefore sensitive about the lack of social life or bad working conditions, was described in statements like this one: I worked in a place where the house we lived in was terrible, bad windows and doors that could not be closed, no hot water. I had the feeling they did not like me, but also there was a really bad situation around the animals, bad stable, too little fodder for the sows, a thousand of them, but still they had to be fed manually while the owner just had access to his own kitchen and could eat whenever he liked. A lot of the sows were really lean and could not stand by themselves. Nobody acted. We were always in lack of medications and the owner was fnancially under pressure and passed this pressure on to the employees … . He also suggested paying me without giving information to the tax service and so on. (23) Some workers confded that they had feelings of isolation, as foreign employees. Language problems and getting the feeling that you were part of a problem, were sometimes sources of pressure for workers with a foreign background. Still, when it came to the handling of the animals, most employees, whether from the country where the farm is based or not, agreed that conficts in this area were caused by bad management, myths about the culture of foreign employees, and too little time being given to agricultural training. An employee from a foreign country expressed it like this when he was confronted with the myth that employees from abroad were not able to think or act independently. Continued

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

14

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

Case Study 3. Continued. These stories about us not being able to think independently – I guess they have come forward because they are convenient to some owners. Makes them able to keep control and simply give orders: You do this, you do that … I also think this has to do with some local/non-foreign employees needing to feel superior. (14) On the other hand, more benevolent motivations were sometimes found to lie behind the tendency on farms to treat employees from abroad differently. According to one manager, seeing foreign employees as ‘all the same’ was a serious mistake. This was not a way to treat people. Of course, they are not the same. They are very different. One needs [to be given a] long time to learn and another can start on his own immediately. I think it has to do with self-confdence, and that is also the case with local employees. It is also about building up a relationship, not keeping a distance. Obviously, many are here to get an income, but so are the rest of us. They have just travelled a long way to do it. (6)

1.6 The Role of Veterinary Inspections in Driving Animal Welfare Improvements When it comes to using legislation to support animal welfare, both farmers and veterinary inspectors who work with farmers must operate in complex situations – between the domains of legislation, evidence and research (welfare science) on the one hand and on-farm practices on the other. These domains are not always clearly delimited, yet there are moments where these domains show some overlap (Overstreet and Anneberg, 2020). For example, when a farmer is not aware of a particular law or sees no reason for it, the domain of legislation can appear quite separate from that of the farm. Also, the language used in legislation can be very different from everyday concerns on the farm (Anneberg et al., 2013b). While the farmer’s affective mental state and intention may be the distinctive factor between farm animal neglect and animal cruelty, how such welfare infringements are dealt with by the relevant agencies may require a case-by-case approach depending on the farm situation. Government veterinary inspectors are required to ensure that animal welfare legislation is complied with on the farm. In the absence of compliance, the farmer faces the risk of enforcement, although this risk may jeopardize the relationship between the inspector and farmer and undermine the potential for a long-term on-farm resolution (Anneberg et  al., 2013b; Devitt et al., 2014).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment

15

There are untapped possibilities for veterinary inspections and inspectors to instigate improved animal welfare in agriculture. However, while all veterinarians provide animal care, food animal veterinarians operate in a more complex web of relationships and interactions, which often requires reconciling very divergent interests. They act often in many countries, in addition to their healthcare role, as mediators and agents between farm animals and their keepers, between farmers and government, the food industry and agriculture, and between farmers, the livestock sector and consumers. Encounters with complex farm animal welfare problems amplify these challenges. Despite the complex nature of farm animal neglect, the response is often one-dimensional, commencing and concluding with the bodies/organizations that monitor and enforce animal welfare legislation. These organizations commonly act alone in the specific animal welfare enforcement area, their response directed by legislation prohibiting animal neglect and cruelty. This is because complaints to the relevant authorities typically focus on animals, and relevant authorities only have powers under animal welfarerelated legislation. Devitt et  al. (2014) outline the professional challenges experienced by government veterinarians when responding to complex onfarm situations. Elsewhere, Anneberg et al. (2013b), citing Libsky (2010), categorize government veterinary inspectors as like other public workers (e.g. teachers, social workers, police officers) who encounter dilemmas when needing to achieve defined objectives in situations that are complex and that require discretion and improvisation. These professional roles can apply some discretion in how legislation is enforced; however, certain situations may require initiative and empathy beyond which administrative guidelines, resources and capacity can allow. This creates ethical dilemmas that present challenges for many veterinary inspectors. For example, Devitt et al. (2014) noted how in their study cohort, government veterinarians recalled situations where farmers disclosed to them, an intent to commit suicide, and this caused stress for veterinarians when trying to determine the best possible response. Ethical demands and distressing situations are challenges common to government veterinarians (Devitt et al., 2014; Association of Government Veterinarians, 2019). Informal peer support can be a helpful mediating factor, but due to time constraints and busy workloads, opportunities for peerto-peer support may be limited. A responsive approach to implementing legislation demands that veterinary inspectors ‘have both the time and the skills not only to look at the situation of the animals, but also to listen to the farmer’ (Anneberg et al., 2013b, p. 193). This approach demands sensitivity that allows the relevant agencies to differentiate between state and intention, neglect and abuse, minor infringements and more severe, persistent neglect situations (Devitt et al., 2013; Andrade and Anneberg, 2014). A basic yet important first step is referring farmers to appropriate service provisions (e.g. health and wellbeing services). There are examples where multi-agency responses are encouraged and enforcement agencies provide details directly to farmers of organizations

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

16

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

that support and foster farmer wellbeing. The potential for an integrated, early warning system is discussed in the next section of this chapter. A common theme in social science research on farm inspection and animal welfare is the role of empathy towards the farmer. Although sensitivity, empathy and open communication are all fundamental to meeting One Welfare principles, achieving these goals may be challenging in a control system where the main focus is on achieving on-farm compliance with legislation. Not all veterinarians agree on the role of empathy in farm inspections (Devitt et al., 2014, 2015; Overstreet and Anneberg, 2020). For some, in keeping with their obligation to the animals, it is imperative that they maintain a degree of distance from the farmer as empathy may ‘blind’ the veterinarian to on-farm conditions. A sensitive approach may also require that regulatory roles – such as government inspectors – are not involved in the initial encounter with the farmer, to avoid amplifying already anxious situations. Nevertheless, empathy and dialogue with the farmer can help progress compliance with the veterinary recommendations for improving animal welfare standards (Shaw et al., 2010; Kanji et al., 2012), with Anneberg et al. (2013b) stating that these variables can help shift the role of the inspector from enforcer of the legislation to a partner in improving animal welfare. Overstreet and Anneberg (2020) recommend building greater transparency and clarity into the various aspects of the inspection process. Professional tools (such as motivational interviewing) and training in communication strategies to strengthen the inspectors’ ability to listen and ask the farmer questions are important, as it is a stepwise facilitated approach that could enable inspection-directed improvement especially for farmers identified as severely non-compliant. Further research is needed into whether legislation and the process of farm inspection (as a tool to implement the legislation) have a positive effect on farm animal welfare standards, and whether the role of inspection can be an agent for on-farm change. Ultimately, these challenges emphasize the need for more discussion into how to operationalize the One Welfare concept into policy and practice.

1.7 The Potential for an Early Warning System to Mitigate Farm Risk The One Welfare framework builds on the One Health concept by progressing our understanding of the interconnectivity between human and animal health to encompass the interconnections between human wellbeing, animal welfare and the environment (García Pinillos et  al., 2016). The concept provides an important platform for multidisciplinary collaboration, bringing together various disciplines and professions, including social scientists, community and rural development, human health professions, veterinary professionals and agricultural scientists to work collaboratively to improve animal welfare and human wellbeing.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Practitioners who visit farms (e.g. general practitioners and other health professionals, government veterinary inspectors, agricultural advisors, vets) should be empowered to recognize at-risk situations, and the signs of selfneglect and animal neglect. In turn, these professionals should be able to communicate concerns to the relevant organizations. A well-resourced early warning system, that is supported by government, farming stakeholders and other agencies, could provide a structured mechanism through which on-farm risks are mitigated early on before they become critical (Devitt et al., 2013, 2015). Cross-reporting between agencies is necessary for such a system to work effectively; however, this requires that concerns about data confidentiality among agencies and client confidentiality among veterinarians can be addressed (Devitt et al., 2013, 2014). Although confidentiality to clients is obligatory throughout the veterinary professional code of conduct, when there is a duty under the law, confidentiality agreements can be overcome. Agreements can also be overcome where the interest of the public or of animal welfare is endangered and outweighs the professional obligations to the client, subject to compliance with multi-agency data protection requirements. The following are necessary: (i) tailored guidelines for all professionals involved; (ii) better professional confidence and capacity; and (iii) a comprehensive yet flexible multi-agency structure and protocol that allows for learning and relationship building between agencies (Devitt et al., 2013, 2014).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

18

1.8

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

Supporting Farmers to Enhance Animal Welfare

As farmer wellbeing and animal welfare go together, a farmer’s sense of themselves as agents with moral responsibilities towards the care of their animals is likely to improve as their own wellbeing increases. Enhancing farmer awareness of legislative requirements (de Lauwere et  al., 2012; Anneberg et al., 2013b), and enabling better support relationships that extend beyond the farm for farmers and farm workers may help enhance the relationship between farmers and their animals (Andrade and Anneberg 2014; Devitt et al., 2014). Roles that may play an important role in mitigating the risk of farm problems or may provide crucial support during times of difficulty include family members, neighbouring farmers, the general practitioner and other health professionals, clergy members and agricultural associations. Given that farming can be isolating, so-called communities of care need to be encouraged on a continuous basis and given greater publicity to promote help-seeking among the farming community. More broadly, it is vital that attention is given to the structural and systemic aspects of farming systems that may undermine welfare conditions for farmer and farm animal. Individual attitudinal change among farmers is unlikely to mitigate animal welfare issues that are attributed to production pressures and a push towards intensification (Bracke et al., 2005; Burton et al., 2012). Instead, what is required is a cultural change away from a pervasive ‘industrial ethos’ or approach in agricultural research and legislation. Involving all relevant stakeholders, including farmers, in the development of integrated, innovative farm animal welfare policy programmes is a necessary tool to facilitate the improvement of farm animal welfare and compliance with welfare standards (Balzani and Hanlon, 2020). A family-centred educational approach that works in partnership with the animal owner has been recommended as one way to improve human and animal wellbeing (FAWC, 2007; Williams and Jewell, 2012). Devitt et  al. (2018) detail other recommendations. Peer-to-peer and continuous learning tailored towards farmers’ needs and social norms may provide the necessary tools to help farmers mitigate stress, improve self-care and resilience, and manage the relationship with their animals more positively when under pressure. The value of peer learning cannot be overstated. For example, younger farmers show a tendency to follow in the footsteps of older farmers, believing that animal welfare must be secured in a balance between welfare and productivity (Anneberg et al., 2021). Animal welfare legislation is a necessary element of future farmers’ education. Crucially, curricula at colleges and universities where future farmers, farm workers, future veterinarians and veterinary paraprofessionals (where relevant) are trained need to ensure sufficient awareness of the risk of farmers under pressure and the potential implications for human–animal relations. Building knowledge capacity around new ways of working to meet the requirements of animal

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment

19

welfare legislation may also mitigate any risks to poor farmer wellbeing and animal welfare (Anneberg et al., 2021). Finally, advocating the One Welfare framework means that there is now an imperative to positioning and understanding the relationship between farmers and their animals in relation to environmental factors such as within the context of climate change. Agriculture and food systems are on the forefront of climate change, and it is expected that climate change will have an overwhelming negative effect on livestock health and welfare. Impacts on animal health and welfare include: (i) the increased risk of heat and cold stress; (ii) the risk of infectious and non-infectious disease; and (iii) malnourishment associated with reduced quantity and quality of food and water (Lacetera, 2019; Filipe et al., 2020; Carvajal et al., 2021). For farmers, more frequent and severe weather-related disasters threaten the economic and social bases that help ensure the viability of farming communities. In some severely impacted regions, the impacts of changing climatic conditions: (i) exacerbate farmer stress and perceived risk of depression and suicide; (ii) undermine self-identity; and (iii) disrupt for farmers closely coupled ecosystem health–human health relationships (Ellis and Albrecht, 2017). Extreme weather episodes have also shown to impact on fodder availability, workload, financial pressures and farmer stress. While there is much focus on the role of animal agriculture in driving climate change, absent from the academic literature is an understanding of the impact of climate change and environmental hazards on the farmer– farm animal relationship and the possible implications for animal welfare standards arising from farmers under pressure. Furthermore, while generally there has been an absence of attention applied to the animal welfare implications of climate abatement options, livestock-related efforts to mitigate climate change can have a substantial and wide-ranging effect on animal welfare (Shields and Orme-Evans, 2015). Given how highly sensitive agriculture is to climate variability and weather extremes, more understanding is required of the impact of climate-change-related economic, social and farm-specific factors on human–animal relationships, including farm workers. To ensure that food production systems are resilient and fair in the face of increasing environmental challenges, it is necessary that One Welfare principles are fully integrated and operationalized into agricultural policy goals and strategies.

1.9

Conclusion

This chapter has documented the links between farmers under pressure and the potential for animal neglect to occur, and the complexities and challenges that professionals encounter when aiming to restore a healthy farm situation

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

20

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

for all. In doing so, this chapter has also demonstrated that securing farmer wellbeing and achieving planetary environmental health are necessary strategies for securing positive farm animal welfare. Strategies aimed at helping farmers under pressure need to be informed by an understanding of the occupational, locational and environmental stressors that are inherent to farming. Important ethical questions have been raised in this chapter, regarding how best farm animal neglect can be responded to in a way that also prevents or mitigates the problems encountered by the farmer. Clearly, there is growing recognition that there are challenges to standardizing practice when responding to farm animal welfare issues. How welfare infringements are dealt with requires a case-by-case approach that can allow professionals to differentiate between state and intention, between minor infringements and more severe, protracted situations. Space may need to be provided for different actors to help farmers and animals that are under pressure. However, there are challenges to this approach – challenges which will need to be overcome under a more coordinated, multi-agency approach where One Welfare principles are adopted. Overall, the association between farmers under pressure and farm animal neglect, the role of inspectors and other agencies in responding, and the farm-level impacts of climate change, requires substantially more research and consideration to help inform policy and best practice.

Note The original text has been edited to remove identifcation with names of specifc countries.

1

References Andrade, S. and Anneberg, I. (2014) Farmers under pressure. Analysis of the social conditions of cases of animal neglect. Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics 27, 103–126. Anneberg, I. and Sandøe, P. (2019) When employees suffer, they take it out on the animals. Food Ethics 4, 21–34. Anneberg, I., Vaarst, M. and Bubandt, N. (2013a) Pigs and profits: hybrids of animals, technology and humans in Danish industrialised farming. Social Anthropology 21, 542–559. Anneberg, I., Vaarst, M. and Sandøe, P. (2013b) To inspect, to motivate – or to do both? A dilemma for on-farm inspection of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 22, 185–194. Anneberg, I., Lassen, J. and Sandøe, P. (2021) For the sake of production—and the animal, and me. How students at Danish agricultural colleges perceive animal welfare. Animals 11: 696. Arluke, A., Frost, R., Steketee, G., Patronek, G., Carter, L., et al. (2002) Press reports of animal hoarding. Society & Animals 10, 1–23.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment

21

Association of Government Veterinarians (2019) Government Veterinarians Wellbeing Survey. Results Summary. Available at: https://www.agv.org.uk/app/ download/5813501909/Vet+Wellbeing+survey+-+Final+February+2019.pdf (accessed 12 June 2023). Balzani, A. and Hanlon, A. (2020) Factors that influence farmers’ views on farm animal welfare: a semi-systematic review and thematic analysis. Animals 10: 152. Berry, C., Patronek, G. and Lockwood, R. (2005) Long-term outcomes in animal hoarding cases. Animal Law 11, 167–194. Bock, B.B. and van Huik, M.M. (2007a) Attitudes of Dutch pig farmers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal 109, 879–890. Bock, B.B. and van Huik, M.M. (2007b) Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109, 931–944. Bock, B.B., van Huik, M.M., Prutzer, M., Kling Eveillard, F. and Dockes, A. (2007) Farmers’ relationship with different animals: the importance of getting close to the animals. Case studies of French, Swedish and Dutch cattle, pig and poultry farmers. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15, 108–125. Bracke, M., De Greef, K. and Hopster, H. (2005) Qualitative stakeholder analysis for the development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18, 27–56. Broom, D. (2016) Sentience and animal welfare: new thoughts and controversies. Animal Sentience 5. DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1024. Buller, H. and Morris, C. (2003) Farm animal welfare: a new repertoire of nature–society relations or modernism re-embedded? Sociologia Ruralis 43, 216–237. Burton, R., Peoples, S. and Cooper, M. (2012) Building ‘cowshed cultures’: a cultural perspective on the promotion of stockmanship and animal welfare on dairy farms. Journal of Rural Studies 28, 174–187. Carvajal, M.A., Alaniz, A.J., Gutiérrez-Gómez, C., Vergara, P.M., Sejian, V. and Bozinovic, F. (2021) Increasing importance of heat stress for cattle farming under future global climate scenarios. Science of the Total Environment 801: 149661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149661 Coleman, G.J. and Hemsworth, P.H. (2014) Training to improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards livestock enhances welfare and productivity. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) 33, 131–137. Commission of the European Communities (2008) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Action Plan for the implementation of the EU Animal Health Strategy. Available at: https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/ files/2016-10/ah_policy_strategy_action-plan_2007-13_20080910.pdf (accessed 12 June 2023). Daghagh Yazd, S., Wheeler, S.A. and Zuo, A. (2019) Key risk factors affecting farmers’ mental health: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 4849. de Lauwere, C., van Asseldonk, M., van’t Riet, J., de Hoop, J. and  ten Pierick, E. (2012) Understanding farmers’ decisions with regard to animal welfare: the case of changing to group housing for pregnant sows. Livestock Science 143(2–3), 151–160. Devitt, C. and Hanlon, A. (2018) Farm animals and farmers: neglect issues. In: Day, M.R., McCarthy, G. and Fitzpatrick, J.J. (eds) Self-Neglect in Older Adults: a

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

22

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

Global, Evidence-Based Resource for Nurses and Other Healthcare Providers. Springer, New York, pp. 69–81. Devitt, C., Kelly, P., Blake, M., Hanlon, A. and More, S.J. (2013) Veterinarian challenges to providing a multi-agency response to farm animal welfare problems in Ireland: responding to the human factor. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) 32, 657–666. Devitt, C., Kelly, P., Blake, M., Hanlon, A. and More, S.J. (2014) Dilemmas experienced by government veterinarians when responding professionally to farm animal welfare incidents in Ireland. Veterinary Record Open 1: e000003. Devitt, C., Kelly, P., Blake, M., Hanlon, A. and More, S.J. (2015) An investigation into the human element of on-farm animal welfare incidents in Ireland. Sociologia Ruralis 55, 400–416. Devitt, C., Boyle, L., Teixeira, D.L., O’Connell, N.E., Hawe, M. and Hanlon, A. (2016) Pig producer perspectives on the use of meat inspection as an animal health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Irish Veterinary Journal 69, 2–11. Devitt, C., Hanlon, A., More, S.J., Kelly, P. and Blake, M. (2018) Challenges and Solutions to Supporting Farm Animal Welfare in Ireland: Responding to the Human Element. University College Dublin, Dublin. Available at: https:// researchrepository.ucd.ie/entities/publication/217064f0-a8d9-46de-bfa5b737db961400/details (accessed 12 June 2023). Ellis, N.R. and Albrecht, G.A. (2017) Climate change threats to family farmers’ sense of place and mental wellbeing: a case study from the Western Australian wheatbelt. Social Science & Medicine 175, 161–168. Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) (1993) Second Report on Priorities for Research and Development in Farm Animal Welfare. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Publications, London. Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) (2007) FAWC Report on Stockmanship and Farm Animal Welfare. FAWC, London. Available at: FAWC_report_on_stockmanship_and_farm_animal_welfare.pdf (accessed 12 June 2023). Filipe, J.F., Herrera, V., Curone, G., Vigo, D. and Riva, F. (2020) Floods, hurricanes, and other catastrophes: a challenge for the immune system of livestock and other animals. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7: 16. Fitzgerald, D.K. (2008) Every Farm a Factory: the Industrial Ideal in American Agriculture. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Fraser, D. (2008) Understanding Animal Welfare: the Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Fraser, D. (2014) The globalisation of farm animal welfare. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) 33, 33–38. García Pinillos, R. (2020) Introducción al marco One Welfare (un solo bienestar) en el contexto de la producción animal veterinaria. Albeitar 239, 6–8. García Pinillos, R., Appleby, M., Manteca, X., Scott-Park, F., Smith, C. and Velarde, A. (2016) One Welfare – a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Veterinary Record 179, 412–413. Grandin, T. (2022) Bad becoming normal is detrimental to beef cattle welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research 4(2), 151–157. https://doi. org/10.1163/25889567-bja10031 Harrison, R. (1964) Animal Machines. CAB International, Boston, Massachusetts.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal and Human Welfare and their Environment

23

Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J. and Barnett, J.L. (1994) Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39, 349–362. Hemsworth, P., Coleman, G., Barnett, J., Borg, S. and Dowling, S. (2002) The effects of cognitive behavioural intervention on the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons and the behaviour and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80, 68–78. Hendrickson, M. and Miele, M. (2009) Changes in agriculture and food production in NAE since 1945. In: McIntyre, B.D., Herren, H.R., Wakhungu, J. and Watson, R.T. (eds) Agriculture at a Crossroads. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD): Global Report. Synthesis Report, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 20–79. Hosey, G. (2008) A preliminary model of human–animal relationships in the zoo. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 105–127. Kanamori, M. and Naoki Kondo, M. (2019) Suicide and types of agriculture: a time-series analysis in Japan. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 50(1), 112–137. Kanji, N., Coe, J., Adams, C.L. and Shaw, J. (2012) Effect of veterinarian–client patient interactions on client adherence to dentistry and surgery recommendations in companion-animal practice. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry 240, 427–436. Kauppinen, T., Vainio, A., Valros, A., Rita, H. and Vesala, K. (2010) Improving animal welfare: qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers’ attitudes. Animal Welfare 19, 523–536. Kauppinen, T., Vesala, K.M. and Valros, A. (2012) Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livestock Science 143, 142–150. Kelly, P.C., More, S.J., Blake, M. and Hanlon, A. (2011) Identification of key performance indicators for on-farm animal welfare incidents: possible tools for early warning and prevention. Irish Veterinary Journal 64, 13–22. Kelly, P.C., More, S.J., Blake, M., Higgins, I., Clegg, T.A. and Hanlon, A.J. (2013) Validation of key indicators on cattle farms at high risk of animal welfare problems: a qualitative case-control study. Veterinary Record 172: 314. Kielland, C., Skjerve, E., Østerås, O. and Zanella, A. (2010) Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2998–3006. Kılıç, I. and Bozkurt, Z. (2013) The relationship between farmers’ perceptions and animal welfare standards in sheep farms. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 26, 1329–1338. Kunde, L., Kõlves, K., Kelly, B., Reddy, P. and de Leo, D. (2017) Pathways to suicide in Australian farmers: a life chart analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14: 352. Lacetera, N. (2019) Impact of climate change on animal health and welfare. Animal Frontiers 9(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy030 Libsky, M. (2010) Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Lobley, M. (2005) Exploring the dark side: stress in rural Britain. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 166, 1–8.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

24

Catherine Devitt and Inger Anneberg

Lunner Kolstrup, C. and Hultgren, J. (2011) Perceived physical and psychosocial exposure and health symptoms of dairy farm staff and possible associations with dairy cow health. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 17(2), 111–125. Matthews, H., Taylor, M., Sherwood, K., Tucker, F. and Limb, M. (2000). Growing-up in the countryside: children and the rural idyll. Journal of Rural Studies 16, 141–153. Mellor, D. (2016) Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond the ‘Five Freedoms’ towards ‘A Life Worth Living’. Animals 6(3): 21. Overstreet, K. and Anneberg, I. (2020) Farmers, inspectors and animal welfare: possibilities for change. A review. Available at: https://edepot.wur.nl/514920 (accessed 22 May 2023). Shaw, J., Barley, G., Hill, A., Larson, S. and Roter, D.L. (2010) Communication skills education onsite in a veterinary practice. Patient Education and Counseling 80, 337–344. Shields, S. and Orme-Evans, G. (2015) The impacts of climate change mitigation strategies on animal welfare. Animals (Basel) 5(2), 361–394. DOI: 10.3390/ ani5020361. Tovey, H. (2003) Theorising nature and society in sociology: the invisibility of animals. Sociologia Ruralis 43, 196–213. Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., Pedersen, V., Tosi, M.-V., Janczak, A.M., et  al. (2006) Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 185–242. Williams, D. and Jewell, J. (2012) Family-centred veterinary medicine: learning from human paediatric care. Veterinary Record 170, 79–80. World Organisation for Animal Health (2021) Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Available at: https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/ terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=index.htm (accessed 2 May 2023).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Food Production Systems and How They Relate to Animal Welfare

2

Donald M. Broom

University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

2.1

Introduction

The public has concerns about the welfare of all vertebrate and invertebrate animals but there is more concern about sentient animals. The production of human food, of plant or animal origin, has impacts on the welfare of a wide range of wild and domesticated animals. Some of these impacts are discussed here. Obtaining food from the wild can affect the welfare of target and non-target species. The welfare of animals kept for food production can be good or very poor. Welfare can be scientifically assessed and the information made available to consumers who are becoming more selective in what they will buy or avoid. Consumers want food production systems to be sustainable and the welfare of animals is a key part of their sustainability.

2.2 Whose Welfare? First, we need to consider what welfare is and whose welfare is affected by food production. The welfare of an individual is its state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment (Broom, 1986). Coping means having control of mental and bodily stability. In order that coping can occur, the individual must have a nervous system and other mechanisms that are confined to animals. Hence, we can consider the welfare of humans and any other animal but cannot refer to the welfare of plants, bacteria, viruses or inanimate objects. The state as regards attempts to cope (i.e. the individual’s welfare) can be scientifically measured (Broom and Johnson, 1993, 2019). Welfare refers to individuals so, while we cannot speak of the welfare of a group or population, we can refer to the mean welfare in a population. The meaning of welfare ascribed by OIE World Organisation for Animal Health (2021), ‘Animal welfare means the physical and mental state of an animal in

DOI: 10.1079/9781789249507.0002

25

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

26

Donald M. Broom

relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies’, is essentially the same as the above definition. However, the Broom definition is more precise as the word ‘individual’ makes it clear that the term welfare refers to humans as well as other animals and ‘state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment’ describes the many processes involved in linking the state to the conditions. The other wording in the OIE code adds helpful explanation of the concept. Wellbeing is sometimes used in the USA to avoid confusion with the colloquial use of welfare to refer to handouts to poor people. Wellbeing means the same as welfare, although the word welfare is usually thought of as more precise and is used more often in scientific writing and in laws. Quality of life also means welfare, so it can be measured, but while welfare can be short term or longer term, the concept of quality of life is not normally used for short periods of life (Broom, 2007). Health is a key part of welfare, as are feelings if the animal is sentient. Feelings and emotions are adaptive mechanisms and, like other adaptive mechanisms, they promote survival (Broom, 1998; Fraser, 2008). Like biology and health (Monath et al., 2010; Karesh, 2014; Tarazona et al., 2020; Broom, 2022a), welfare has exactly the same meaning in humans, other vertebrates and all invertebrate animals although the coping mechanisms vary from one kind of animal to another (Colonius and Earley, 2013; García Pinillos et  al., 2015, 2016; Broom, 2017; García Pinillos, 2018). Worms, insects, molluscs, fish, birds and mammals all have a range of coping mechanisms, some of which are common to all and others which are limited to certain animals (Broom, 2014). Humans may wish to give more protection to sentient animals but should consider the welfare of all animals. Since the word welfare refers to all animals, including humans, and does not refer to other organisms or inanimate objects, it is not usually necessary to qualify it by saying ‘animal welfare’. This chapter is principally concerned with the welfare of farmed animals and welfare is one of the components of the sustainability of food production practices, but some other components of sustainability will also be mentioned.

2.3 Which Food Production Systems Affect Welfare? The term ‘food production’ usually means the management of other organisms or resources in order to produce human food. All food production systems have impacts on animal welfare and other aspects of sustainability. Plant and animal products will be consumed by humans or other animals and the welfare of each human, farm animal, companion animal or other animal is likely to be improved by eating the food produced. On the other hand, in order to produce the food, whether it is plant or animal material, some animals will be killed, deprived of a living place or otherwise harmed. Even if we consider fruit taken for human consumption from trees or from other plants in native or cultivated woodland, that fruit will no longer be

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Food Production Systems and How They Relate to Animal Welfare

27

available for other animals to eat. If cereals or pulses are grown in fields, the fields will be in places where wild animals could live (Gibbs et al., 2010). Cultivation procedures, such as ploughing, planting, weeding, fertilizer addition or pesticide application will kill many animals (Fischer and Lamey, 2018). The welfare of animals kept for food production may be good or poor and animal welfare scientists now have a wide variety of methods for evaluating it. Each of these impacts of food production on welfare will now be considered. A high proportion of all published information about this topic relates to the major farm animal species, and these animals are discussed in other chapters of this book, so only summaries of information about some key species are presented in Section 2.6 of this chapter.

2.4

Obtaining Non-farmed Food and Welfare

It is important to mention, albeit briefly, that obtaining wild plants or animals to use as food affects the welfare of various animals. As mentioned above, any food collected by humans will not be available to wild animals and could lead to poor welfare because of hunger, starvation or increased exposure to predation. If wild mammals, birds, fish or other animals are caught and killed, their welfare will often be poor in the period between catching and dying. It is only when the killing is instantaneous and the approach, capture and killing procedures do not cause fear, pain or other poor welfare that there is no welfare issue for that individual animal. However, even if there is no poor welfare caused by the procedure for killing the animal, there could still be negative effects on the welfare of dependent young or other group members. In terms of the numbers of individuals affected and the severity of the effect, some of the greatest welfare problems concern the commercial catching of fish. Fish have a pain system and an emergency adrenal system, both of which function in almost exactly the same way as the pain and adrenal systems of humans, even if the anatomy of the areas of brain and other organs involved is somewhat different (Braithwaite and Ebbesson, 2014; Broom, 2016, 2022a; Sneddon, 2019). Fish also show fear responses that are greater if the individuals have lived in a more restricted environment (Tatemoto et al., 2021). Decapod crustacea such as crabs, lobsters, prawns and shrimps and cephalopod molluscs such as squid, cuttlefish and octopus are sentient animals that also have pain systems and high levels of cognitive ability (Mather, 2008; Elwood, 2019; Ponte et al., 2019). Only a small proportion of the very many species of these animals have been studied, and we know little of some of the most social, and hence probably most cognitively complex, but it is scientifically logical to assume that all have the capacity to have feelings. Current methods of obtaining these animals from the wild, or of farming them, that cause pain, stress and other poor welfare are increasingly condemned by more and more consumers so methods will have to

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

28

Donald M. Broom

change to take account of the welfare of the animals. Other components of sustainability during fishing are also becoming unacceptable to consumers, for example the enormous mortality of non-target animals and impact on biodiversity and ecosystems when non-selective methods such as trawling are used (e.g. Stobutzki et al., 2001; Kumar and Deepthi, 2006; Pusceddu et al., 2014).

2.5 Plant Production and the Welfare and Mortality of Animals If areas of land are cleared for plant production, very large numbers of animals are killed or deprived of resources such as food and hiding places. Each time that there is subsequent clearance, after any regrowth of vegetation, there will be further negative effects on the welfare of animals living there, as well as on the number of wild organisms in the local populations. When land is ploughed, or soil is otherwise tilled, a large number of animals living in the ground are killed, soil structure is affected so that waterholding and nutrient-holding capacity is reduced, and greenhouse gases are released (Broom, 2018, 2019; Fischer and Lamey, 2018; Alskaf et al., 2021). If the land is degraded the effects are greater (Broom 2019, 2021b). Most of these animals are insects, worms, molluscs or other invertebrates but some vertebrates living under or on the ground may be killed or displaced. As

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Food Production Systems and How They Relate to Animal Welfare

29

seeds germinate and crops grow, the application of chemicals intended to kill plants considered to be weeds, insect pests or fungi cause poor welfare by their direct effects on the animals and, even more, by the removal of plants, and consequentially other animals, on which those animals depend. The loss of biodiversity that these practices have caused on cultivated land during the last 20 years (Stanton et al., 2018) is perhaps the greatest and most undesirable change that has occurred in the landscapes of most countries. The original clearance of that land had large effects but people notice especially the recent disappearance of bird song, butterflies, pollinators and flowers. Other methods for the control of ‘pests of crops’ may also adversely affect the welfare of target and non-target species. During many of the procedures involved in harvesting plant crops, there are injuries and substantial mortality of some species of birds, mammals and other animals. Farmers may reduce these by care during harvesting procedures. After harvest, many foods are stored and some proportion may be consumed by ‘stored product pests’. Various methods are used for killing these insects, mammals, birds, etc. and most of these methods cause poor welfare in the animals. Some are poisons, traps or other lethal control procedures that cause very poor welfare prior to death. For example, anticoagulant rodenticides are non-selective (Nakayama et al., 2019) and cause much pain while some other poisons also result in many hours of pain before death. Many traps and snares are non-selective and kill non-target species (Proulx et al., 2015; Virgós et al., 2016; Broom, 2022b). Since by far the greatest amount of food production is plant production, the numbers of deaths of animals caused by plant production are likely to be higher than those involved in animal production (Broom, 2018). The avoidance of poor welfare of animals should be an objective for both animal and plant production.

2.6 The Welfare of Animals Kept for Food Production 2.6.1

Farmed animal welfare studies

The scientific study of animal welfare has developed rapidly during the last 30 years and the majority of the studies have focused on chickens, pigs, cattle and sheep. The knowledge gained from these studies has been of value in relation to human welfare and the welfare of companion, laboratory, wild and other farmed animals (Broom, 2022a). When considering the importance of welfare issues there are key factors to take into account. 1. The magnitude of good or poor welfare: The duration and the intensity of the positive and negative effects should be taken into account so, for a certain severity, a prolonged problem is worse than a brief problem (Broom, 2001, 2022a).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

2. Living conditions: Those conditions that cause better or worse welfare are very important for individuals and research on the effects on welfare of housing and daily management have allowed the greatest improvements in welfare. 3. Genetics: Studies of the effects of genetic selection on welfare have been of particular value because genetic differences can concern a high proportion of life. 4. Handling, slaughter, procedures: Work on welfare during human handling, transport, slaughter, farm and laboratory procedures and mutilations is also important. 5. Long term and short term: The measures of how good or how poor is the welfare of individuals include those giving information about the long term and the short term (Keeling and Jensen, 2009; Broom and Johnson, 2019). Some short-term problems have no long-term consequences, whereas others may change some or all of subsequent life so in many studies, both shortterm and long-term measures are needed. Some examples of welfare research on animals kept for food production are described briefly below. Many thousands of scientific papers have been written about this subject area and each has One Welfare relevance. Much of the research focusing on one species has relevance for other species, human

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Food Production Systems and How They Relate to Animal Welfare

31

and non-human. There is increasing exchange of ideas and methodologies across veterinary medicine, human medicine and a range of biological disciplines, especially in the neuroscience area because most coping systems in all species involve brain function. Each systematic group of disease-causing organisms affects a wide range of different animal species so studies of their impact on the welfare of individuals can be relevant to many of these. There can sometimes be transmission across species, perhaps from humans to farm animals and vice versa, so studies of all transmission mechanisms can provide useful information in human and veterinary medicine. Human attitudes to species with which humans share diseases, and attitudes to vector species, such as mosquitoes, are often very negative. A duck or chicken that is sick with influenza, or a biting insect or rodent carrying a transmissible human disease, is often erroneously thought of as being at fault in some way, or even as evil, and the welfare or life of that individual may be given little value by some people. To treat badly a sick duck, rodent or dog because it has a disease that could be transmitted to humans is morally wrong although preventing transmission without cruelty is a reasonable action.

2.6.2

Bees and other insects

People have used bees for honey production and to increase the efficiency of pollination for many centuries. The presence of antimicrobials in honey has always been beneficial to bees, and is also beneficial to humans, because the honey can be stored for long periods. Honeybee populations have been substantial, sometimes greater than in the wild, in many parts of the world as a consequence of beekeeping by people. The value to humans of bees, bumble bees, hoverflies, moths and other animals as pollinators of plants used in food production is difficult to assess. The use of chemicals that kill the pollinators, such as neonicotinoids, has wide-ranging effects on other animals as well as on the welfare of the pollinators (Woodcock et al., 2017). The effects on bees are noticed but the welfare of many millions of other animals is also affected by use of pesticides and herbicides.

2.6.3

Farmed fish and other aquatic animals

There have now been many studies of the welfare of some fish that are extensively farmed in temperate countries, such as salmon and trout (e.g. Santurtun et al., 2018), and a smaller number of studies of the welfare of very numerous fish species such as carp, grass carp and tilapia that are farmed in warmer countries. Authoritative and useful European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reports (available at: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/ fish-welfare (accessed 23 May 2023)) review: (i) welfare during husbandry

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

of salmon, trout, eel, sea bass, sea bream and carp; (ii) welfare during transport of various fish species; and (iii) welfare during stunning and slaughter of tuna, carp, eel, salmon, trout, turbot, sea bass and sea bream. The most rapid change in animal production in the world is the increase in the farming of fish, especially those that can live almost entirely on plant material. The most common farmed animal species in the world will soon be tilapia as currently at least 20,000 million tilapia/year are killed, as compared with about 40,000 million chickens/year, but tilapia numbers are growing faster. The welfare of farmed fish in their living conditions, during management procedures and at slaughter is demanded to be good by increasing numbers of consumers and is covered by legislation in some countries. Since the farmers have much control over the fish, it is feasible for welfare to be good at all times. In some species, there is already enough scientific information to form a legal framework protecting the welfare of fish. However, evidence about the welfare of many other aquatic animals, such as farmed prawns, shrimps or other crustaceans is much more sparse. In these cases, a precautionary approach can be an option to form a legal or policy framework until sufficient evidence is available. 2.6.4

Dairy cows

Cows give milk and care for their young so have long been perceived in a positive way by humans. The cow is considered an example of how to live

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Food Production Systems and How They Relate to Animal Welfare

33

well and is revered in some human societies. However, another section of human society may be quick to kill the cow because it has a zoonotic disease or to cause very poor welfare to the cow for a high proportion of her life. The dairy cow is an example of a farmed animal genetically selected by humans for high levels of production to the extent that a substantial proportion of individuals suffer greatly (Oltenacu and Broom, 2010). Many dairy cows are at or beyond a production level that is metabolically damaging to them (Knaus, 2009). The problems are worse in cows treated with bovine somatotrophin, which can further increase milk yield and metabolic pressure (EU SCAHAW, 1999). Bell (2017) suggested lameness may affect a third of adult dairy cattle, with the majority of animals experiencing a lameness event in the course of a year. Lameness can be a significant problem in both intensive and extensive systems (Ranjbar et  al., 2016). Despite many advances in understanding and treatment, mastitis remains a major bacterial disease of dairy cattle (Moroni, 2017). The incidence of clinical mastitis may range from 14 to 40 cases/100 cows/year, and is worst in poorly managed herds and some high-yielding herds (EFSA, 2009; Jamali et  al., 2018). Reproductive disorders are very common in dairy cows, about 40% being culled because of failure to get in calf. This is especially important in high-yielding cows that are metabolically stressed (Dobson et al., 2007; Berglund, 2008; Friggens et al., 2010; Leroy et al., 2015; Diskin et al., 2016; Evans and Zeng, 2018). Reproductive disorders, lameness and mastitis result in cows being culled earlier in life and hence having shorter lives than they did 20–30 years ago (Compton et al., 2017). Many of the widely used dairy production systems are not sustainable but dairy producers have been slow to realize that there have to be some rapid changes in the industry (Broom, 2021a). However, all of the problems are soluble and many dairy cows are kept using sustainable systems, including very good welfare of the cows. The rearing of dairy calves also raises many sustainability questions, particularly those concerning calf welfare (Broom, 2022b; EFSA, 2023b). 2.6.5

Broiler chickens

As mentioned above, there are about 40,000 million chickens killed for human consumption each year in the world, a tenth of which are in the European Union (Broom, 2017), and these provide protein for very many people and also work, especially for women in many countries. Because of the severity of the pain and other poor welfare involved, and the very large numbers of individuals affected, the greatest animal welfare problems in the world at present are those resulting from leg disorders of broiler chickens. Knowles et al. (2008) assessed the walking ability of 51,000 broilers and found that at 40 days of age, 28% had poor locomotion. As with the dairy cows, the major cause of this problem is genetic selection of birds for fast

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

34

Donald M. Broom

growth and large muscle mass so that productivity is high. Leg disorders in broiler chickens become worse as the birds get older and heavier (Mench, 2004; Sandilands et al., 2011). These leg disorders are painful; they cause leg weakness, walking difficulty, increased contact with the litter floor and dermatitis causing ulceration and further pain. Such dermatitis and ulceration could be seen on 80% of chicken carcasses in supermarkets (Broom and Reefmann, 2005), even though the carcasses with the worst leg and breast damage are normally used for chicken pieces. Chickens that are from slower-growing genetic lines, or which receive less food, have much lower levels of leg disorders and their welfare is often good. EFSA (2023a, p. 170) recommended that ‘growth rate of broiler chickens should be limited to a maximum of 50 g/day to allow the broilers to maintain better health and being active’. This is because the increased activity and limit on growth that results from this provision reduces the leg and other disorders, severe pain and difficulty in moving that can cause very poor welfare in chickens. Another recommendation by EFSA, with very similar objectives, is that no stocking density for broilers should exceed 11 kg/m2 of floor area. Another consequence of genetic selection for fast growth in broiler chickens has been that the parent and grandparent birds used in the breeding of broiler chickens also grow very fast (Broom, 2022a). As a consequence, these birds rapidly become too heavy for their legs to support their bodies and many would die before breeding and are unable to mate. The commercial solution is that their food is restricted to slow their growth. This has the result that the birds are permanently extremely hungry. Countries that have laws protecting the welfare of farmed animals do not permit the keeping of animals in such a way that they are hungry for most of their lives. In addition, since mating is not possible, fertilization has to be carried out by artificial insemination. EFSA (2023a) conclude that there is no way to solve this problem for broiler breeders, and little opportunity to mitigate the problems for the meat production birds, except to drastically change the genetic selection for fast growth. Public pressure is starting to lead to retail companies and governments banning the worst housing systems and the worst genetic lines, although it is difficult for individual farmers to change systems. 2.6.6 Pigs The greatest pig welfare problems (Broom, 1989; Jensen et al., 2001; Špinka, 2017) are those due to housing conditions that do not meet the needs of the pigs. Other problems are: (i) physical abuse; (ii) neglect; (iii) handling; (iv) transport; (v) farm operations; and (vi) disease (Broom, 2022a). One of the worst human treatments of any farm animal is to keep pregnant sows in close confinement in stalls or on tethers. These pregnant sows have welfare problems indicated by a long list of measures but sows in well-managed

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Food Production Systems and How They Relate to Animal Welfare

35

group-housing systems have much better welfare and can be at least as productive (Broom et al., 1995; EFSA, 2007; Broom, 2022a). When about to give birth, sows are moved to farrowing accommodation. Farrowing crates, in which the sow cannot turn around or make a nest for the piglets as she is adapted to do, cause major problems for the sows. Farrowing systems that are better for sow and piglet welfare than the crates have now been developed. Hence there can be a major change in the industry towards outdoor farrowing in well-designed arcs or indoor farrowing in carefully designed farrowing pens (Andersen and Morland, 2016). A combination of good pen design and good management methods is essential (Baxter et al., 2018) for the welfare of pigs and for the staff who work with them. Tight production cycles with little room for management modification have an impact on many of the pig welfare problems mentioned above. They also cause difficulties for the farm staff so welfare of humans and pigs is linked. The welfare of breeding boars can be poor because of isolation in a small pen and, as for sows in poor conditions, we now know that epigenetic effects can have negative consequences for the growth and welfare of their piglets and for the following generation (Sabei et al., 2023). A difficult environment during gamete formation can alter genes and affect future generations so producers urgently need to improve sow and boar welfare (Broom, 2022a). Piglets and fattening pigs make up a high proportion of all farmed pigs and the needs of many of them are not provided for in the farm systems in which they live (Marchant-Forde, 2009). Previous attempts by farmers to reduce production costs have sometimes reduced current and future profitability. Some of the causes are local inefficiencies in production but a longer-term effect is a reduction in the whole market as more and more consumers refuse to buy the product. Some of the welfare problems that can be reduced by better practice include the following. •

•

Failure to provide material for pigs on farms to manipulate, or a substratum in which to root, might save money but leads to poor welfare and serious problems like tail biting. Farmers may try to solve this by tail docking, at an additional expense, but tail docking is now known to cause long-lasting pain because of neuroma formation and to interfere with some normal communication methods of pigs (Simonsen et  al., 1991; Sandercock et al., 2016, 2019). A severe outbreak of tail biting would have high costs for farmers so prevention by always providing for the needs of the pigs in a better environment can reduce costs, as well as encouraging consumers not to avoid pig-meat consumption but to buy a higher welfare product. Castration of piglets is a frequent practice on farms and castrated piglets spend less time at the mammary glands massaging or suckling (McGlone and Hellman, 1988; McGlone et al., 1993) which stimulates milk production and hence piglet growth. Castrated piglets are more inactive while awake, they show more pain-related behaviours and

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

36

•

Donald M. Broom

their behaviour is more frequently desynchronized compared with uncastrated piglets (Hay, M. et  al., 2003). Castration without anaesthesia or analgesia leads to immunosuppression (Lessard et al., 2002). All of these effects tend to impair piglet growth and could lead to infection and ultimately an increased use of antimicrobials. Pain relief reduces such problems (Viscardi and Turner, 2018). Most growing pigs are provided with too little space for their needs (EFSA, 2006) in order to reduce farm costs. However, all pigs can be kept on farms in conditions that result in good welfare. Many consumers are demanding better welfare or changing to vegetarian diets.

Pigs and poultry can be efficient in the production of human food but both suffer the disadvantage that, when fed on grain and soya, much of their diet could have been eaten by humans, a much more efficient use of the food resource. For this reason in future, livestock that consume leaves that could not be consumed by humans are likely to be seen as having a sustainability advantage over pigs and poultry (Broom, 2021b, 2022c, d) and, contrary to recent world trends, there is likely to be a large decline in pig and poultry production unless system changes are introduced. These system changes should include both better conditions for keeping the animals to improve their welfare and different diets to improve efficiency of use of world resources. If human food waste is used to feed pigs and poultry, their net effect on world resources could be very much better (zu Ermgassen et al., 2016; Truong et al., 2019). Some countries legally ban feeding human food waste to pigs because of the risk of consequential disease spread. Foot-and-mouth disease and African swine fever are among the diseases that would cause very negative impacts on welfare of farmed animals and on economics. Other countries allow centralized processing of human food waste, involving a combination of heat treatment, acidification and prevention of cross-contamination, before feeding to pigs. These treatments of the food eliminate pathogens such as those causing foot-and-mouth disease and African swine fever (Dou et al., 2018). Where the food treatment is very well controlled, no disease outbreaks have been reported during many years. It would seem that centralized control and strict bans on all other feeding of food waste may have the potential to provide more sustainable feeding regimes for the pig and poultry industries. Continuing to explore and implement safe and welfarefriendly alternatives to improve the sustainability of intensive livestock production is important.

2.7

Cell-cultured Food Production

When meat is eaten, most of that food is made up of muscle cells so if muscle cells can be cultured there is a potential for further production of meat without keeping and killing more animals. Small numbers of cells to

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Food Production Systems and How They Relate to Animal Welfare

37

initiate cell culture can be obtained with little negative effect on an animal. However, large quantities of nutrients for growing the cells have to be obtained. Many of the initial attempts to culture cells have used foetal calf serum so questions arise about how this is obtained. In order to assess the sustainability of cell-cultured meat production, information about all components of sustainability including any effects on animal welfare, gas emissions, waste disposal, energy and water usage is needed. There can then be objective evaluations of sustainability by those not directly involved in such enterprises. However, it is likely that animal welfare and other aspects of sustainability can be good in cell-cultured meat production. Many consumers have already indicated that they would buy these products (Valente et al., 2019).

References Alskaf, K., Mooney, S.J., Sparkes, D.L., Wilson, P. and Sjögersten, S. (2021) Short-term impacts of different tillage practices and plant residue retention on soil physical properties and greenhouse gas emissions. Soil and Tillage Research  206: 104803. Andersen, I.L. and Morland, E. (2016) Production results on the ‘Sow comfort’ farrowing pen for loose housed sows. In: 24th International Pig Veterinary Society (IPVS) Congress Abstracts Book, Royal Dublin Society, Dublin, Ireland, 7–10 June 2016. IPVS, Dublin, Abstract no. PO-PT2-259 (p. 651). Baxter, E.M., Andersen, I.L. and Edwards, S.A. (2018) Sow welfare in the farrowing crate and alternatives. In: Špinka, M. (ed.) Advances in Pig Welfare. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, UK, pp. 27–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-08-101012-9.00002-2 Bell, N. (2017) Preventing and managing lameness in dairy cows. In: Webster, J. (ed.) Achieving Sustainable Production of Milk Volume 3: Dairy Herd Management and Welfare. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge, UK. Berglund, B. (2008) Genetic improvement of dairy cow reproductive performance. Reproduction in Domestic Animals  43, 89–95. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2008.01147.x Braithwaite, V.A. and Ebbesson, L.O.E. (2014) Pain and stress responses in farmed fish. OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique 33, 245–253. Broom, D.M. (1986) Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142, 524–526. Broom, D.M. (1989) The assessment of sow welfare. Pig Veterinary Journal 22, 100–111. Broom, D.M. (1998) Welfare, stress and the evolution of feelings. Advances in the Study of Behavior 27, 371–403. Broom, D.M. (2001) Coping, stress and welfare. In: Broom, D.M. (ed.) Coping with Challenge: Welfare in Animals including Humans. Dahlem University Press, Berlin, pp. 1–9. Broom, D.M. (2007) Quality of life means welfare: how is it related to other concepts and assessed? Animal Welfare 16(supplement), 45–53. Broom, D.M. (2014) Sentience and Animal Welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

38

Donald M. Broom

Broom, D.M. (2016) Fish brains and behaviour indicate capacity for feeling pain. Animal Sentience 3(4). DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1031. Broom, D.M. (2017)  Animal Welfare in the European Union. European Parliament Policy Department, Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Brussels, 75 pp. DOI: 10-2861/891355. Broom, D.M. (2018) The scientific basis for action on animal welfare and other aspects of sustainability. In: D’Silva, J. and McKenna, C. (eds) Farming, Food and Nature: Respecting Animals, People and the Environment. Routledge, London, pp. 93–100. Broom, D.M. (2019) Land and water usage in beef production systems. Animals 9, 286. DOI: 10.3390/ani9060286. Broom, D.M. (2021a) Dairy cattle welfare and other aspects of sustainability. In: Endres, M. (ed.) Understanding the Behaviour and Improving the Welfare of Dairy Cattle. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1–13. dx. doi.org/10.19103/AS.2020.0084.01 Broom, D.M. (2021b) A method for assessing sustainability, with beef production as an example. Biological Reviews 96, 1836–1853. DOI: 10.1111/brv.12726. Broom, D.M. (2022a) Broom and Fraser’s Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 6th edn. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 545 pp. Broom, D.M. (2022b) Some thoughts on the impact of trapping on mammal welfare with emphasis on snares. In: Proulx, G. (ed.) Mammal Trapping – Wildlife Management, Animal Welfare & International Standards. Alpha Wildlife Publications, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada, pp. 121–128. Broom, D.M. (2022c) Sustainable livestock feeding and management: what changes are needed? In: Proceedings of the Animal Nutrition Conference of Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 10–12 May 2022. Animal Nutrition Association of Canada, Ottawa, pp. 87–98. Broom, D.M. (2022d) Animal Board invited opinion paper. The use of sustainability scoring to evaluate food production and prepare for the future. Animal 16: 100680 (11 pp.). DOI: 10.1016/j.animal.2022.100680. Broom, D.M. and Johnson, K.G. (1993) Stress and Animal Welfare. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Broom, D.M. and Johnson, K.G. (2019) Stress and Animal Welfare: Key Issues in the Biology of Humans and Other Animals, 2nd edn. Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 230. Broom, D.M. and Reefmann, N. (2005) Chicken welfare as indicated by lesions on carcasses in supermarkets. British Poultry Science 46, 1–8. Broom, D.M., Mendl, M.T. and Zanella, A.J. (1995) A comparison of the welfare of sows in different housing conditions. Animal Science 61, 369–385. Colonius, T.J. and Earley, R.W. (2013) One Welfare: a call to develop a broader framework of thought and action. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 242, 309–310. Compton, C.W.R., Heuer, C., Thomsen, P.T., Carpenter, T.E., Phyn, C.V.C. and McDougall, S. (2017) Invited Review: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of mortality and culling in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 1–16. Diskin, M.G., Waters, S.M., Parr, M.H. and Kenny, D.A. (2016) Pregnancy losses in cattle: potential for improvement. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 28, 83–93.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Food Production Systems and How They Relate to Animal Welfare

39

Dobson, H., Smith, R.F., Royal, M.D., Knight, C.H. and Sheldon, I.M. (2007) The high‐ producing dairy cow and its reproductive performance. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 42, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2007.00906.x Dou, Z., Toth, J.D. and Westendorf, M.L. (2018) Food waste for livestock feeding: feasibility, safety, and sustainability implications. Global Food Security  17, 154–161. Elwood, R.W. (2019) Assessing the potential for pain in crustaceans and other invertebrates. In: Carere, C. and Mather, J. (eds) The Welfare of Invertebrate Animals. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp. 147–177. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2006) The Welfare of Weaners and Rearing Pigs: Effects of Different Space Allowances and Floor Types. Report of the EFSA Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. EFSA, Parma, Italy. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2007) Animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant and farrowing sows and unweaned piglets. EFSA Journal 572, 1–13. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2009) Scientific report on the overall effects of farming systems on dairy cow welfare and disease. Annex to the EFSA Journal 1143, 1–38. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2023a) Welfare of broilers on farm. EFSA Journal 21: e07788. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7788 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2023b) Welfare of calves. EFSA Journal 21: e07896. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7896 European Union (EU) SCAHAW (1999) EU Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) Report on Animal Welfare Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin. European Commission, Brussels. Evans, A. and Zeng, S. (2018) Causes, prevention and management of infertility in dairy cows. In: Webster, J. (ed.) Achieving Sustainable Production of Milk Volume 3: Dairy Herd Management and Welfare. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge, UK. Fischer, B. and Lamey, A. (2018) Field deaths in plant agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31, 409–428. Fraser, D. (2008) Understanding Animal Welfare: the Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, UK. Friggens, N.C., Disenhaus, C. and Petit, H.V. (2010) Nutritional sub-fertility in the dairy cow: towards improved reproductive management through a better biological understanding. Animal 4, 1197–1213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109991601 García Pinillos, R. (2018) One Welfare: a Framework to Improve Animal Welfare and Human Well-being. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. García Pinillos, R., Appleby, M.C., Scott-Park, F. and Smith, C.W. (2015) One Welfare. Veterinary Record 177, 629–630. García Pinillos, R., Appleby, M., Manteca, X., Scott-Park, F., Smith, C. and Velarde, A. (2016) One Welfare – a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Veterinary Record 179(16), 412–413. DOI: 10.1136/vr.i5470. Gibbs, H.K., Ruesch, A.S., Achard, F., Clayton, M.K., Holmgren, P., et  al. (2010) Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 16732–16737. Hay, M., Vulin, A., Genin, S., Sales, P. and Prunier, A. (2003) Assessment of pain induced by castration in piglets: behavioural and physiological responses over the subsequent 5 days. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82, 201–218.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

40

Donald M. Broom

Jamali, H., Barkema, H.W., Jacques, M., Lavallée-Bourget, E.M., Malouin, F., et al. (2018) Invited Review: Incidence, risk factors and effect of clinical mastitis recurrence in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 101(6), 4729–4746. Jensen, P., Borell, E. von,Broom, D.M., Csermely, D., Dijkhuizen, A.A., et  al. (2001) The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee 1997 (Animal Health and Animal Welfare Sections). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 179–437. Karesh, W.B. (ed.) (2014) One Health. O.I.E. Scientific and Technical Review 38. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), Paris. Keeling, L. and Jensen, P. (2009) Abnormal behaviour, stress and welfare. In: Jensen, P. (ed.) The Ethology of Domestic Animals: an Introductory Text. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 85–101. Knaus, W. (2009) Dairy cows trapped between performance demands and adaptability. Journal of Science Food and Agriculture 89, 1107–1114. Knowles, T.G., Kestin, S.C., Haslam, S.M., Brown, S.N., Green, L.E., et al. (2008) Leg disorders in broiler chickens: prevalence, risk factors and prevention. PLoS ONE 3: e1545. Kumar, A.B. and Deepthi, G.R. (2006) Trawling and by-catch: implications on marine ecosystem. Current Science 90, 922–931. Leroy, J.L., Valckx, S.D., Jordaens, L., De Bie, J., Desmet, K.L., et al. (2015) Nutrition and maternal metabolic health in relation to oocyte and embryo quality: critical views on what we learned from the dairy cow model. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 27, 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD14363 Lessard, M., Taylor, A.A., Braithwaite, L. and Weary, D.M. (2002) Humoral and cellular immune responses of piglets after castration at different ages. Canadian Journal of American Science 82, 519–526. Marchant-Forde, J.N. (ed.) (2009) The Welfare of Pigs. Springer, Berlin. Mather, J.A. (2008) Cephalopod consciousness: behavioural evidence. Consciousness and Cognition 17, 37–48. McGlone, J.J. and Hellman, J.M. (1988) Local and general anesthetic effects on behaviour and performance of two- and seven-week old castrated and uncastrated piglets. Journal of Animal Science 66, 3049–3058. McGlone, J.J., Nicholson, R.I., Hellman, J.M. and Herzog, D.N. (1993) The development of pain in young pigs associated with castration and attempts to prevent castration-induced behavioral changes. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1441–1446. Mench, J. (2004) Lameness: measuring and auditing broiler welfare. In: Appleby, M.C., Mench, J.A. and Hughes, B.O. (eds) Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 3–17. Monath, T.P., Kahn, L.H. and Kaplan, B. (2010) One Health perspective. ILAR Journal 51, 193–198. Moroni, P. (2017) Mastitis, milk yield and quality. In: van Belzen, N. (ed.) Achieving Sustainable Production of Milk Volume 1: Safety, Quality and Sustainability. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge, UK. Nakayama, S.M.M., Morita, A., Ikenaka, Y., Mizukawa, H. and Ishizuka M. (2019) A review: poisoning by anticoagulant rodenticides in non-target animals globally. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 81, 298–313. DOI: 10.1292/ jvms.17-0717.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Food Production Systems and How They Relate to Animal Welfare

41

OIE World Organisation for Animal Health (2021) Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Available at: https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/ terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=index.htm (accessed 2 May 2023). Oltenacu, P.A. and Broom, D.M. (2010) The impact of genetic selection for increased milk yield on the welfare of dairy cows. Animal Welfare 19(S), 39–49. Ponte, G., Andrews, P., Galligioni, V., Pereira, J. and Fiorito, G. (2019) Cephalopod welfare, biological and regulatory aspects: an EU experience. In: Carere, C. and Mather, J. (eds) The Welfare of Invertebrate Animals. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 209–228. Proulx, G., Rodtka, D., Barrett, M.W., Cattet, M., Dekker, D., et  al. (2015) Humaneness and selectivity of killing neck snares used to capture canids in Canada: a review. Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management 4, 55–65. Pusceddu, A., Bianchelli, S., Martín, J., Puig, P., Palanques, A., et al. (2014) Chronic and intensive bottom trawling impairs deep-sea biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 8861–8866. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1405454111 Ranjbar, S., Rabiee, A.R., Gunn, A. and House, J.K. (2016) Identifying risk factors associated with lameness in pasture-fed dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 7495–7505. Sabei, L., Bernardino, T., Parada Sarmiento, M., Barbosa, B.S., Farias, S.D.S., et al. (2023) Life experiences of boars can shape the survival, aggression, and nociception responses of their offspring. Frontiers in Animal Science 4: 30. https://doi. org/10.3389/fanim.2023.1142628 Sandercock, D.A., Smith, S.H., Di Giminiani, P. and Edwards, S.A. (2016) Histopathological characterization of tail injury and traumatic neuroma development after tail docking in piglets. Journal of Comparative Pathology 155, 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpa.2016.05.003 Sandercock, D.A., Barnett, M.W., Coe, J.E., Downing, A.C., Nirmal, A.J., et al. (2019) Transcriptomics analysis of porcine caudal dorsal root ganglia in tail amputated pigs shows long-term effects on many pain-associated genes. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6: 314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00314 Sandilands, V., Brocklehurst, S., Sparks, N., Baker, L., McGovern, R., et  al. (2011) Assessing leg health in chickens using a force plate and gait scoring: how many birds is enough? Veterinary Record 168: 77. Santurtun, E., Broom, D.M. and Phillips, C.J.C. (2018) A review of factors affecting the welfare of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Animal Welfare 27, 193–204. DOI: 10.7120/09627286.27.3.193. Simonsen, H.B., Klinken, L. and Bindseil, E. (1991) Histopathology of intact and docked pigtails. British Veterinary Journal 147, 407–412. Sneddon, L.U. (2019) Evolution of nociception and pain: evidence from fish models. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 374(1785): 20190290. https:// doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0290 Špinka, M. (ed.) (2017)  Advances in Pig Welfare. Woodhead Publishing, Duxford, UK. Stanton, R.L., Morrissey, C.A. and Clark, R.G. (2018) Analysis of trends and agricultural drivers of farmland bird declines in North America: a review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 254, 244–254.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

42

Donald M. Broom

Stobutzki, I., Miller, M. and Brewer, D. (2001) Sustainability of fishery bycatch: a process for assessing highly diverse and numerous bycatch. Environmental Conservation 28, 167–181. Tarazona, A.M., Ceballos, M.C. and Broom, D.M. (2020) Human relationships with domestic and other animals: One Health, One Welfare, one biology. Animals 10: 43. DOI: 10.3390/ani10010043. Tatemoto, P., Valença-Silva, G., Queiroz, M.R. and Broom, D.M. (2021) Living with low environmental complexity increases fear indicators in Nile tilapia. Animal Behaviour 174, 169–174. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.02.006. Truong, L., Morash, D., Liu, Y. and King, A. (2019) Food waste in animal feed with a focus on use for broilers. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture 8, 417–429. Valente, J.D.P.S., Fiedler, R.A., Sucha Heidemann, M. and Molento, C.F.M. (2019) First glimpse on attitudes of highly educated consumers towards cell-based meat and related issues in Brazil. PLoS ONE 14: e0221129. Virgós, E., Lozano, J., Cabezas-Díaz, S., Macdonald, D.W., Zalewski, A., et al. (2016) A poor international standard for trap selectivity threatens carnivore conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 25, 1409–1419. Viscardi, A.V. and Turner, P.V. (2018) Efficacy of buprenorphine for management of surgical castration pain in piglets. BMC Veterinary Research  14: 318. DOI: 10.1186/s12917-018-1643-5. Woodcock, B.A., Bullock, J.M., Shore, R.F., Heard, M.S., Pereira, M.G., et al. (2017) Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees and wild bees. Science 356, 1393–1395. zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J., Phalan, B., Green, R.E. and Balmford, A. (2016) Reducing the land use of EU pork production: where there’s swill, there’s a way. Food Policy 58, 35–48.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Integrating Animal Welfare as a Component of Sustainable Farming Systems

3

Stella Maris Huertas Canén,1,4 Carmen Gallo,2,4 Tamara Tadich2,4 and Francisco Galindo3,4

Universidad de la República, Uruguay; 2Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile; 3Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México; 4WOAH Collaborating Centre for Animal Welfare and Sustainable Livestock Systems

1

3.1

Introduction

The concept of sustainability has become increasingly used by academics and the general public. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2007), a sustainable food system is one that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases are not compromised for the future generations. Therefore, it should ensure economic sustainability, be beneficial to society and safeguard the environment. At the moment, food systems are contributing to and are also affected by: (i) climate change (i.e. direct greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions, extreme weather events); (ii) land degradation; and (iii) loss of biodiversity. It is imperative to address these phenomena with a holistic and sustainable approach. Broom (2010) affirms that: a system or procedure is sustainable if it is acceptable now and if its effects will be acceptable in the future, particularly in relation to the availability of resources, the consequences of the operation and the morality of the action. (Broom, 2010, p. 2)

In relation to farming systems, the key elements or pillars on which sustainability is based are: •

human wellbeing: ◦ human health: consumption of healthy and safe food; ◦ economic conditions: decent social conditions for farmers producing and supplying sustainable food (farmers’ income);

DOI: 10.1079/9781789249507.0003

43

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

44

• •

Stella Maris Huertas Canén et al.

animal welfare: ◦ healthy animals in a good welfare state; ◦ application of good handling practices; environment: ◦ caring for the environment (efficient use of soil, water, etc.); ◦ usage of renewable energy; ◦ reducing negative effects on biodiversity; and ◦ design of physical elements in a way that facilitates handling and management and prevents any unnecessary pain, suffering or distress.

Moreover, a production system can be unsustainable if it includes: • • • • • •

inefficient use of the world’s food resources; adverse effects on human health; compromised animal welfare; decrease in biodiversity; unacceptable genetic modification; and potential damage to producers or rural communities in poor countries (by not being ‘fair trade’).

It is common to consider that extensive livestock production systems that are welfare friendly will be sustainable. However, this type of system could have several harmful effects, such as depletion of the soil nutrients, accumulation of unwanted residues, loss of soil or environmental water, changes in land use leading to deforestation, among other factors that can make the system unsustainable.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Integrating Animal Welfare into Sustainable Farming Systems

45

In terms of animal welfare, considered as ‘the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies’ (World Organisation for Animal Health, 2019), extensive systems may not provide livestock with enough shelter from inclement weather, food or water (extreme climate events), or protection from predators. On the other hand, some argue that animals in intensive systems such as feedlots are not likely to starve or suffer from thirst and would emit less GHGs (Capper, 2012), but they often have worse welfare than extensively raised animals when we consider lack of comfort, insufficient space availability and fewer opportunities to perform natural behaviours. Thus, animal welfare is one of many aspects that must be considered when assessing the sustainability of farming systems. For more details on welfare aspects associated with different productive species, see Chapter 2, this book. Globalization and the impact of the media are fundamental in the involvement of consumers, and some of them may refuse to buy products of animal origin and other products from companies or countries whose activities or events are considered unacceptable from a sustainability point of view. According to the Eurobarometer survey (European Commission, 2020), climate change, air pollution and waste are the three most important environmental problems to be solved as demanded by European consumers. An example of consumers’ power is a report on the poor welfare of calves locked in small cages for meat production in France, which resulted in a drop in sales of all French products in the UK, including unrelated products such as wine (Broom, 2017).

3.2

Linking Animal Welfare to Sustainable Farming Systems

Sustainable farming systems integrate three key elements or goals: • • •

to conserve environmental health; to allow economic growth; and to achieve social equity.

There are many practices or strategies that can allow this in animal farming systems, within which animal welfare is an important one. The One Welfare framework can be applied to enhance farming systems sustainability and here we discuss how this could be achieved for each of these three elements. 3.2.1 Animal welfare and environmental health Large-scale animal farming systems are a concern not only due to the negative impacts they can have on animal welfare, but also on the environment. Therefore, an important goal globally is to develop environmentally friendly farming systems that also allow animals to have a better quality

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

46

Stella Maris Huertas Canén et al.

of life (Lund, 2006). Animal welfare includes much more than only animal health; it also considers the physical environment in which animals are kept and how this can affect their behavioural interactions and affective states (Mellor et al., 2020). Different strategies have arisen that consider both animal welfare and environmental health. One of these is organic farming systems. According to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) (2002), organic livestock systems are ‘based on the harmonious relationship between land, plants and livestock, respect for the physiological and behavioural needs of livestock and the feeding of good-quality organically grown feedstuff’. Nevertheless, these systems also create challenges for animal welfare, particularly due to restrictions on the use of some drugs that can be essential to maintain animal health under some scenarios. In addition to the animal welfare concerns that farming systems bring with them, society is also concerned about issues such as their impact on soil, water use, GHGs emissions and other types of pollutants that come with them (McGlone, 2001). Currently many farms struggle to find solutions for mitigating environmental impact without affecting animal welfare. Sometimes tradeoffs are required: a classical example of an environmental issue versus a welfare issue is that proposed by McGlone (2001) regarding the use of nose rings in free-roaming pigs, which enable reduction in soil damage and pollution, but at the expense of the pig’s suffering. Long-distance transport of animals by sea and on land creates public concern worldwide and has led to policy development (Gavinelli et al., 2008). During long-distance transport the environmental impact due to the need for fossil fuels must be considered. As distance increases animal welfare risks also increase associated with: (i) changes in social groups; (ii) difficulties in moving or maintaining balance as a result of low space availability; and (iii) stress and fatigue, among others (Broom, 2008). By reducing animal transport distances a higher sustainability of livestock transport may be achieved because both the carbon footprint and the animal welfare risks can be reduced. Aquaculture is another example of a farming system considered to have high negative impacts on the environment. Although the salmon industry has increased economic revenue in local communities (i.e. through provision of jobs), and provided local regions with access to global markets, it has been continuously questioned due to reduced sustainability. This is due to the various environmental impacts on the coastal ecosystem, organic sedimentation, changes in fauna and increased antibiotic resistance of bacteria in the environment, which in turn can have detrimental effects on human and animal health (Buschmann et al., 1996, 2009; Cabello, 2006; Barton, 2016). Awareness of this situation is increasing at scientific and societal levels, resulting in a need to develop new regulations for this important farming sector. In Latin American countries dairy production is characterized mainly by extensive or rotational grazing systems with Bos indicus or Bos taurus

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Integrating Animal Welfare into Sustainable Farming Systems

47

milk or dual-purpose breeds, depending on the geographical location of the country. These systems offer cows a more natural environment and better animal welfare conditions than intensive production systems due to the possibility that the animals can express their natural behaviours. However, there are some animal welfare disadvantages due to low forage production in some seasons (too dry or too wet) and consequently drastic reductions on the body condition scores of the animals during these periods, as well as lameness, mastitis and reproductive disorders, that can affect both intensive and extensive systems (see also Chapter 5, this volume). Most milk is produced on large farms where cows are on pasture all year round, with modern milking technologies, whereas large intensive farms, where cows are kept indoors all year round are uncommon. Nevertheless, milk production has proved to be a fundamental economic activity for rural families across Latin America and a considerable number of cows are kept on smallholdings and produce only for subsistence. A modification of the feeding strategies for production animals could have benefits for soil and climate, and at the same time improve animal welfare (van Wagenberg et al., 2017). An example of this is feeding slowrelease urea to dairy cattle, which has been shown to have benefits in terms of improving productive efficiency while reducing carbon footprint (Salami et al., 2021). In many countries cattle production is not only important for human nutrition and wellbeing but is also part of the culture (Montagnini et al., 2013). However, conventional livestock systems are considered a source of GHG emissions (FAO, 2006). Thus, a different strategy that has been shown to have benefits for the environment and for animal welfare is the implementation of silvopastoral systems (SPS). The integration of animals, trees and shrubs associated with pastures allow for efficient forage production while preserving biodiversity at different scales, making efficient use of water, improving animal welfare, reducing GHG emissions and restoring degraded soils and landscapes (Broom et al., 2013). These systems can achieve sustainability of productive, socio-economic and environmental indicators benefiting local people with more efficient policies such as financial incentives and new markets, complying with the One Welfare concept. SPS provide shade and shelter for livestock during hot and sunny days improving animal welfare (Chará et al., 2019), and the integration of forestry and animal production appears to be more productive, profitable and sustainable than each production separately (forest or livestock) (Peri et al., 2016). In SPS an improvement in thermal comfort allows animals to optimize their time foraging (Améndola et al., 2013), dedicating a greater percentage of time to grazing and rumination activities (Peri et  al., 2016). It also favours non-agonistic interactions and as a result more stable social groups. Furthermore, it is reported that animals in SPS have less anxiety and fear associated with a greater possibility of partial or complete concealment (Ocampo et al., 2011). In studies carried out in SPS in tropical regions, cattle

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Stella Maris Huertas Canén et al.

48

showed shorter flight distances and a better body condition than in pastures without trees (Mancera et al., 2018; Améndola et al., 2019). Thus, SPS represent a form of land use where the tree, forage and livestock components occupy the same plot of land (Cubbage et al., 2012). It is increasingly recognized that SPS contribute to sustainable livestock production by: (i) reducing the impact on natural resources; (ii) increasing the efficiency and profitability of production; and (iii) improving food security and animal welfare.

Case Study 4: Adoption of silvopastoral systems (SPS) as a strategy for beef cattle production systems in Uruguay In this South American country, with a subtropical/temperate climate, traditionally, meat has been produced mainly with extensive management of European breeds (B. taurus) of beef cattle on open pastures (OP) (Bussoni et  al., 2017). These pastures are defned as ecosystems with large areas and with more than 400 different species of native grasses and herbs (Rosengurtt, 1979). Recently, SPS have been introduced in Uruguay and the most used tree species is an exotic Eucalyptus sp., mainly used for paper pulp production, which adapts well to the country’s conditions and meets the market demand. Evenly planted in a 2 m × 2 m design (i.e. 2 m between each tree) as shown in the schematic diagram and photograph (Fig. 3.1), the ‘open’ structure of branches and leaves allows light to pass through so that native grasses can grow underneath (Fedrigo et al., 2018). During 2017, 130 beef cattle were randomly assigned to SPS or OP, respectively, and individual body weights and welfare indicators were recorded every 45 days in both systems. The results showed that none of the animals showed any sign of impaired welfare such as lameness, integument alterations, coughing, nasal/ocular discharge, or hampered respiration in either system. Animals in SPS had an acceptable performance in terms of body weight gain. SPS offer animals a sustainable and richer environment improving their welfare while providing an additional income from the wood production, allowing farmers to maintain their traditional cattle-farming lifestyle (Huertas et al., 2021). Incentives such as payments

2m

Fig. 3.1. The 2 m × 2 m tree plantation design used in the silvopastoral system in Uruguay. Continued

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Integrating Animal Welfare into Sustainable Farming Systems

49

Case Study 4. Continued. for environmental services together with technical assistance have stimulated the adoption of SPS, contributing to climate change mitigation, improving animal welfare and preserving the livelihoods of the rural population. In addition, the valorization of the intangible environmental benefts of agroforestry can result in potential markets for carbon credits and bioenergy (Reid, 2009). For instance, recently in 2021 ‘Forestal Montes del Plata’ and ‘Breeders and Packers Uruguay’ (BPU Meat), a meat-processing plant belonging to the Japanese group NH Foods, signed an agreement that creates the frst ‘carbon neutral meat label in Uruguay’. Thus, livestock and forestry are part of the solution for the sustainability of production systems, taking care of the environment and being able to improve the income of producers. They are complementary elements that generate a mutually benefcial relationship, promote productive integration, care for the environment and join synergies to represent Uruguay in international markets (Rurales EL PAIS, 2021).

3.2.2 Animal welfare and economic growth Livestock systems contribute substantially to the economic wellbeing of poor families in rural zones of many developing countries of Latin America, being an indicator of the development of rural communities and wellbeing of poor people (Rodríguez et al., 2016). More than 70% of people in rural poverty depend on livestock and agriculture as a means of living (FAO, 2013a). Further, it has been demonstrated how improvements in animal welfare can have positive effects on the quantity and quality of animal products and hence on economic growth of their owners. The concept ‘product quality’ can differ among consumers (Warriss, 2000). Most consumers would require that the meat they eat comes from healthy animals and has no chemical or microbiological contaminants (food safety). However, there is a growing segment of consumers who are interested in the ‘ethical quality’ of the product, which includes animal welfare and humane treatment during the production, transport and slaughter stages. In many cases, quality problems in meat production are the result of poor handling practices that affect animal welfare and the ethical quality of the products. This is particularly important in South America, where there are some of the main meat-producing countries (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay) (Gallo and Huertas, 2016). Considering that sustainable meat production needs to be ‘ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just and humane’ according to Appleby (2004, p. 340), animal welfare must be included in quality assurance schemes for any products of animal origin (Gallo and Tadich, 2017). In many Latin American countries, animals for meat production are exposed to stressful conditions during production and particularly during pre-slaughter operations (Gallo and Huertas, 2016; Gallo et al., 2018). Handling on farm, loading into and unloading from vehicles, transportation,

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

50

Stella Maris Huertas Canén et al.

lairage and stunning at the slaughter plants can all affect animal welfare. Poor handling practices are commonly observed transporting cattle, sheep and pigs, as well as overstocking the trucks (Huertas et al., 2010, 2015; Paranhos da Costa et al., 2014; Gallo and Huertas, 2016; Gallo et al., 2018). Poor welfare causes economic losses by increasing mortality of animals, reducing carcass and meat yields, increasing condemnations of carcasses and edible organs from sick animals, and by affecting the quality of meat in terms of bruising, unacceptable colour and pH, and reduced shelf life (Paranhos da Costa et al., 2012; Gallo, 2016; Huertas et al., 2018; Sánchez-Hidalgo et al., 2019). These same authors showed many examples on how improvements in handling, transport and slaughter of cattle can reduce losses due to carcass condemnations, bruises and high pH (dark cutting). Therefore, by improving animal welfare, economic losses in meat production can be reduced and the incomes of producers increased. This is particularly true for small livestock producers. Moreover, in the market today, there are many livestock products that have a certification for animal welfare and an extra value because animal welfare-friendly products are increasingly preferred by consumers (Schnettler et al., 2008, 2009; Vargas-Bello-Pérez et al., 2017). Animal products such as eggs, milk and meat contribute in a high proportion to the human diet in most parts of the world and are readily available in livestock farming. There is evidence on how an increase in milk consumption can reduce hunger and improve physical and mental development during childhood (Rawlins et al., 2014). Improving animal welfare can increase availability of milk and meat through increasing efficiency of production and reducing losses, making the system more sustainable. For instance, in dairy production a high percentage of cows are culled before the third lactation (Delgado et al., 2018). Most factors that affect the lifespan of dairy cattle are welfare related (De Vries and Marcondes, 2020). Mastitis and lameness are two of the principal diseases affecting animal welfare through the pain and suffering caused to cows in dairy herds and are also among the main causes for early culling of dairy cows (Tadich et al., 2005; Green et al., 2010; Hernández-Gotelli et al., 2015). Green et al. (2010) showed the losses in milk yield due to lameness and the importance of early treatment to reduce the pain and suffering of the cows and also recover milk production. Thus, improving animal welfare increases the availability of livestock products, with better quality and higher revenues, making livestock systems more sustainable. 3.2.3 Animal welfare and social equity Agricultural farming systems offer a labour opportunity for women (Rodríguez et al., 2016). On a global scale women produce more than half of all the food that is grown. The female share of the total population active

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Integrating Animal Welfare into Sustainable Farming Systems

51

in agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean is just above 20%, where the South American countries are responsible for a rising trend (FAO, 2011). More than two-thirds of the 600 million poor people who keep livestock are women (Thornton et  al., 2002). Livestock farming provides specific challenges and opportunities for achieving gender equity associated with farmer’s empowerment, household food security and livelihood security. Women have a central role as food producers and providers (Galiè et al., 2019). In particular, activities related to small livestock production (poultry, sheep, goats), milking and processing of milk, are carried out mainly by women and, to some extent, by children (FAO, 2013b). Women share responsibility with men and children for the care of animals, although they have a more prominent role in keeping poultry and dairy animals (FAO, 2011). The female gender has been associated with higher levels of empathy to animals and therefore is a predictor of some efficiency aspects during livestock production (Graca et al., 2018). Lensink et  al. (2000) found that the higher levels of empathy of women towards calves during milk feeding and related handlings, resulted in more positive behaviours of the calves, which in turn resulted in higher weight gains and lower mortalities during rearing. Magalhaes et al. (2014) found similar results in Brazil. Hence, giving more attention to rural women in training and education will not only improve women’s self-esteem and work towards gender equality, but will also reinforce women’s important role towards an animal-welfare-friendly livestock production, hence improving sustainability.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

52

Stella Maris Huertas Canén et al.

Moreover, according to Hemsworth and Coleman (1998), training livestock keepers will not only improve animal welfare, but also human wellbeing, reinforcing the concept of One Welfare (García Pinillos et  al., 2016) by reducing the stress and the risks of accidents for people. Ceballos et al. (2018) found that untrained employees in Brazil had the poorest quality cattle handling, while trained employees had more positive attitudes towards animals and cattle presented less undesired behaviours. Education in good practices also contributes to having a decent job, salary and respect, and increases employee retention and a long-term skilled workforce in the livestock industry. Incentives for workers handling animals adequately can also increase job satisfaction. All strategies, including education and training in animal welfare, are relevant to animals and can also have an important impact on humans. Increasing human empathy towards animals has been shown to improve the human–animal bond and can also help improve human–human empathy, again reinforcing the One Welfare concept and making livestock production systems more sustainable (Ascione and Weber, 1996). Sustainable livestock production should be approached as a multicriteria issue, optimizing a balanced combination of sustainability indicators in all topics. Best practices and technologies that enhance productivity could help to achieve food security and social equity while contributing to environmental and economic sustainability. However, this should be balanced with potential effects of such practices and technologies on other areas of sustainability, such as decreased animal welfare. In the context of sustainable agricultural systems, it is recognized and understood that there is a link between animal welfare, human wellbeing and the environment, and this triad is present in many of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (2015), although the animal welfare concept is not explicitly included in the goals (Keeling et  al., 2019; Mehrabi et al., 2020; Olmos-Antillón et al., 2021). The SDGs most related to the concepts discussed here are No poverty (1), Zero hunger (2), Good health and wellbeing (3), Quality education (4), Gender equality (5), Decent work and economic growth (8), Reduced inequalities (10), Responsible consumption and production (12), Climate action (13), Life below water (14) and Life on land (15).

3.3 The Provision of Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation In line with the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board (MA) defines ecosystem services as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, including: (i) food and water; (ii) regulation of floods, droughts

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Integrating Animal Welfare into Sustainable Farming Systems

53

and land degradation; (iii) support for soil formation and nutrient cycling; and (iv) cultural services such as spiritual, religious and other non-material benefits (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board, 2003). Achieving global food security in the future is one of the current challenges of humanity; it is estimated that food production should increase by 70% to feed approximately 9 billion people by 2050 (FAO, 2009). Food derived from agriculture, livestock, fisheries and aquaculture are among the most important ecosystem services in terms of food security and also economic resources for human wellbeing (Balvanera and Cotler, 2011). Therefore, the future of food production is the focus of great international debate where the main area of consensus is the need to increase sustainability and productivity of food systems (Garnett et al., 2013). In particular, demand for animal products will grow substantially in future decades (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). This poses several challenges, and an urgent need to work on new paradigms, based on the integration of sustainability criteria, including animal welfare in different types of livestock production, both intensive and extensive. Habitat conversion to agricultural land is a major contributor to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It frequently reduces water quality and is the greatest threat to biodiversity in the 21st century. Latin America is one of the megadiverse continents of the world, alongside Africa, Asia and Australia; however, it is also the region with the highest deforestation rates in the world (CONABIO, 2006). This land-use transformation has detrimental effects on provision of ecosystem services, favouring climate change and the transmission of zoonotic pathogens due to the loss of biodiversity. Mostly, this change is due to extensive cattle ranching, involving regions of unique ecological importance. Moreover, it also causes habitat loss which affects nature’s contribution to people (NCP). It is important to maintain or enhance the beneficial contributions of nature to achieve a good quality of life for all people (Díaz et al., 2018). In line with this, the conceptual framework adopted by IPBES recognizes the role that culture plays in defining links between people and nature and emphasizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding NCP (IPBES, nd). In addition, despite the strategic importance of livestock production, both intensive and extensive systems in several regions of the continent have not been efficient due to animal welfare and health problems, and low economic profitability. Facing some of these challenges, FAO established as a global goal within its Strategic Framework 2000–2015, the generation of sustainable alternatives for structured livestock production with a strong scientific basis (FAO, 2006). These alternatives should be aimed at three key aspects: •

to consider environmental and animal welfare externalities (e.g. potential costs and benefits generated through the implementation of higher standards that improve animal welfare in milk or meat production;

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

54

• •

Stella Maris Huertas Canén et al.

Gajos and Małażewska, 2017) associated with both intensive and extensive production systems; to reverse or reduce the negative effects of conventional intensive systems on areas such as animal welfare, environmental aspects, GHG emissions and water pollution; and to work, in the case of extensive systems, in reorienting grazing livestock towards the provision of ecosystem services (e.g. in terms of support, regulation and the importance of cultural links between people and nature) (Balvanera and Cotler, 2009).

Although, efforts are being made to satisfy the food needs of humans, improve environmental quality, use non-renewable resources more efficiently, maintain the economic viability of companies, and improve the quality of life of farmers and society as a whole, there is still a long way to go in this regard. It is crucial to work on adaptation to climate change for sustainable agriculture and food security, considering ecosystem services and the impact on the environment, as a long-term integration between plant and animal production. Case Study 5: Balance between the provision of ecosystem services, animal welfare and cattle production in the tropics – assessing sustainability of food and agricultural systems Livestock production is one of the main causes of land-use change and loss of biodiversity in the tropics. SPS are being used as an alternative for more sustainable ways of production, hence, their sustainability performance compared to conventional systems needs to be evaluated. The Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture (SAFA) systems framework published by FAO (2014) is a tool to assess sustainability performance in agricultural systems that had not been used in cattle production. A study used this framework to compare three types of grazing systems in the state of Yucatan, Mexico: • native silvopastoral (NS) system: pastures with unmanaged native shrubs and trees; • intensive silvopastoral (IS) system: integration of fodder shrubs at high densities (> 10,000 plants/ha), productive pastures and trees; and • monoculture system (MS): conventional grazing system based on monoculture of grass. Animal welfare was integrated and assessed using the Welfare Quality protocol outlined in the SAFA systems framework (FAO, 2014). Species diversity and richness measurements were also obtained, as well as soil variables. Questionnaires were designed using the SAFA Guidelines Version 3.0 (FAO, 2014) and applied to nine farms in three municipalities. The main results show that NS and IS systems had positive ratings for the criteria participation, land, biodiversity and cultural diversity, and had a low score for decent livelihood, due to poor training and underpay. Both these types of SPS had higher scores of animal welfare criteria Continued

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Integrating Animal Welfare into Sustainable Farming Systems

55

Case Study 5. Continued. compared with the MS. This study is a novel approach to the SAFA protocol, as it validates its effciency in the conditions present in the Mexican tropics and compares the sustainability performance of SPS, which have never been evaluated using this tool. Transdisciplinary research is being carried out to integrate measurements on sustainability criteria in different livestock production systems to design more effcient policies and incentives for producers (Pérez-Lombardini et al., 2021).

3.4

Conclusion

Animal welfare is a key element of sustainable agricultural systems. Respecting and promoting it will contribute to animal health, human wellbeing, socio-economic development and environmental sustainability, meeting the One Welfare concept. Farmers must have support and training, to ensure that their animals are well kept and healthy, while taking care of the environment. As part of the production process it is important that farmers are able to receive appropriate economic revenue for their products, to guarantee their livelihoods, a good quality of life for people and their communities. In sustainable livestock production systems, the integration between animal welfare, human wellbeing and the environment is fundamental to achieve food security and social equity. The adoption of SPS is an example of a strategy useful for improving animal welfare and contributing to climate change mitigation. Additionally, SPS can improve the producers’ income and allow them to maintain their traditional cattle farming lifestyle, in accordance to the One Welfare concept.

References Alexandratos, N. and Bruinsma, J. (2012) World Agriculture Towards 2030–2050: the 2012 Revision. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Améndola, L., Solorio, F.J., González-Rebeles, C. and Galindo, F. (2013) Behavioural indicators of cattle welfare in silvopastoral systems in the tropics of México. In: Proceedings of 47th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 2–6 June 2013, Florianópolis, Brazil. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, p. 150. Améndola, L., Solorio, F.J., Ku-Vera, J.C., Améndola-Massioti, R.D., Zarza, H., et al. (2019) A pilot study on the foraging behaviour of heifers in intensive silvopastoral and monoculture systems in the tropics. Animal 13(3), 606–616. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1751731118001532 Appleby, M.C. (2004) Alternatives to conventional livestock production methods. In: Benson, G.J. and Rollin, B.E. (eds) Production, Animal Pain and Well-being: Theory and Practice. Blackwell, Ames, Iowa, pp. 339–350.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

56

Stella Maris Huertas Canén et al.

Ascione, F.R. and Weber, C.V. (1996) Children’s attitudes about the humane treatment of animals and empathy: one-year follow up of a school-based intervention. Anthrozoös 9, 188–195. DOI: 10.2752/089279396787001455. Balvanera, P. and Cotler, H. (2009) Estado y tendencias de los servicios ecosistémicos. In: Capital Natural de México, Vol.II: Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), Mexico, pp.185–245. Balvanera, P. and Cotler, H. (2011) Los servicios ecosistémicos. CONABIO. Biodiversitas 94, 7–11. Barton, J.R. (2016) Sustainable development? Salmon aquaculture and late modernity in the archipielago of Chiloé, Chile. Island Studies Journal 11(2), 651–672. Broom, D.M. (2008) The welfare of livestock during road transport. In: Appleby, V., Cussen, I., Garcés, I., Lambert, J. and Turner, M.C. (eds) Long Distance Transport and Welfare of Farm Animals. CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 157–181. Broom, D.M. (2010) Animal welfare: an aspect of care, sustainability, and food quality required by the public. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 37, 83– 88. DOI: 10.3138/jvme.37.1.83. Broom, D.M. (2017) Components of sustainable animal production and the use of silvopastoral systems. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 46(8), 683–688. https:// doi.org/10.1590/S1806-92902017000800009 Broom, D.M., Galindo, F.A. and Murgueitio, E. (2013) Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280: 20132025. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2025 Buschmann, A.H., López, D.A. and Medina, A. (1996) A review of the environmental effects and alternative production strategies of marine aquaculture in Chile. Aquaculture Engineering 15(6), 397–421. Buschmann, A.H., Cabello, F., Young, K., Varela, D.A. and Henríquez, L. (2009) Salmon aquaculture and coastal ecosystem health in Chile: analysis of regulations, environmental impacts and bioremediation systems. Ocean and Coastal Management 52(5), 243–249. Bussoni, A., Alvarez, J., Cubbage, F., Ferreira, G. and Picasso, V. (2017) Diverse strategies for integration of forestry and livestock production. Agroforestry Systems 93, 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0092-7 Cabello, F.C. (2006) Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: a growing problem for human and animal health and for the environment. Environmental Microbiology 8, 1137–1144. Capper, J.L. (2012) Is the grass always greener? Environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. Animals 2(2), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2020127 Ceballos, M.C., Sant’Anna, A.C., Boivin, X., de Oliveira Costa, F., Carvalhal, M. and Paranhos da Costa, M. (2018) Impact of good practices of handling training on beef cattle welfare and stockpeople attitudes and behaviors. Livestock Science 216, 24–31. Chará, J., Reyes, E., Peri, P., Otte, J., Arce, E. and Schneider, F. (2019) Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG): Evidence from Latin America. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), CIPAV and Agri Benchmark, Cali, Colombia, 60 pp. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) (2006) Capital Natural y Bienestar Social. CONABIO, México, 71 pp.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Integrating Animal Welfare into Sustainable Farming Systems

57

Cubbage, F., Balmelli, G., Bussoni, A., Noellemeyer, E., Pachas, A.N., et al. (2012) Comparing silvopastoral systems and prospects in eight regions of the world. Agroforestry Systems 86, 303–314. DOI: 10.1007/ s10457-012-9482-z. Delgado, H.A., Cue, R.I., Haine, D., Sewalem, A., Lacroix, R., et al. (2018) Profitability measures as decision-making tools for Québec dairy herds. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 98, 18–31. DOI: 10.1139/cjas-2016-0202. De Vries, A. and Marcondes, M.I. (2020) Review: Overview of factors affecting productive lifespan of dairy cows. Animal 14(S1), s155–s164. Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., et  al. (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 19(359), 270–272. DOI: 10.1126/science.aap8826. European Commission (2020) New Eurobarometer Survey: Protecting the environment and climate is important for over 90% of European citizens. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_331 (accessed 24 May 2023). Fedrigo, J.K., Benítez, V., Santa Cruz, R., Posse, J., Santiago, R., et  al. (2018) Opportunities and challenges for the silvopastoral systems in Uruguay. Veterinaria (Montevideo) 54/209(4), 20–30. DOI: 10.29155/VET.54.209.4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options. Available at: http://www.fao. org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm (accessed 5 May 2023). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2007) What is meant by the term ‘sustainability’? Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ai388e/ AI388E05.htm (accessed 5 May 2023). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2009) Global agriculture towards 2050. Available at: https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf (accessed 30 May 2023). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2011) The role of women in agriculture. ESA Working paper No. 11-02. Available at: http://www. fao.org/3/am307e/am307e00.pdf (accessed 5 May 2023). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2013a) Pobreza rural y políticas públicas en América Latina y el Caribe. Tomo II. FAO, Santiago, 242 pp. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/i3070s/i3070s.pdf (accessed 5 May 2023). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2013b) Understanding and Integrating Gender Issues into Livestock Projects and Programmes. A Checklist for Practitioners. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2014) SAFA (Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems) Guidelines, Version 3.0. FAO, Rome. Gajos, E. and Małażewska, S. (2017) Externalities in Livestock Production on the Example of Animal Welfare. Open Access Agricultural & Applied Economics Digital Library. Available at: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/257446/ files/18-3-Gajos.pdf (accessed 30 May 2023). Galiè, A., Teufel, N., Korir, L., Baltenweck, I., Webb Girard, A., et al. (2019) The women’s empowerment in livestock index. Social Indicators Research 142, 799–825. Gallo, C. (2016) Bienestar animal y calidad de la carne en Latinoamérica. In: MotaRojas, D.A., Velarde, C., Huertas, S.M. and Cajiao, M.N. (eds) Bienestar Animal, una Visión Global en Iberoamérica, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 185–190.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

58

Stella Maris Huertas Canén et al.

Gallo, C.B. and Huertas, S.M. (2016) Main animal welfare problems in ruminant livestock during preslaughter operations: a Southamerican view. Animal 10(2), 342–348. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731115001597. Gallo, C. and Tadich, T. (2017) Insertando el bienestar animal dentro de un sistema de aseguramiento de calidad de los alimentos de origen animal. In: Cornejo, J., Lapierre, L. and Ramírez, G. (eds) Los Alimentos en un Mundo Globalizado: Peligros Emergentes y Reemergentes que Afectan la Inocuidad. Editorial Académica Española (EAE), London, pp. 29–45. Gallo, C., Taruman, J. and Larrondo, C. (2018) Main factors affecting animal welfare and meat quality in lambs for slaughter in Chile. Animals 8: 165. DOI: 10.3390/ ani8100165. García Pinillos, R., Appleby, M.C., Manteca, X., Scott-Park, F., Smith, C. and Velarde, A. (2016) One Welfare – a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Veterinary Record 179, 412–413. DOI: 10.1136/vr.i5470. Garnett, T., Appleby, M.C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I.J., Benton, T.G., et  al. (2013) Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341(6141), 33–34. DOI: 10.1126/science.1234485. Gavinelli, A., Ferrara, M. and Simonin, D. (2008) Formulating policies for the welfare of animals during long distance transportation. Veterinaria Italiana 44, 71–86. Graca, J., Calhieros, M., Oliviera, A. and Milfont, T.L. (2018) Why are women less likely to support animal exploitation than men? The mediating roles of social dominance orientation and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences 129, 66–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.007. Green, L.E., Borkert, J., Monti, G. and Tadich N. (2010) Associations between lesion-specific lameness and the milk yield of 1,635 dairy cows from seven herds in the Xth region of Chile and implications for management of lame dairy cows worldwide. Animal Welfare 19, 419–427. Hemsworth, P.H. and Coleman, G.J. (1998) Human–Livestock Interactions: the Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 152 pp. Hernandez-Gotelli, C., Tadich, N. and Sepúlveda, P. (2015) Causas de eliminación de vacas lecheras en tres rebaños de la Región de los Ríos, Chile. In: Proceedings of the XXIV Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Producción Animal y XL Congreso de la Sociedad Chilena de Producción Animal, Puerto Varas, Chile, 9–13 November. SOCHIPA, Puerto Varas, Chile, p. 1021. Huertas, S.M., Gil, A., Piaggio, J.M. and van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M. (2010) Transportation of beef cattle to slaughterhouses and how this relates to animal welfare and carcase bruising in an extensive production system. Animal Welfare 19, 281–285. Huertas, S.M., van Eerdenburg, F., Gil, A. and Piaggio, J. (2015) Prevalence of carcass bruises as an indicator of welfare in beef cattle and the relation to the economic impact. Veterinary Medicine and Science 1, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.2 Huertas, S.M., Kempener, R.E.A.M. and van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M. (2018) Relationship between methods of loading and unloading, carcass bruising and animal welfare in the transportation of extensively reared beef cattle. Animals 8: 119. DOI: 10.3390/ani8070119. Huertas, S.M., Bobadilla, P.E., Alcántara, I., Akkermans, E. and van Eerdenburg F.J.C.M. (2021) Benefits of silvopastoral systems for keeping beef cattle. Animals 11(4): 992. DOI: 10.3390/ani11040992.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Integrating Animal Welfare into Sustainable Farming Systems

59

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (nd) Conceptual framework: rationale for a conceptual framework for the Platform. Available at: https://ipbes.net/conceptual-framework (accessed 2 May 2023). International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) (2002) IFOAM Norms. II. IFOAM Basic standards for organic production and processing. IFOAM, Tholey-Theley, Germany. Available at: http://www.ifoam.org/standard/ norms/ibs.pdf (accessed 2 May 2023). Keeling, L., Tunón, H., Olmos Antillón, G., Berg, C., Jones, M., et al. (2019) Animal welfare and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6: 336. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00336. Lensink, B.J., Boissy, A. and Veissier, I. (2000) The relationship between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49, 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2000122 Lund, V. (2006) Natural living – a precondition for animal welfare in organic farming. Livestock Science 100, 71–83. Magalhaes, L., Pontes da Silva, L., Martin Guimaraes, M.F. and Paranhos da Costa, M. (2014) Positive effects of the good practices of handling adoption on the welfare of dairy cattle. Poster presented at the 48th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology: Moving On, 29 July–2 August 2014, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. Mancera, K.F., Zarza, H., López de Buen, L., Carasco García, A.A., Montiel Palacios, F. and Galindo, F. (2018) Integrating links between tree coverage and cattle welfare in silvopastoral systems evaluation. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 38: 19. McGlone, J.J. (2001) Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: towards sustainable systems. Livestock Production Science 72, 75–81. Mehrabi, Z., Gill, M., van Wijk, M., Herrero, M. and Ramankutty, N. (2020) Livestock policy for sustainable development. Nature Food 1, 160–165. Mellor, D.J., Beausoleil, N., Littlewood, K.E., McLean, A., McGreevy, P.D., et  al. (2020) The 2020 five domains model: including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals 10: 1870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ani10101870 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board (MA) (2003) Global Assessment Reports. Available at: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Global.html (accessed 2 May 2023). Montagnini, F., Ibrahim, I. and Murgueitio, E. (2013) Silvopastoral systems and climate change mitigation in Latin America. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 316(2), 3–16. Ocampo, A., Cardozo, A., Tarazona, A., Ceballos, M. and Murgueitio, E. (2011) La investigación participativa en bienestar y comportamiento animal en el trópico de América: oportunidades para nuevo conocimiento aplicado. Revista Colombiana Ciencias Pecuarias 24, 332–346. Olmos-Antillón, G., Tunón, H., de Oliveira, D., Jones, M., Wallenbeck, A., et  al. (2021) Animal welfare and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals—broadening students’ perspectives. Sustainability 13: 3328. https://doi. org/10.3390/su13063328 Paranhos da Costa, M., Huertas, S., Gallo, C. and Dalla Costa, O. (2012) Strategies to promote farm animal welfare in Latin America and their effects on carcass and meat quality traits. Meat Science 92(3), 221–226.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

60

Stella Maris Huertas Canén et al.

Paranhos da Costa, M., Huertas, S., Strappini, A. and Gallo, C. (2014) Handling and transport of cattle and pigs in South America. In: Grandin, T. (ed.) Transport and Handling of Livestock, 4th edn. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 174–192. Pérez-Lombardini, F., Mancera, K.F., Suzán, G., Campo, J., Solorio, J. and Galindo, F. (2021) Assessing sustainability in cattle silvopastoral systems in the Mexican tropics using the SAFA Framework. Animals 1: 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ani11010109 Peri, P.L., Dube, F. and Varella, A.C. (2016) Silvopastoral systems in the subtropical and temperature zones of South America: an overview. In: Peri, P., Dube, F. and Varella, A. (eds) Silvopastoral Systems in Southern South America. Advances in Agroforestry 11. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 1–9. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-24109-8_1 Rawlins, R., Pimkina, S., Barrett, C.B., Pedersen, S. and Wydick, B. (2014) Got milk? The impact of Heifer International’s livestock donation programs in Rwanda on nutritional outcomes. Food Policy 44, 202–213. DOI: 10.1016/j. foodpol.2013.12.003. Reid, R. (2009) Trees in grazing systems. In: Nuberg, I., George, B. and Reid, R. (eds) Agroforestry for Natural Resource Management. CSIRO, Canberra, pp. 219–235. Rodríguez, D.I., Anríquez, G. and Riveros, J.L. (2016) Food security and livestock: the case of Latin America and the Caribbean. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria 43, 5–15. Rosengurtt, B. (1979) Tablas de Comportamiento de las Especies de Plantas de Campos Naturales en el Uruguay. Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de la República, Uruguay, 86 pp. Rurales EL PAIS (2021) La carne bovina tendrá el primer sello ‘carbono neutro del Uruguay’. Available at: https://rurales.elpais.com.uy/carnes/la-carne-bovinatendra-el-primer-sello-carbono-neutro-del-uruguay (accessed 2 May 2023). Salami, S.A., Moran, C.A., Warren, H.E. and Taylor-Pickard, J. (2021) Meta-analysis and sustainability of feeding slow-release urea in dairy production. PLoS ONE 16(2): e0246922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246922 Sánchez-Hidalgo, M., Rosenfeld, C. and Gallo, C. (2019) Associations between pre-slaughter and post-slaughter indicators of animal welfare in cull cows. Animals 9: 642. DOI: 10.3390/ani9090642. Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Silva, R., Vallejos, L. and Sepúlveda, N. (2008) Consumer perception of animal welfare and livestock production in the Araucania Region, Chile. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 68(1), 80–93. Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Silva, R., Vallejos, L. and Sepúlveda, N. (2009) Consumer willingness to pay for beef meat in a developing country: the effect of information regarding country of origin, price and animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Quality and Preference 20(2), 156–165. Tadich, N., Hettich, E. and van Schaik, G. (2005) Prevalencia de cojeras en vacas de 50 rebaños lecheros del sur de Chile. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria 37, 29–36. Thornton, P.K., Kruska, R.L., Henninger, N., Kristjanson, P.M., Reid, R.S., et al. (2002) Mapping poverty and livestock in the developing world. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, 124 pp. United Nations (2015) Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Integrating Animal Welfare into Sustainable Farming Systems

61

van Wagenberg, C.P.A., de Haas, Y., Hogeveen, H., van Krimpen, M.M., Meuwissen, M.P.M., et  al. (2017) Animal Board Invited Review: Comparing conventional and organic livestock production systems on different aspects of sustainability. Animal 11(1), 1839–1851. DOI: 10.1017/S175173111700115X. Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E., Miranda-de la Lama, G., Lemos Teixeira, D., EnríquezHidalgo, D., Tadich, T. and Lensink J. (2017) Farm animal welfare influences on markets and consumer attitudes in Latin America: the cases of Mexico, Chile and Brazil. Journal of Agricultural Environment and Ethics 30(1). DOI: 10.1007/ s10806-017-9695-2. Warriss, P.D. (2000) Meat Science: an Introductory Text. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 131–155. World Organisation for Animal Health (2019) Terrestrial Animal Health Code. World Organisation for Animal Health, Paris.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

4

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas,1 Rebeca Zamora-Sanabria2 and Warren Hidalgo-Jara3

Área de Salud Pública e Inocuidad Alimentaria, Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Universidad Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica; 2Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica; 3Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal, Heredia, Costa Rica

1

4.1

Introduction

Animal welfare and food safety have become gradually important and are perceived by consumers as synonyms of quality. Both are used for driving marketing and sales strategies. Animal welfare and health are critical for intensifying productivity and for reducing food safety risks, maintaining public health and consumer trust. Welfare strategies also reduce the use of antimicrobials in farm animals and may have contributed to human health. Stress is an essential part of animal welfare, however, the interaction between stress, animal health and food safety is poorly known. Previous authors have extensively differentiated stress according to three different stages including alarm, resilience (adaptation) and exhaustion (Selye, 1975). Under stressful conditions, the animal will physiologically adapt to external or internal determinants. This is also known as the initial stress phase or eustress, an adaptive optimal stress level (Villalba and Manteca, 2019). In chronic and persistent conditions, pathologic alterations can be observed, triggering hormonal and metabolic changes that are difficult to overcome. This is a late stress phase, also known as distress. This chapter comprises a review that will link stress with carriage and shedding of pathogens in farm animals, the risk factors this brings into the animal-based products food chain, from farm to slaughter, and the welfare factors applied to guarantee and reduce the risk to animals and consumers. Lastly, the chapter describes alternative livestock systems and genetics associated with food safety.

62

DOI: 10.1079/9781789249507.0004

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

4.2

63

Stress and Animal Welfare

The epidemiology of microbial pathogens in food production animals is complex, and several determinants may have an important role in the exacerbation of pathogen shedding, including health status, age (Nielsen et al., 2004), stress (Verbrugghe et al., 2016), or nutritional imbalance (Oikawa et  al., 1997). According to Fossler et  al. (2005), sick cows, periparturient cows and cull cows are more likely to shed Salmonella. Furthermore, it has been observed that under stressful conditions the normal physiological and immunological animal functions become impaired, and behaviour becomes disrupted, thus, affecting the overall animal performance, their health and subsequently their derivate food products intended for human consumption (Nienaber and Hahn, 2007). Even though the causes of stress vary, the physiological animal response is generally similar. When an animal is under stress, this triggers an elevated secretion of neuroendocrine hormones and glucocorticoids (Rea et al., 2016) which can produce dysbiosis in the intestinal flora and might benefit the colonization of the gut by pathogenic bacteria (Verbrugghe et al., 2016). Some studies in cattle have indicated that the effect of neuroendocrine hormones and other immune-modulating molecules are associated with stress responses that influence the growth of some microorganisms such as Escherichia coli, including the serotype O157:H7 and the expression of some toxins, and adhesion, virulence and colonization associated molecules (Bansal et al., 2007; Freestone et al., 2007). In addition, livestock production systems can contribute to exposing animals to stressors. For instance, overstocking at the feed trough (feed bunk), or a decrease in the linear feeding space per cow, is a common practice during the prepartum period (Grant and Albright, 2001; USDA, 2010). This has been associated with: (i) a decreased antibody response (Turner et  al., 2000); (ii) an increase in faecal cortisol metabolites (Huzzey et  al., 2012); (iii) increased aggressive and competitive behaviour (Huzzey et al., 2006; Telezhenko et al., 2012); (iv) decreased feed intake, ruminating time and milk production (Proudfoot et al., 2009; Krawczel et  al., 2012); (v) ruminal acidosis (Krause and Oetzel, 2005); and (vi) lameness and respiratory diseases (Cook, 2002). Additionally, feed and water deprivation related to transportation to slaughter facilities has shown to affect the ruminal physiology and the ability to control enteropathogenic microorganisms (Hogan et  al., 2007). Therefore, within this intensive production system, cattle may be exposed to various stressors and determinants that may result in non-desired effects on the animal’s health and productivity alongside shedding of foodborne pathogens which can have an impact on public health. Likewise, several factors at pig and poultry farms have been described as stressful triggers including microclimate-related factors (Ringseis et al., 2022), management and nutritional practices; these factors are similarly associated with microbial pathogen exacerbation and environmental contamination.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

64

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

4.3 Infuence of Host Homeostasis Disturbance (Stress) on the Intestinal Microbiota Animal handling, transportation, feeding practices, parturition and environmental conditions can represent stressors in food-producing animals, which can generate disruptions of the intestinal microbiota. The definition of stress is complex, and factors causing stress are variable, but the physiological responses are generally similar across different animal species. Stress could impede nutrient uptake (Aruwa et al., 2021) and triggers an elevated secretion of neuroendocrine hormones, such as catecholamines (particularly epinephrine and norepinephrine) and glucocorticoids (particularly cortisol) (Rea et al., 2016), which can produce dysbiosis in the intestinal flora and might benefit the colonization of pathogenic bacteria. The neuroendocrine hormones released by stress strongly influence the physiology and structure of the host inflammatory and phagocytic cells (Castro et  al., 2011), including macrophages and monocytes, which can affect the defence against pathogens. Additionally, host stress increases the expression of virulent factors in enteropathogens (Zaborina et al., 2011). Several studies, mostly in vitro, have assessed the effect of stressors on the intestinal microbiome. For instance, noradrenaline has been reported as a trigger for toxin generation such as Shiga-like toxins in E. coli O157:H7 in a bovine model of infection (Vlisidou et al., 2004). In stressed murines, studies showed how high levels of cortisol influence Salmonella proliferation inside macrophages, resulting in increased intestinal infection loads (Verbrugghe et  al., 2016).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

65

Recrudescence of Campylobacter and Salmonella typhimurium infections have been observed in carrier pigs (asymptomatic with intermittent shedding) exposed to stress caused by transportation to the slaughterhouse (Rasschaert et al., 2020; Verbrugghe et al., 2011). Similarly, transportationderived stress in pigs has been positively correlated with Salmonella shedding which was attenuated by supplementation with quaternary alkaloids (Artuso-Ponte et al., 2015). Broilers exposed to acute stress as result of high environmental temperatures have shown changes in the intestinal bacterial communities and epithelial structures, leading to an enhanced attachment of Salmonella enteritidis (Burkholder et  al., 2008). Others have reported alterations of microbial composition caused by sex, physiological stages (Upadhaya and Kim, 2022), social disruptions (Bailey et al., 2011) in experimental animals, and maternal separation in monkeys has shown reduction of intestinal Lactobacillus (Bailey et al., 2004). In addition to enhancing the multiplication of pathogenic microorganisms in the intestinal environment, stress also increases the peristaltic movement in affected hosts (Smulders and Algers, 2009). Thus, a higher excretion of these pathogenic microorganisms in faeces can be observed in stressed animals, increasing the environmental and animal-to-animal contamination, with possible repercussions for food safety and public health, ultimately impacting human health and wellbeing. According to a study performed in Southern USA, the concentration of Salmonella in feedlot-origin cattle at slaughter was 0.75 log10/g in faeces and about 1.82 log10/100 cm2 in hides (Kunze et  al., 2008). Similarly, others reported low Salmonella

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

66

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

faecal concentrations in beef cattle at slaughter ranging from < 10 to 3 × 103 colony forming units (CFU)/g (Fegan et al., 2004), which is lower than the observed quantities in other animal species. For instance, faecal concentrations assessed in naturally infected pigs ranged from 1.06 × 103 to 1.73 × 106 CFU/g faeces (Pires et  al., 2013) and 1.48–4.04 log10/g (Tadee et  al., 2014). Information about faecal concentrations of Salmonella in dairy cattle is scarce, and no research has evaluated the impact of stress on the faecal concentrations of this ubiquitous microorganism in susceptible animals. Quantification of bacterial load could be used to identify targets for the development of control strategies to decrease contamination in farms, prevent the transmission to animal-derived products and as an indicator of animals that have undergone stressful situations.

4.4 Animal Welfare and Food Safety The welfare of food-producing animals, as well as their surrounding environment, has a direct impact on their health status, and the quality and safety of the food produced. The correct handling of animals destined for human consumption must be fulfilled throughout the production chain in order to guarantee their welfare, comply with the corresponding regulations and allow better results in the products obtained from them. Training of the different people who participate in the handling of animals is essential to achieve compliance with the principles of animal welfare and have the best impact regarding the care of the animals and the productive benefits. Multiple factors can generate stress in animals from primary production to slaughter. Some factors may be directly associated with aggressive handling by handlers or associated with deficiencies during transportation. The transport of animals constitutes the most stressful stage of the production chain because it involves a series of handling and confinement situations which may cause hunger, thirst, overcrowding and/or an increase or decrease in environmental and body temperature; where handling is not undertaken correctly this may also lead to blows, injuries, pain and fear (Velarde and Raj, 2016). These situations have consequences that affect the productivity, quality and profitability of products. The most serious consequence of animal welfare failures is undoubtedly represented by the death of the animals, but also economic, quality and safety losses are caused by bruises, trauma, abscesses, fractures and any other harm that alters the normal state of the animal. In Costa Rica, in 2020, the main cause of confiscation of all birds and pigs slaughtered in the country was their death during transport or in pens (Sandí and Hutter, 2021). Food production animals can serve as reservoirs of pathogenic microorganisms such as E. coli, Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., among others, that

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

67

can be transmitted to food products and cause foodborne illnesses (Voogd, 2009). The transmission of these pathogens can occur from the first stages of the production chain if the animals are not kept in adequate conditions and strict biosecurity protocols are not followed. The transport vehicles or the containers in which the animals are placed can be an important source of contamination, as the stocking density of the load and the proximity of the animals can generate the spread of pathogens by direct contact or through urine and faeces. If the vehicles, containers, chutes and pens have not been cleaned properly between uses, this can result in direct or indirect pathogen cross-contamination and dissemination, and introduction of these contaminants on to contact surfaces and meat obtained from the animals (Smith et al., 2004). In aquaculture, as with other livestock species, the welfare of the aquatic animals (e.g. fish) and the safety of the food obtained from them will depend on: (i) the aquatic environment in which they are found; (ii) the quality of feed during their lifetime; and (iii) the stress during their capture and transport, as well as the handling received prior to and during the slaughter stages (EFSA, 2009). Salmonella, Shigella, pathogenic E. coli and Yersinia are possible pathogens present in the aquatic environment where fish live (EFSA, 2009). Vibrio, Aeromonas, Plesiomonas and non-proteolytic Clostridium botulinum are pathogens that can enter the production chain at the time of handling and slaughter of fish (EFSA, 2009).

4.5

Slaughter-chain Hazards

Once the animals arrive at the abattoir, failures during loading, unloading, handling and slaughter can result in carcass bruising. The origin of these problems can stem from failures within the infrastructure of animal reception, lack of staff training, incorrect use of equipment or rough handling, among others. During these stages, animals can be killed by suffocation, injury or exhaustion. Bruises and fractures may also occur that will alter the quality and safety of the meat (Strappini et al., 2012; Huertas et al., 2015, 2018; Gallo and Huertas, 2016). Unloading and waiting time at lairage pens or containers, in some species, is essential because stressful situations can occur, such as inclement weather (i.e. an increase of the environmental temperature and therefore of body temperature), which can lead to the death of animals or have negative consequences on their bodies and, as a result, on the quality and safety of meat (Faucitano et al., 1998). Recommended lairage waiting times depend on the animal species and previous conditions on farm and during transport (Velarde and Raj, 2016). Within the processing plant, animals have to face physical and psychological stress (Smith et al., 2004) due to mixing with other animals, noise

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

68

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

disturbances, contact with human beings and, in some species, such as chickens, absence of water and food (Velarde and Raj, 2016), which directly affect the integrity of the animals and the quality of the meat. It is essential to establish procedures that guarantee good practices during the stunning and slaughter of animals. These procedures must be performed by personnel trained to properly handle and stun animals. It is important that the procedures are documented, with a clear written protocol, as this can assist staff training and understanding of the operation as well as monitoring and verification. Examples where documented procedures are necessary include the correct handling of animals, the use of an adequate stunning equipment and methods according to each species, and the evaluation of indicators of an effective stunning. All of these processes, together with a correct and painless bleeding of the animals, are essential to avoid negatively impacting animal welfare and the quality and safety of meat (Strappini et al., 2010; Velarde and Raj, 2016). As has been pointed out so far, poor animal welfare in the pre-slaughter stages can lead to death of the animals and/or carcass damage resulting in severe bruises due to trauma or abscesses that reduce the quality of the meat and cause important economic losses (Huertas et al., 2018). Glycogen is a polysaccharide of glucose that serves as a form of energy storage. It provides the energy required for muscle activity. Once the death of the animal occurs, the glycogen is converted to lactic acid. The formation of lactic acid in the muscle is necessary to guarantee the tenderness, flavour, quality and colour of the meat. Stress will reduce muscle glycogen reserves and minimize lactic acid formation after death (Velarde and Raj, 2016). Under normal conditions, the muscle pH is around 7 and, once the animal dies, this pH slowly decreases to more acidic values close to 5.5 (Voogd, 2009). Depending on the type of stress prior to slaughter there will be consequences on the carcass. Prolonged stress will decrease energy reserves in the muscle and depletion of lactic acid will alter the final muscle pH (EFSA, 2009). In the case of acute stress, the pH will decrease suddenly, due to the increased production of lactic acid (EFSA, 2009). Stress can cause exhaustion, leading to an absence of glycogen; this results in an insufficient formation of lactic acid to lower the pH of the meat and causes dark, firm and dry (DFD) meat (Broom and Johnson, 2019). DFD meat can facilitate bacterial growth of microbial organisms (Voogd, 2009) and reduce the shelf life of meat (Velarde and Raj, 2016). On the other hand, acute animal stress can also result in pale, soft and exudative (PSE) pork or poultry. This is one of the most common issues of animal stress and occurs just prior to harvest (Voogd, 2009; Grandin, 2020). In pigs there is also a genetic influence on the presence of PSE by Halothane (N) and Rendement Napole (RN) genes. This condition is presented by an excessive production of lactic acid and a decrease in pH (Broom and

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

69

Johnson, 2019). This rapid decrease in pH generates a decrease in the ability of the meat to retain water, taking on a pale colour. In fish, after death, as in other species, glycolysis and the formation of lactic acid occurs. The method of stunning and slaughtering fish can accelerate or slow growth of microflora (including pathogens) during storage because they can have an indirect effect due to post-mortem changes in substances or in properties and parameters of muscle (EFSA, 2009). Poor animal welfare can lead to economic losses as a result of the carcass parts that must be removed due to the presence of injuries, fractures, bruises or abscesses, which sometimes can lead to total rejection of the carcass. Internal bruising can reduce the shelf life of meat due to the higher pH of the blood (Voogd, 2009).

4.6

Housing Systems

Increasingly, consumers are concerned about how their food is produced, where it comes from and how safe it is. Consequently, many intensive and indoor conventional production systems have been changed across the world to give animals different, alternative and better livestock conditions to improve their welfare and safety. Outdoor access for pigs, laying hens and broiler chickens; and extensive grazing and silvopastoral systems (SPS) in cattle (see Chapter 3, this volume) have been increased in some countries (Delsart et al., 2020). Alternative farming systems in terms of housing such as free range, organic, SPS, extensive grazing, and barns with outdoor access have been adopted especially in the European Union where the implementation of these systems in pigs and poultry is mandatory (Simonin and Gavinelli, 2019; Holt, 2021). Free-range systems allow animals some access to the outdoors with grass and shrubs (Campbell et  al., 2020). Organic farming system have a focus on avoiding the use of synthetic chemicals, including pesticides, fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics; these systems include access to the outdoors (Kijlstra and Eijck, 2006). SPS are multifunctional systems that combine herbage, bushes and tree layers with grazing animals in a single site (Sales-Baptista and Ferraz-de-Oliveira, 2021). Extensive grazing is an animal farming system characterized by a small number of animals per surface allowing free grazing and continuing access to the outdoors (Sollenberger et al., 2020). Barns without cages and outdoor access give animals such as pigs and hens the opportunity to be outside for a period (Delsart et al., 2020). Organic, free-range and outdoor barns systems allow outdoor access and produce beneficial effects on the environment and promote natural behaviour and more space per animal. Consumers understand that products from these alternative systems are healthier, natural and have better nutritional qualities (van Overmeire et al., 2006; Bray and Ankeny, 2017). This is documented by studies showing, as an example, how meat from

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

70

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

grass-fed animals in extensive systems has a lower content of intramuscular lipids, cholesterol and saturated fatty acids (Gil and Huertas, 2001, 2003; del Campo et al., 2008; Daley et al., 2010). In addition, dairy products from grazing ruminants have a higher content of essential fatty acids, vitamins and polyphenols (Cabiddu et al., 2019). Although the grass flavour in animal products can be more intense, many consumers prefer it for its beneficial effects on health (Webb and Erasmus, 2013). Extensive systems for farm animals are very important in many parts of the world. Pastoralism occurs on 25% of the world’s land surface and supports around 200 million subsistence pastoral families (Nori et al., 2005). In different regions across the world, extensive grazing management in cattle is becoming more implemented because it offers benefits in welfare, environmental and social aspects (Sales-Baptista and Ferraz-de-Oliveira, 2021). While cattle indoor-housing systems can restrict natural behaviours and reduce health such as incidences of lameness (Charlton and Rutter, 2017), pasture systems allow the expression of grazing and oestrus behaviours and, within the right climatic conditions, can facilitate lying, standing and walking; alternative outdoor areas appear to be less attractive for cows than pasture (Gregorini et al., 2020). Pig production around the world takes place predominantly within intensive indoor confinement systems. Production systems with outdoor access give pigs the opportunity to act naturally by building nests, rooting around, wallowing in mud and foraging (Park et  al., 2017). Living outdoors can also reduce the exposure of noise; further, outdoor-reared pigs are less susceptible to airborne contaminants such as ammonia compared with indoor-reared pigs (Temple et al., 2012). Outdoor pigs were also found to have fewer body injuries (Sutherland et al., 2013). In poultry, enrichment and outdoor access during rearing may improve pullet development and subsequent welfare as adult hens. Provision of an outdoor area provides broilers and layer hens with: (i) higher and more diverse resources; (ii) increased space; (iii) a higher number and diversity of stimuli; (iv) opportunities to display natural behaviours; and (v) possibility to change between different environments (Knierim, 2006). In the outdoor environment, chickens and hens have greater opportunities to exercise and to display natural behaviours which contribute to improved welfare. As an example, Bari et  al. (2020) found better feather coverage and fewer comb wounds in hens with outdoor access compared with indoor hens. Intensive and extensive outdoor systems could present a risk of infection, without sanitary prevention measures, in relation to food safety (Stokholm et al., 2010; Holt, 2021). Outdoor access may increase the risk of animals becoming infected with bacteria, viruses, parasites and other agents causing disease. This is because the contact with external agents in the environment such as soil, pets, insects, wild fauna and rodents could compromise the

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

71

implementation or preservation of biosecurity measures in organic, freerange and extensive farms (Delsart et al., 2020; Holt, 2021). The outdoor environment could result in potential exposure to bacteria such as Campylobacter, E. coli and Salmonella in broilers (Fuh et al., 2018), hens (Holt, 2021), turkeys (Ahmed et  al., 2016) and pigs (Delsart et  al., 2020). Once such bacterial infections have been established in a farm it is very difficult to eradicate them (Kijlstra and Bos, 2008). There are many environmental factors that can be associated with colonization of broilers, hens, turkeys and pigs with Campylobacter and Salmonella, some of them are: (i) livestock; (ii) pest animals; (iii) wildlife; (iv) equipment; (v) farm workers; (vi) catching crews; (vii) antimicrobial use; and (viii) vertical transfer (e.g. transfer from parent to offspring) (Agunos et al., 2014). Examples include: • • • •

a study in the Netherlands found presence of Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. in rodents, pig manure and wild small mammals in pig organic farms (Meerburg et al., 2006); Jones et al. (2012) reported significantly greater (P < 0.0001) prevalence of Campylobacter in free-range nest box swabs compared with that in the free-range grass and conventional cage swab samples; Rivera-Pérez et al. (2014) found 20% of positive free-range and farm broiler carcasses contaminated with Salmonella before entering the processing line; and broilers usually are infected with Salmonella on the farm and or during transportation (dirty cages and trucks) to the processing plant (Rasschaert et al., 2007).

The prevalence of Campylobacter, Salmonella and E. coli in egg and broiler free-range production systems has been reported as high compared with indoor production (Kaufmann-Bart and Hoop, 2009; Stokholm et al., 2010; Ahmed et al., 2016; Fuh et al., 2018; Holt, 2021). Free-range hens are exposed to more stressors such as flock mates, bird aggression, diseases, predators or environmental conditions (Holt, 2021) in comparison to hens from no-outdoor-access barns and conventional cages. It is suggested that these stressors could increase bacterial shedding on eggs (Holt, 2021) and larger populations of bacteria in the environment can increase the penetration into eggshell pores and internal contents (Vlčková et al., 2018). The total bacteria and Enterobacteriaceae population usually are used as indicators of food safety of eggs. Parisi et al. (2015) found greater microbiological contamination on the shell surface from free-range eggs than eggs produced in conventional cage systems. This study reported Enterobacteriaceae levels 90% higher in free-range eggs and Campylobacter prevalence of 26.1% in free-range eggs in comparison with 7.4% of eggs recovered in conventional cages. Rodenburg et  al. (2004), Rivera et  al. (2011) and Ahmed et al. (2016) identified high prevalence of Campylobacter

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

72

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

(more than 35%) in free-range broiler and turkey carcasses in comparison with indoor broilers. In free-range finisher pigs, a study in the Netherlands showed a higher seroprevalence of Salmonella (44.6%) than intensively housed finisher pigs (van der Wolf et al., 2001). Zoonotic parasites are animal parasites that can infect humans. Zoonotic parasites can be separated into categories by their mode of infection. In the direct mode, parasites infect humans directly from animals (e.g. Toxoplasma gondii). Parasites can also infect humans from invertebrate intermediate hosts (e.g. Babesia bovis, Fasciola hepatica). Other parasites have vertebrate intermediate hosts (e.g. Echinococcus granulosus, Taenia saginata, Taenia solium, Capillaria hepatica) or infect humans from soil or water (e.g. Ancylostoma caninum, Ascaris suum, C. hepatica, Strongyloides stercoralis, Trichuris vulpis and Hypoderma bovis) (Youn, 2009). Parasites are a major problem for livestock producers throughout the world, and particularly for those with organic systems due to restrictions on the use of chemical anthelmintic treatments (Sutherland et al., 2013). Organic and free-range pig production can result in higher parasitic infection levels with A. suum, Coccidia, Oesophagostomum spp. and Trichuris suis because these production systems provide particularly favourable conditions for helminthic transmission (Nansen and Roepstorff, 1999; Eijck and Borgsteede, 2005). High gastrointestinal parasitic infection was found in organic sheep farms (Cabaret et al., 2002), and in poultry free-range, organic and backyard systems (Permin et al., 1999; Kaufmann et al., 2011). Without an adequate risk assessment alongside management and specific protocols, alternative production systems may lead to a re-emergence of T. gondii infections in pigs and poultry. Toxoplasmosis is a significant zoonosis disease caused by this protozoan, and humans usually acquire T. gondii infection by ingesting food and water contaminated with faeces of infected animals or by ingesting undercooked infected meat (Wallander et al., 2016). High seroprevalence of T. gondii (98.4%) has been reported in free-range chickens (Ayinmode and Dubey, 2012) and in backyard hens in Brazil (Sá et al., 2017). Pigs with outdoor access were reported positive (2.9%–8.0%) to Toxoplasma in farms in the Netherlands (Kijlstra et  al., 2004; Kijlstra and Bos, 2008) and in Sweden (Wallander et al., 2016). Another re-emergent disease associated with alternative farming systems has been reported in organic farms in the USA (Beaver et al., 2016), the Netherlands (Kijlstra and Bos, 2008) and Canada (Pieper et al., 2015). It is Johne’s disease which is caused by Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in ruminants. Johne’s disease is suspected to have a role in chronic inflammatory bowel disease in humans, especially Crohn’s disease. Transfer to humans is thought to occur via dairy products, since the bacteria is resistant to pasteurization (Kijlstra and Bos, 2008). Organic herds showed higher risk scores of Johne’s disease compared with both conventional grazing and non-grazing herds in 292 farms in the USA (Kijlstra and Bos, 2008).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

73

Influenza or flu is a contagious respiratory disease caused by influenza viruses. The avian influenza A virus, subtype H5N1, is a zoonotic virus, considered to be an important risk pathogen for humans. Generally, infected wild birds are involved in the transfer of influenza to farmed poultry; outdoor poultry therefore may be at higher risk of infection. This can have an impact on humans, who may have the risk of getting the infection from kept poultry. Aquatic birds are the main natural reservoir of avian influenza A virus (Webster et al., 1992). As of 24 June 2021, a total of 239 cases of human infection with avian influenza A(H5N1) virus were reported from four countries within the Western Pacific Region of the world since January 2003. Of these cases, 134 were fatal (WHO, 2021). During the period 15 January–4 February 2021, over 9 million animals were notified as losses in Africa, Asia and Europe, a total of 410 avian influenza (AI) outbreaks in poultry (World Organisation for Animal Health, 2021). The frequent occurrence of AI around the world, on commercial farms, raises concern about the implementation of global plans to manage risk and strict biosecurity rules to prevent and control the infection spreading and transmission of this disease (Adlhoch et al., 2021). Some of these control measures involve depopulation and culling to prevent the spread of AI (World Organisation for Animal Health, 2021). Depopulation can have an impact on the welfare of animals. The disease can cause considerable suffering in infected birds and, furthermore, where chickens are handled by people during emergency killing, handling and the method of killing often causes much stress and injury (EFSA, 2008). The impact of disease outbreaks such as AI on people are economic, through financial, business and tourism-related losses, and psychological because of the exposure to loss on farms, due to culling and massive depopulation of the animals affecting farmers and their families and the general population through media images and news (Taylor et al., 2008). Reductions in consumer sales and confidence, additional costs for implementing control and prevention measures, and depopulation can lead to scarcity of poultry products which could affect food security and safety (Chmielewski and Swayne, 2011). Control and preventative measures include raising poultry indoors with the intention of limiting contact of domestic birds with wild birds, other flocks and people outside the household. This measure could impact animal welfare where housing adjustments are limited, leading to partial depopulation where restrictions extend for long-time periods. It may also increase production costs because of building space, feed, litter and additional labour. Furthermore, producers may be restricted from labelling their eggs and meat as free range for a period of time (Otte et al., 2021). Mastitis, an inflammation of the mammary gland caused by bacterial infection, is another disease related to outdoor environments. It is a common health problem reported in organic dairy production systems; dairy cows in organic farms are rarely treated with antibiotics and the common practice of antibiotic use to prevent intramammary infections during the

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

74

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

dry-off period (or non-lactating period before a cow’s next calving) is not allowed. This means that mastitis management in organic herds exhibits a particular challenge because of the restrictions on antibiotic use (Levison et al., 2016). Fernandes et al. (2021) reported high frequency of subclinical mastitis in organic herds in the USA affecting the milk production, culling and deaths. Preventative or biosecurity protocols in alternative housing systems include a broad range of tools: •

•

•

•

Methods to avoid contamination of pastures, soil, water and feed with faeces from species that may carry diseases such as cats or rodents sick with toxoplasmosis are important, as this is a disease that infects livestock and, as already mentioned, is transmissible to humans by eating, for example, undercooked contaminated meat. Implementing strategies to control cat populations as well as rodent control programmes, feed storage and water disinfection can help to reduce levels of infection (Eppink et al., 2021). Cannibalism and tail biting must be prevented. These are mainly welfare problems in farms, but also can affect food safety because bite wounds are possible routes of infection with several bacteria and parasites such as T. gondii (Wallander et al., 2016). Any stressful situation may contribute to the occurrence of tail biting. Tail biting and cannibalism should be prevented by identifying and avoiding situations that can lead to competitive or frustrating interactions in pigs and hens. Other conditions, such as high stocking density, poor ventilation, heat stress, gastrointestinal discomfort and imbalanced diets are risk factors for tail biting and cannibalism occurrence in pigs and hens (Valros et al., 2020). Pest control and waste management are important measures of control and biosecurity in outdoor environments. This is because bacteria such as Salmonella and Campylobacter may be present in any waste from human or animal activities; these bacteria survive in frozen food, faecal sources and residues and remain viable for many years in the environment. Domestic and wild animals are the major reservoir of Salmonella and other bacteria (Zamora-Sanabria and Molina-Alvarado, 2017). Vaccination is a specific control tool against some bacteria, viruses, parasites and other infectious agents. It is a procedure used to increase resistance to microbiological infection in domestic animals. A combination of biosecurity programmes (including pasture management, genetic selection of resistant host species, etc.) and vaccination should be an effective and suitable control approach in farming systems (Zamora-Sanabria and Molina-Alvarado, 2017). Treatment options that can be used to avoid and reduce antibiotic use include: (i) microbial-derived products; (ii) non-nutritive phytochemicals; (iii) immune-related products; and (iv) chemicals, enzymes and innovative drugs (Hoelzer et al., 2018).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

4.7

75

Environmental Contaminants

Environmental contaminants are chemical, physical, biological or radioactive substances, or their residues, that accidentally or deliberately enter the environment (soil, water, air or living organisms) because of human activities. For example, substances used excessively to improve agricultural productivity or coming from industrial processes (Baydan et al., 2017) such as heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury), nitrates and nitrites, some mycotoxins, dioxins, antibiotic residues and pesticides (D’Surney and Smith, 2005). Contaminants could cause human and animal illness such as allergy, toxicity, immunosuppression, cancer, teratogenicity, mutagenicity and genotoxicity (Baydan et al., 2017). Outdoor access increases exposure of farm animals to environmental contaminants. Farm animals could consume chemical, biological, radioactive and/or nuclear elements, as they may ingest alongside their feed several things including soil, water, insects, worms, pesticides, mycotoxins, toxic plants, antibiotic residues or toxic minerals which could be transferred to their eggs, meat or milk. Some production systems, such as organic farming, do not allow the use of chemical pesticides; nevertheless these chemicals are found in organic farming products, attributed to the ability of pesticides to remain in the environment for a long time without breakdown. Pesticides and pesticide residues can be detected in meat, milk, eggs, fish and seafood depending on their bioaccumulation, a process of accumulation of chemicals in an organism that takes place where the rate of intake exceeds the rate of excretion (Baydan et al., 2017). Dioxin and dioxin-like components (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)) are a group of chemically related compounds that are persistent environmental pollutants (WHO, 2016). They come from industrial processes such as incineration activities including municipal waste incinerators, backyard trash (rubbish) burning, chlorine bleaching of paper and pulp, and the manufacture of some pesticides, herbicides and fungicides (Schecter et  al., 2006). Dioxins can also occur naturally during wildfires and volcanic eruptions (Holt, 2021) and they are also found in organic and conventional farming products because farming areas may exhibit significant soil contamination originating from air pollution (Holt, 2021). For example, Sørensen et al. (2017) found in a study of 38 farms in Denmark that small free-range and organic farms (32%) produced eggs that contained above a maximum limit of dioxins of 2.5 pg toxic equivalent quantity (TEQ)/g fat. Dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and developmental problems in humans, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones, and could cause cancer (WHO, 2016). This example highlights some conflicts between improved animal welfare attributed to outdoor systems, versus increased exposure to environmental contaminants if the area

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

76

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

selected for these free-range systems has contaminants present that might be transferred into the food chain. Good management practices are associated with good animal welfare. Where poor practices exist, this can impact, among other things, on the storage and preservation of animal feed. Fungi and yeast produce mycotoxins; these are very toxic compounds. Grass and grains contaminated with mycotoxins and mould can cause animal diseases that are worldwide; mycotoxin intoxication in animals includes damage of vital organs, decreased productivity and reproductive performance, and caused economic losses in animal farms (Adegbeye et al., 2020). Mycotoxin residues can be transferred from feed to animal products affecting meat, egg and milk quality. For instance, cows metabolize aflatoxin B1 from the food to form the monohydroxy derivative, aflatoxin M1. The latter aflatoxin is secreted in the cow’s milk. Aflatoxin M1 is a potential human carcinogen very resistant to thermal treatments such as pasteurization and freezing (Molina-Alvarado et  al., 2017). Soil and water are the primary source of toxic metals in plants and animals (Baydan et al., 2017). Metals can penetrate the food chain by contaminating cereals, water and grass from the environment that serves as animal feed. As a result, inadvertently animals can ingest toxic metals. Animal and animal product contamination increases when farm animals consume plants with high levels of cadmium, lead, arsenic, nitrates and mercury. Metals are eliminated very slowly from the animal body and as a result they accumulate in levels that present a potential toxicity to humans. In high levels, heavy metals may cause metabolic harm, affecting renal function, haemopoiesis, nervous and gastrointestinal systems (Korish and Attia, 2020). The farm environment could also be polluted with significant concentrations of active antibiotic residues. This is a serious environmental and health risk, especially because of widespread antimicrobial resistance, which affects terrestrial and aquatic farm animals (Hong et  al., 2018), human health and welfare, food safety and ecosystems. Most antibiotics and their antimicrobial resistant bacterial genes are directly discharged from the animal and human body to the environment through urine and faeces. Bacterial resistance genes are subsequently transmitted to environmental microorganisms in the soil and water, causing serious pollution, food safety changes and ecological toxicity. Resistant genes can return to animals, animal products and humans, causing more antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic residues affect soil microbial community structure and activity, which induce antibiotic microorganism resistance and resistance genes. Where this type of pollution exists, the soil’s degradation ability of these residues depends on the kind of antibiotic present. The degradation level is high for tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones, macrolides and sulfonamides in that order of relevance (Tian et al., 2021). Some antibiotics can enter groundwater through infiltration from the soil or run-off, resulting in water pollution.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

4.8

77

Genetics

Genetic selection is a biological modification process of farm animal species to increase production levels of livestock animals. The objectives of genetic selection in farm animals have been targeted to improve production performance, feed conversion and body-weight gain. The improvement generally leads to further favourable and unfavourable effects and disorders with welfare implications. In some cases, genetic selection for high production efficiency has resulted in reduced welfare, especially in health and fitness characteristics. For example, milk production yield per cow has more than doubled in the last 40 years (Rauw, 2016) yet breeding improvements have been resulting in fertility problems and increasing painful health complications such as mastitis and lameness. Broiler chickens have been selected to gain weight very fast, consequently they show less robustness, more leg problems and an increase of metabolic and infectious diseases such as ascites and Salmonella infection (Dar et al., 2018; Hartcher and Lum, 2020). Welfare traits such as pecking, cannibalism, robustness, lameness score, disease resistance and bone strength have low heritability and are difficult to modify (Rauw, 2016). Other genetic factors such as stress resistance differ between birds of meat type and those of layer type (Mailyan, 2016), therefore a bespoke approach and careful genetic selection of traits is necessary for each animal type. Genetic selection can also factor in and improve animal welfare. Authors have demonstrated that animal productivity and welfare can be improved at the same time through genetic selection (Muir et al., 2014; Rauw, 2016; Rexroad et al., 2019). An example related to food safety is campylobacteriosis resistance. Poultry could be an important reservoir of human campylobacteriosis which is one of the key causes of food poisoning (Ahmed et  al., 2016). Handling or consumption of contaminated poultry meat is a risk factor for human campylobacteriosis. Recent studies have identified genes in chickens that are resistant to Campylobacter (Chintoan-Uta et al., 2020) as a solution to limit the risk of associated food poisoning in people. Breeding for Campylobacter resistance may also benefit intestinal health and productivity (Psifidi et al., 2021) as a welfare indicator. In conclusion, alternative farming systems, such as organic or free range, improve many aspects of animal welfare and could have positive and negative effects on food safety (Boyle and O’Driscoll, 2011), hence human wellbeing, as well as the environment. Nevertheless, alternative farming systems and genetic selection should be designed taking into consideration animal welfare alongside disease and infection sources of risk in animals with outdoor access. Levels of tolerance for some agents such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli, metals, dioxins and mycotoxins should be reviewed and deeply investigated. Communication of risks to consumers, farmers, veterinarians, medics and communicators should be optimized by the sci-

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

78

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

entific communities and those establishing private and public food safety standards. To minimize food safety impacts, consumers should be educated to properly cook their meat, eggs, fish, milk and seafood and maintain proper kitchen hygiene.

References Adegbeye, M.J., Reddy, P.R.K., Chilaka, C.A., Balogun, O.B., Elghandour, M.M.M.Y., et  al. (2020) Mycotoxin toxicity and residue in animal products: prevalence, consumer exposure and reduction strategies – a review. Toxicon 177, 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOXICON.2020.01.007 Adlhoch, C., Fusaro, A., Gonzales, J.L., Kuiken, T., Marangon, S., et al. (2021) Avian influenza overview September–December 2021. EFSA Journal 19(12): e07108. https://doi.org/10.2903/J.EFSA.2021.7108 Agunos, A., Waddell, L., Léger, D. and Taboada, E. (2014) A systematic review characterizing on-farm sources of Campylobacter spp. for broiler chickens. PLoS ONE 9(8): e104905. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104905 Ahmed, M.F.E.M., El-Adawy, H., Hotzel, H., Tomaso, H., Neubauer, H., et al. (2016) Prevalence, genotyping and risk factors of thermophilic Campylobacter spreading in organic turkey farms in Germany. Gut Pathogens 8(1): 28. https://doi. org/10.1186/s13099-016-0108-2 Artuso-Ponte, V., Moeller, S., Rajala-Schultz, P., Medardus, J.J., Munyalo, J., et  al. (2015) Supplementation with quaternary benzo(c)phenanthridine alkaloids decreased salivary cortisol and Salmonella shedding in pigs after transportation to the slaughterhouse. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 12(11), 891–897. https:// doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2015.2009 Aruwa, C.E., Pillay, C., Nyaga, M.M. et al. (2021) Poultry gut health – microbiome functions, environmental impacts, microbiome engineering and advancements in characterization technologies. Journal of Animal Science Biotechnology 12, 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-021-00640-9 Ayinmode, A.B. and Dubey, J.P. (2012) Toxoplasma gondii infection in free-range chicken: mini-review and seroprevalence study in Oyo State, Nigeria. 15. http:// www.bioline.org.br/pdf?md12023 Bailey, M.T., Lubach, G.R. and Coe, C.L. (2004) Prenatal stress alters bacterial colonization of the gut in infant monkeys. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 38(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005176-20040400000009 Bailey, M.T., Dowd, S.E., Galley, J.D., Hufnagle, A.R., Allen, R.G. and Lyte, M. (2011) Exposure to a social stressor alters the structure of the intestinal microbiota: implications for stressor-induced immunomodulation. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 25(3), 397–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2010.10.023 Bansal, T., Englert, D., Lee, J., Hegde, M., Wood, T.K. and Jayaraman, A. (2007) Differential effects of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and indole on Escherichia coli O157:H7 chemotaxis, colonization, and gene expression. Infection and Immunity 75(9), 4597–4607. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00630-07 Bari, M.S., Laurenson, Y.C.S.M., Cohen-Barnhouse, A.M., Walkden-Brown, S.W. and Campbell, D.L.M. (2020) Effects of outdoor ranging on external and internal

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

79

health parameters for hens from different rearing enrichments. PeerJ 8: e8720. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8720 Baydan, E., Kanbur, M., Arslanbaş, E., Aydın, F.G., Gürbüz, S. and Tekeli, M.Y. (2017) Contaminants in animal products. In: Sekkin, S. (ed.) Livestock Science. InTech Open, London. https://doi.org/10.5772/67096 Beaver, A., Ruegg, P., Gröhn, Y. and Schukken, Y. (2016) Comparative risk assessment for new cow-level Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis infections between 3 dairy production types: organic, conventional, and conventional-grazing systems. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 9885–9899. https://doi.org/10.3168/ jds.2016-11360 Boyle, L.A. and O’Driscoll, K. (eds) (2011) Animal Welfare: an Essential Component in Food Safety and Quality. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Bray, H.J. and Ankeny, R.A. (2017) Happy chickens lay tastier eggs: motivations for buying free-range eggs in Australia. Anthrozoös 30(2), 213–226. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08927936.2017.1310986 Broom, D.M. and Johnson, K.G. (2019) Stress and Animal Welfare, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0980-2 Burkholder, K.M., Thompson, K.L., Einstein, M.E., Applegate, T.J. and Patterson, J.A. (2008) Influence of stressors on normal intestinal microbiota, intestinal morphology, and susceptibility to Salmonella enteritidis colonization in broilers. Poultry Science 87(9), 1734–1741. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00107 Cabaret, J., Mage, C. and Bouilhol, M. (2002) Helminth intensity and diversity in organic meat sheep farms in centre of France. Veterinary Parasitology 105(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4017(01)00647-1 Cabiddu, A., Delgadillo-Puga, C., Decandia, M. and Molle, G. (2019) Extensive ruminant production systems and milk quality with emphasis on unsaturated fatty acids, volatile compounds, antioxidant protection degree and phenol content. Animals 9(10): 771. https://doi.org/10.3390/ANI9100771 Campbell, D.L.M., Bari, M.S., Rault, J.-L., Campbell, D.L.M., Bari, M.S. and Rault, J.-L. (2020) Free-range egg production: its implications for hen welfare. Animal Production Science 61(10), 848–855. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN19576 Castro, R., Zou, J., Secombes, C.J. and Martin, S.A.M. (2011) Cortisol modulates the induction of inflammatory gene expression in a rainbow trout macrophage cell line. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 30(1), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fsi.2010.10.010 Charlton, G.L. and Rutter, S.M. (2017) The behaviour of housed dairy cattle with and without pasture access: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 192, 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.05.015 Chintoan-Uta, C., Wisedchanwet, T., Glendinning, L., Bremner, A., Psifidi, A., et al. (2020) Role of cecal microbiota in the differential resistance of inbred chicken lines to colonization by Campylobacter jejuni. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 86(7). https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02607-19 Chmielewski, R. and Swayne, D.E. (2011) Avian influenza: public health and food safety concerns. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 2, 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-022510-133710 Cook, N.B. (2002) The influence of barn design on dairy cow hygiene, lameness, and udder health. In: Smith, R.A. (ed.) Proceedings of the 35the Annual Convention of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners. American Association of Bovine Practitioners, Madison Wisconsin, pp. 97–103.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

80

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

Daley, D.A., Abbott, A., Doyle, P.S., Nader, G.A. and Larson, S. (2010) A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nutrition Journal 9(1), 2–12. Dar, M.A., Mumtaz, P.T., Bhat, S.A., Nabi, M., Taban, Q., et  al. (2018) Genetics of disease resistance in chicken. In: Liu, X. (ed.) Application of Genetics and Genomics in Poultry Science. InTech Open, London. https://doi.org/10.5772/ intechopen.77088 del Campo, M., Brito, G., Soares de Lima, J.M., Martins, V.D., Sañudo, C., et  al. (2008) Effects of feeding strategies including different proportion of pasture and concentrate, on carcass and meat quality traits in Uruguayan steers. Meat Science 80, 753–760, Delsart, M., Pol, F., Dufour, B., Rose, N. and Fablet, C. (2020) Pig farming in alternative systems: strengths and challenges in terms of animal welfare, biosecurity, animal health and pork safety. Agriculture (Switzerland) 10(7), 1–34. https://doi. org/10.3390/agriculture10070261 D’Surney, S.J. and Smith, M.D. (2005) Chemicals of environmental concern. In: Wexler, P. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Toxicology, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 526–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369400-0/00206-4 Eijck, I.A.J.M. and Borgsteede, F.H.M. (2005) A survey of gastrointestinal pig parasites on free-range, organic and conventional pig farms in the Netherlands. Veterinary Research Communications 29(5), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11259-005-1201-z Eppink, D.M., Wisselink, H.J., Krijger, I.M., van der Giessen, J.W.B., Swanenburg, M., et al. (2021) Effectiveness and costs of interventions to reduce the within-farm Toxoplasma gondii seroprevalence on pig farms in the Netherlands. Porcine Health Management 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/S40813-021-00223-0 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2008) Animal health and welfare aspects of avian influenza and the risk of its introduction into the EU poultry holdings Scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. EFSA Journal 6(6). https://doi.org/10.2903/J.EFSA.2008.715 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2009) Food safety considerations concerning the species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed fish. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Biological Hazards. EFSA Journal 1190, 1–16. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1190 Faucitano, L., Marquardt, L., Oliveira, M.S., Sebastiany Coelho, B.H. and Terra, N.N. (1998) The effect of two handling and slaughter systems on skin damage, meat acidification and colour in pigs. Meat Science 50, 13–19. https:// doi: 10.1016/ s0309-1740(98)00008-4 Fegan, N., Vanderlinde, P., Higgs, G. and Desmarchelier, P. (2004) Quantification and prevalence of Salmonella in beef cattle presenting at slaughter. Journal of Applied Microbiology 97(5), 892–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004. 02380.x Fernandes, L., Guimaraes, I., Noyes, N.R., Caixeta, L.S. and Machado, V.S. (2021) Effect of subclinical mastitis detected in the first month of lactation on somatic cell count linear scores, milk yield, fertility, and culling of dairy cows in certified organic herds. Journal of Dairy Science 104(2), 2140–2150. https://doi. org/10.3168/JDS.2020-19153 Fossler, C.P., Wells, S.J., Kaneene, J.B., Ruegg, P.L., Warnick, L.D., et al. (2005) Herdlevel factors associated with isolation of Salmonella in a multi-state study of

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

81

conventional and organic dairy farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 70(3–4), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.04.002 Freestone, P.P.E., Haigh, R.D. and Lyte, M. (2007) Specificity of catecholamine-induced growth in Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella enterica and Yersinia enterocolitica: specificity of catecholamine-induced growth. FEMS Microbiology Letters 269(2), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2006.00619.x Fuh, N.J., Christiana, O.M., Yami, A.L., Uteh, U.P., Ekpiken, E.S. and Ogechi, U.M. (2018) Prevalence and antibiotic resistance of Escherichia coli O157: H7 serotype from chicken droppings produced by free-ranged and poultry birds in Cross River, Nigeria. American Journal of Biomedical and Life Sciences 6(3), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajbls.20180603.13 Gallo, C. and Huertas, S. (2016) Main animal welfare problems in ruminant livestock during preslaughter operations: a South American view. Animal 10, 342–348. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731115001597. Gil, A. and Huertas, S. (2001) Efectos del Sistema de Producción sobre las Características de la Carne Vacuna. INIA FPTA No. 4. Resultado Proyecto FPTA 056, Uruguay. Gil, A. and Huertas, S. (2003) Efectos de los diferentes sistemas de producción sobre la composición y calidad de las carnes. Revista Médica del Uruguay 19, 182–184. Grandin, T. (2020) Improving Animal Welfare: a Practical Approach, 3rd edn. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 441 pp. Grant, R.J. and Albright, J.L. (2001) Effect of animal grouping on feeding behavior and intake of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 84, E156–E163. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70210-X Gregorini, P., Šemrov, M.Z., Campbell, D.L.M., Smid, A.-M.C., Weary, D.M. and von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. (2020) The influence of different types of outdoor access on dairy cattle behavior. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 1: 257. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00257 Hartcher, K.M. and Lum, H.K. (2020) Genetic selection of broilers and welfare consequences: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 76(1), 154–167. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2019.1680025 Hoelzer, K., Bielke, L., Blake, D.P., Cox, E., Cutting, S.M., et al. (2018) Vaccines as alternatives to antibiotics for food producing animals. Part 1: Challenges and needs. Veterinary Research 49(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13567-018-0560-8/ METRICS Hogan, J.P., Petherick, J.C. and Phillips, C.J.C. (2007) The physiological and metabolic impacts on sheep and cattle of feed and water deprivation before and during transport. Nutrition Research Reviews 20(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0954422407745006 Holt, P.S. (2021) Centennial review: A revisiting of hen welfare and egg safety consequences of mandatory outdoor access for organic egg production. Poultry Science 100(12): 101436. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSJ.2021.101436 Hong, B., Ba, Y., Niu, L., Lou, F., Zhang, Z., et al. (2018) Comprehensive research on antibiotic resistance genes in microbiota of aquatic animals. Frontiers in Microbiology 9, 1617. https://doi.org/10.3389/FMICB.2018.01617/BIBTEX Huertas, S.M., van Eerdenburg, F., Gil, A. and Piaggio, J. (2015) Prevalence of carcass bruises as an indicator of welfare in beef cattle and the relation to the economic impact. Veterinary Medicine and Science 1(1), 9–15. DOI: 10.1002/vms3.2.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

82

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

Huertas, S.M., Kempener, R.E.A.M. and van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M. (2018) Relationship between methods of loading and unloading, carcass bruising, and animal welfare in the transportation of extensively reared beef cattle. Animals 8: 119. DOI: 10.3390/ani8070119. Huzzey, J.M., DeVries, T.J., Valois, P. and von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. (2006) Stocking density and feed barrier design affect the feeding and social behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89(1), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(06)72075-6 Huzzey, J.M., Nydam, D.V., Grant, R.J. and Overton, T.R. (2012) The effects of overstocking Holstein dairy cattle during the dry period on cortisol secretion and energy metabolism. Journal of Dairy Science 95(8), 4421–4433. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.2011-5037 Jones, D.R., Anderson, K.E. and Guard, J.Y. (2012) Prevalence of coliforms, Salmonella, Listeria, and Campylobacter associated with eggs and the environment of conventional cage and free-range egg production. Poultry Science 91(5), 1195–1202. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01795 Kaufmann, F., Daş, G., Sohnrey, B. and Gauly, M. (2011) Helminth infections in laying hens kept in organic free range systems in Germany. Livestock Science 141(2–3), 182–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.05.015 Kaufmann-Bart, M. and Hoop, R.K. (2009) Diseases in chicks and laying hens during the first 12 years after battery cages were banned in Switzerland. Veterinary Record 164(7), 203–207. DOI: 10.1136/vr.164.7.203. Kijlstra, A. and Bos, A.P. (2008) Animal welfare and food safety: danger, risk and the distribution of responsibility. Paper presented at the 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, 16–20 June. Available at: http://orgprints.org/view/projects/conference (accessed 26 May 2023). Kijlstra, A. and Eijck, I.A.J.M. (2006) Animal health in organic livestock production systems: a review. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(06)80005-9 Kijlstra, A., Eissen, O.A., Cornelissen, J., Munniksma, K., Eijck, I. and Kortbeek, T. (2004) Toxoplasma gondii infection in animal-friendly pig production systems. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science 45(9): 3165. https://doi. org/10.1167/iovs.04-0326 Knierim, U. (2006) Animal welfare aspects of outdoor runs for laying hens: a review. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54(2), 133–145. https://doi. org/10.1016/S1573-5214(06)80017-5 Korish, M.A. and Attia, Y.A. (2020) Evaluation of heavy metal content in feed, litter, meat, meat products, liver, and table eggs of chickens. Animals 10(4): 727. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040727 Krause, K.M. and Oetzel, G.R. (2005) Inducing subacute ruminal acidosis in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88(10), 3633–3639. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73048-4 Krawczel, P.D., Klaiber, L.B., Butzler, R.E., Klaiber, L.M., Dann, H.M., et al. (2012) Short-term increases in stocking density affect the lying and social behavior, but not the productivity, of lactating Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95(8), 4298–4308. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4687 Kunze, D.J., Loneragan, G.H., Platt, T.M., Miller, M.F., Besser, T.E., et  al. (2008) Salmonella enterica burden in harvest-ready cattle populations from the Southern

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

83

High Plains of the United States. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 74(2), 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02076-07 Levison, L.J., Miller-Cushon, E.K., Tucker, A.L., Bergeron, R., Leslie, K.E., et al. (2016) Incidence rate of pathogen-specific clinical mastitis on conventional and organic Canadian dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 99(2), 1341–1350. https:// doi.org/10.3168/JDS.2015-9809 Mailyan, E.S. (2016) Stress in poultry: focus on turkeys causes, mechanism, consequences, diagnostics and prevention. Journal of Dairy, Veterinary & Animal Research 3(6), 194–196. https://doi.org/10.15406/jdvar.2016.03.00098 Meerburg, B.G., Jacobs-Reitsma, W.F., Wagenaar, J.A. and Kijlstra, A. (2006) Presence of Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. in wild small mammals on organic farms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72(1), 960–962. https:// doi.org/10.1128/AEM.72.1.960-962.2006 Molina-Alvarado, A.M., Zamora-Sanabria, R. and Granados-Chinchilla, F. (2017) A focus on aflatoxins in feedstuffs: levels of contamination, prevalence, control strategies, and impacts on animal health. In: Abdulra’uf, L.B. (ed.) Aflatoxin: Control, Analysis, Detection and Health Risks. InTech Open, London. https://doi. org/10.5772/intechopen.69468 Muir, W.M., Cheng, H.-W. and Croney, C. (2014) Methods to address poultry robustness and welfare issues through breeding and associated ethical considerations. Frontiers in Genetics 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00407 Nansen, P. and Roepstorff, A. (1999) Parasitic helminths of the pig: factors influencing transmission and infection levels. International Journal for Parasitology 29(6), 877–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7519(99)00048-X Nielsen, L.R., Schukken, Y.H., Gröhn, Y.T. and Ersbøll, A.K. (2004) Salmonella Dublin infection in dairy cattle: risk factors for becoming a carrier. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 65(1–2), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed. 2004.06.010 Nienaber, J.A. and Hahn, G.L. (2007) Livestock production system management responses to thermal challenges. International Journal of Biometeorology 52(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-007-0103-x Nori, M., Switzer, J. and Crawford, A. (2005) Herding on the brink: towards a global survey of pastoral communities and conflict. An Occasional Working Paper from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Available at: https://www.iisd.org/system/files/ publications/security_herding_on_brink.pdf (accessed 26 May 2023). Oikawa, S., Katoh, N., Itoh, H., Miyamoto, T., Konno, M. and Kajita, T. (1997) Decreased serum apolipoprotein A-I concentrations in cows infected with Salmonella Typhimurium. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research = Revue Canadienne De Recherche Veterinaire 61(3), 182–186. Otte, J., Rushton, J., Rukambile, E. and Alders, R.G. (2021) Biosecurity in village and other free-range poultry—trying to square the circle? Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8: 516. https://doi.org/10.3389/FVETS.2021.678419/BIBTEX Parisi, M.A., Northcutt, J.K., Smith, D.P., Steinberg, E.L. and Dawson, P.L. (2015) Microbiological contamination of shell eggs produced in conventional and free-range housing systems. Food Control 47, 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodcont.2014.06.038

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

84

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

Park, H.-S., Min, B. and Oh, S.-H. (2017) Research trends in outdoor pig production—a review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 30(9), 1207–1214. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0330 Permin, A., Bisgaard, M., Frandsen, F., Pearman, M., Kold, J. and Nansen, P. (1999) Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in different poultry production systems. British Poultry Science 40(4), 439–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00071669987179 Pieper, L., Sorge, U.S., DeVries, T., Godkin, A., Lissemore, K. and Kelton, D. (2015) Comparing ELISA test-positive prevalence, risk factors and management recommendations for Johne’s disease prevention between organic and conventional dairy farms in Ontario, Canada. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 122(1–2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.09.004 Pires, A.F.A., Funk, J.A., Lim, A. and Bolin, S.R. (2013) Enumeration of Salmonella in faeces of naturally infected pigs. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 10(11), 933–937. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2013.1547 Proudfoot, K.L., Veira, D.M., Weary, D.M. and von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. (2009) Competition at the feed bunk changes the feeding, standing, and social behavior of transition dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92(7), 3116–3123. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.2008-1718 Psifidi, A., Kranis, A., Rothwell, L.M., Bremner, A., Russell, K., et al. (2021) Quantitative trait loci and transcriptome signatures associated with avian heritable resistance to Campylobacter. Scientific Reports 11(1): 1623. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-020-79005-7 Rasschaert, G., Houf, K. and De Zutter, L. (2007) Impact of the slaughter line contamination on the presence of Salmonella on broiler carcasses. Journal of Applied Microbiology 103(2), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03248.x Rasschaert, G., De Zutter, L., Herman, L. and Heyndrickx, M. (2020) Campylobacter contamination of broilers: the role of transport and slaughterhouse. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2(322), 108564. doi: 10.1016/j. ijfoodmicro.2020.108564. Rauw, W.M. (2016) Editorial: Improving animal welfare through genetic selection. Frontiers in Genetics 7: 69. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2016.00069 Rea, K., Dinan, T.G. and Cryan, J.F. (2016) The microbiome: a key regulator of stress and neuroinflammation. Neurobiology of Stress 4, 23–33. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ynstr.2016.03.001 Rexroad, C., Vallet, J., Matukumalli, L.K., Reecy, J., Bickhart, D., et al. (2019) Genome to phenome: improving animal health, production, and well-being – a new USDA blueprint for animal genome research 2018–2027. Frontiers in Genetics 10: 327. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00327 Ringseis, R. and Eder, K. (2020) Heat stress in pigs and broilers: role of gut dysbiosis in the impairment of the gut-liver axis and restoration of these effects by probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics. Journal of Animal Science Biotechnology 13, 126. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-022-00783-3 Rivera, F.N., Bustos, B.R., Montenegro, H.S., Sandoval, M.M., Castillo, N.J., et  al. (2011) Genotipificación y resistencia antibacteriana de cepas de Campylobacter spp. aisladas en niños y en aves de corral. Revista Chilena de Infectología 28(6), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-10182011000700008 Rivera-Pérez, W., Barquero-Calvo, E. and Zamora-Sanabria, R. (2014) Salmonella contamination risk points in broiler carcasses during slaughter line processing.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

85

Journal of Food Protection 77(12), 2031–2034. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362028X.JFP-14-052 Rodenburg, T.B., Van Der Hulst-Van Arkel, M.C. and Kwakkel, R.P. (2004) Campylobacter and Salmonella infections on organic broiler farms. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 52(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1573-5214(04)80006-X Sá, S.G. de, Ribeiro-Andrade, M., Silva, L.T.R., Souza Neto, O.L. de, Lima, D.C.V., et  al. (2017) Risk factors associated with Toxoplasma gondii infection in free-range chickens in the semiarid region of Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária 26(2), 221–225. https://doi.org/10.1590/s198429612017033 Sales-Baptista, E. and Ferraz-de-Oliveira, M.I. (2021) Grazing in silvopastoral systems: multiple solutions for diversified benefits. Agroforestry Systems 95(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-020-00581-8 Sandí, A. and Hutter, S. (2021) Informe sobre la situación sanitaria de Costa Rica 2020. Centro de Información, Servicio Nacional de Salud Animal, Mag, Costa Rica. Available at: http://www.senasa.go.cr/informacion/centro-de-informacion/ informacion (accessed 5 January 2022). Schecter, A., Birnbaum, L., Ryan, J.J. and Constable, J.D. (2006) Dioxins: an overview. Environmental Research 101(3), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. ENVRES.2005.12.003 Selye, H. (1975) Stress and distress. Comprehensive Therapy 1(8), 9–13. Simonin, D. and Gavinelli, A. (2019) VI The European Union legislation on animal welfare: state of play, enforcement, and future activities. In: Proceedings: Animal Welfare: from Science to Law. La Fondation Droit Animal Éthique & Sciences, Paris, pp. 59–70. Available at: http://www.fondation-droit-animal.org/proceedingsaw/ (accessed 2 May 2023). Smith, G.C., Grandin, T., Friend, T.H., Lay, D. and Swanson, J.C. (2004) Effect of Transport on Meat Quality and Animal Welfare of Cattle, Pigs, Sheep, Horses, Deer, and Poultry. Available at: https://www.grandin.com/behaviour/effect. of.transport.html (accessed 3 July 2022). Smulders, F.J.M. and Algers, B. (2009) Welfare of Production Animals: Assessment and Management of Risks. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Sollenberger, L.E., Aiken, G.E. and Wallau, M.O. (2020) Managing grazing in forage– livestock systems. In: Rouquette, M. Jr and Aiken, G.E. (eds) Management Strategies for Sustainable Cattle Production in Southern Pastures. Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-12-814474-9.00005-0 Sørensen, S., Krüger, L., Bossi, R., Cederberg, T.L. and Lund, K.H. (2017) Dioxins and PCBs in hen eggs from conventional and free-range farms from the Danish control program in 2012-13. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants. Available at: https://backend. orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/103601203/Dioxins_and_PCBs_in_hen_ eggs_from_conventional_and_free_range_farms_from_the_danish_control_ program_in_2012_13_S_rensen_et_al.pdf (accessed 5 April 2022). Stokholm, N.M., Permin, A., Bisgaard, M. and Christensen, J.P. (2010) Causes of mortality in commercial organic layers in Denmark. Avian Disease 54(4), 1241– 1250. https://doi.org/10.1637/9375-041910-Reg.1

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

86

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

Strappini, A.C., Frankena, K., Gallo, C., Metz, J. and Kemp, B. (2010) Prevalence and risk factors for bruises in Chilean bovine carcasses. Meat Science 86, 859–864. Strappini, A.C., Frankena, K., Metz, J.H.M., Gallo, C. and Kemp, B. (2012) Characteristics of bruises in carcasses of cows sourced from farms or from livestock markets. Animal 6(3), 502–509. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111001698 Sutherland, M., Webster, J. and Sutherland, I. (2013) Animal health and welfare issues facing organic production systems. Animals 3(4), 1021–1035. https://doi. org/10.3390/ani3041021 Tadee, P., Kumpapong, K., Sinthuya, D., Yamsakul, P., Chokesajjawatee, N., et  al. (2014) Distribution, quantitative load and characterization of Salmonella associated with swine farms in upper-northern Thailand. Journal of Veterinary Science 15(2): 327. https://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2014.15.2.327 Taylor, M.R., Agho, K.E., Stevens, G.J. and Raphael, B. (2008) Factors influencing psychological distress during a disease epidemic: data from Australia’s first outbreak of equine influenza. BMC Public Health 8(1), 1–13. https://doi. org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-347/TABLES/4 Telezhenko, E., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Talebi, A. and Weary, D.M. (2012) Effect of pen size, group size, and stocking density on activity in freestall-housed dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95(6), 3064–3069. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4953 Temple, D., Courboulay, V., Manteca, X., Velarde, A. and Dalmau, A. (2012) The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: assessment of feeding and housing. Animal 6(4), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111001868 Tian, M., He, X., Feng, Y., Wang, W., Chen, H., et al. (2021) Pollution by antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in livestock and poultry manure in China, and countermeasures. Antibiotics 10(5): 539. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10050539 Turner, S.P., Ewen, M., Rooke, J.A. and Edwards, S.A. (2000) The effect of space allowance on performance, aggression and immune competence of growing pigs housed on straw deep-litter at different group sizes. Livestock Production Science 66(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00159-7 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2010) Facility Characteristics and Cow Comfort on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007. USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Veterinary Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy07/ Dairy07_ir_Facilities_1.pdf (accessed 29 May 2023). Upadhaya, S.D. and Kim, I.H. (2022) Maintenance of gut microbiome stability for optimum intestinal health in pigs – a review. Journal of Animal Science Biotechnology 13, 140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-022-00790-4 Valros, A., Välimäki, E., Nordgren, H., Vugts, J., Fàbrega, E. and Heinonen, M. (2020) Intact tails as a welfare indicator in finishing pigs? Scoring of tail lesions and defining intact tails in undocked pigs at the abattoir. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7: 405. https://doi.org/10.3389/FVETS.2020.00405/BIBTEX van der Wolf, P.J., Elbers, A.R.W., van der Heijden, H.M.J.F., van Schie, F.W., Hunneman, W.A. and Tielen, M.J.M. (2001) Salmonella seroprevalence at the population and herd level in pigs in the Netherlands. Veterinary Microbiology 80(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(00)00387-4 van Overmeire, I., Pussemier, L., Hanot, V., De Temmerman, L., Hoenig, M. and Goeyens, L. (2006) Chemical contamination of free-range eggs from

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare, Stress and Food Safety

87

Belgium. Food Additives and Contaminants 23(11), 1109–1122. https://doi. org/10.1080/02652030600699320 Velarde, A. and Raj, M. (eds) (2016) Animal Welfare at Slaughter. 5M Publishing, Chicago, Illinois. Verbrugghe, E., Boyen, F., Van Parys, A., Van Deun, K., Croubels, S., et  al. (2011) Stress induced Salmonella Typhimurium recrudescence in pigs coincides with cortisol induced increased intracellular proliferation in macrophages. Veterinary Research 42(1): 118. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9716-42-118 Verbrugghe, E., Dhaenens, M., Leyman, B., Boyen, F., Shearer, N., et al. (2016) Host stress drives Salmonella recrudescence. Scientific Reports 6(1): 20849. https:// doi.org/10.1038/srep20849 Villalba, J.J. and Manteca, X. (2019) A case for eustress in grazing animals. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6: 303. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00303 Vlčková, J., Tůmová, E., Ketta, M., Englmaierová, M. and Chodová, D. (2018) Effect of housing system and age of laying hens on eggshell quality, microbial contamination, and penetration of microorganisms into eggs. Czech Journal of Animal Science 63(2), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.17221/77/2017-CJAS Vlisidou, I., Lyte, M., van Diemen, P.M., Hawes, P., Monaghan, P., et  al. (2004) The neuroendocrine stress hormone norepinephrine augments Escherichia coli O157:H7-induced enteritis and adherence in a bovine ligated ileal loop model of infection. Infection and Immunity 72(9), 5446–5451. https://doi.org/10.1128/ IAI.72.9.5446-5451.2004 Voogd, E. (2009) Does animal welfare affect food safety? FoodSafety magazine 15, 42–53. Wallander, C., Frössling, J., Dórea, F.C., Uggla, A., Vågsholm, I. and Lundén, A. (2016) Pasture is a risk factor for Toxoplasma gondii infection in fattening pigs. Veterinary Parasitology 224, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VETPAR.2016.05.005 Webb, E.C. and Erasmus, L.J. (2013) The effect of production system and management practices on the quality of meat products from ruminant livestock. South African Journal of Animal Science 43(3), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.4314/ sajas.v43i3.12 Webster, R.G., Bean, W.J., Gorman, O.T., Chambers, T.M. and Kawaoka, Y. (1992) Evolution and ecology of influenza A viruses. Microbiological Reviews 56(1), 152–179. https://doi.org/10.1128/mr.56.1.152-179.1992 World Health Organization (WHO) (2016) Dioxins and their effects on human health. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dioxinsand-their-effects-on-human-health (accessed 2 May 2023). World Health Organization (WHO) (2021) Human infection with avian influenza A(H5) viruses. Human infection with avian influenza A(H5N1) virus. Avian Influenza Weekly Update Number 798, 2 July 2021. Available at: https://www. who.int/teams/global-influenza-programme/avian-influenza/monthly-riskassessment- (accessed 15 August 2021). World Organisation for Animal Health (2021) Avian Influenza. Report at WAHIS. World Organisation for Animal Health. Available at: https://www.woah.org/en/ disease/avian-influenza/ (accessed 26 May 2023). Youn, H. (2009) Review of zoonotic parasites in medical and veterinary fields in the Republic of Korea. The Korean Journal of Parasitology 47(Suppl): S133. https:// doi.org/10.3347/kjp.2009.47.S.S133

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

88

Lohendy Muñoz-Vargas et al.

Zaborina, O., Zaborin, A., Romanowski, K., Babrowski, T. and Alverdy, J. (2011) Host stress and virulence expression in intestinal pathogens: development of therapeutic strategies using mice and C. elegans. Current Pharmaceutical Design 17(13), 1254–1260. https://doi.org/10.2174/138161211795703771 Zamora-Sanabria, R. and Molina-Alvarado, A. (2017) Preharvest Salmonella risk contamination and the control strategies. In: Mares, M. (ed.) Current Topics in Salmonella and Salmonellosis. Intech Open, London. DOI: 10.5772/67399.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment

5

Mateus Paranhos da Costa,1 Ariel Marcel Tarazona,2† Maria Camila Ceballos3 and Luciandra Macedo de Toledo4†

Universidad Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Jaboticabal, Brasil; 2Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín, Colombia; 3University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; 4Agência Paulista de Tecnologia dos Agronegócios (APTA), Instituto de Zootecnia, Ribeirão Preto, Brasil

1

In memoriam of Luciandra Macedo de Toledo and Ariel Marcel Tarazona Morales All authors of this chapter were alive when it was written. However, two of them passed away unexpectedly in the same week a few months before the book publication. A special homage is registered here in memory of Dr. Ariel Marcel Tarazona Morales and Dr. Luciandra Macedo de Toledo. Ariel was a young and dedicated researcher concerned with promoting the well-being of all living beings based on critical thinking, constant dedication, enthusiasm, generosity, respect, and love. He managed to do it in a short period of time, and his essence and example will remain with us to put them into practice in pursuing our work when addressing animal welfare challenges. Luciandra was also passionate about animals. With a pragmatic attitude and systems thinking, she developed her work by looking for strategies to improve our interaction with animals. Thanks to her, many of us learned about applying a most integrated view, the systems dynamics approach, when addressing animal welfare. This honour is made not only for their relevant scientific contribution to the animal behaviour and welfare research field but also for being very dear people, leaving a significant number of good friends in the scientific community. We will always hold a special place for them in our memory. Maria Camila Ceballos & Mateus J.R. Paranhos da Costa

5.1

Introduction The great challenge of our time is to build and nurture sustainable communities, designed in such a way that their ways of life, businesses,

DOI: 10.1079/9781789249507.0005

89

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

90

Mateus Paranhos da Costa et al.

economy, physical structures, and technologies respect, honour, and cooperate with Nature’s inherent ability to sustain life … (Capra and Luisi, 2014, p. 1, emphasis added)

The statement above is aligned with the concepts of One Health and One Welfare. We live on planet Earth, with complex environments comprised of biotic and abiotic systems that interact with each other, supporting life on land, in water and air. Furthermore, this prompts us to reconsider the ‘Gaia’ hypothesis, presented by James Lovelock almost a half-century ago (Lovelock, 1972; Lovelock and Lodge, 1972). The authors proposed that existing organisms on planet Earth and its environment evolved as a unique and self-regulated system. This implies considering ‘the biosphere as an active adaptive control system, capable of maintaining the Earth in homeostasis …’ (Lovelock and Margulis, 1974, p. 3, emphasis added). This hypothesis was formulated based on the understanding that our planet’s atmosphere has a composition that does not correspond to a situation that can be characterized as a chemical equilibrium and ‘such persistent deep atmospheric disequilibrium’ can only be explained by the ‘low entropy characteristic of life’ (Lovelock, 2003, p. 769). The authors consider the atmosphere ‘as a component part of the biosphere, rather than a mere environment for life’ (Lovelock and Margulis, 1974, p. 2, emphasis added). These ideas had limited acceptance among scientists and philosophers, being restricted to those who had the holism theory as a reference, which proposes that ‘the parts of a whole are in intimate connection, so that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or they cannot be understood without reference to the whole …’ (Bernardes, 2021, p. 1). This implies that complex systems cannot be fully understood just by understanding their individual components (Stempsey, 2001; Katinić, 2013). As noted by Capra (1996, p. 17), ‘the holistic perspective has become known as systemic and the way of thinking it implies a systems thinking …’. Since then, a system has come to represent an integrated whole, where essential properties arise from the relationships between its parts; and ‘systems thinking’ represents the understanding of a phenomenon within the context of a larger whole (Capra, 1996). According to the author, understanding phenomena in a systemic way means literally placing them within a context, and understanding the nature of their relationships. It is from the perspective of a systemic analysis that we address the concept of One Welfare (García Pinillos et al., 2015) applied to livestock production systems. We describe the interactions between the subjects (humans and domestic animals) and other elements of the environment (biotic and abiotic) that comprise this system (Fig. 5.1). To better understand the dynamics of the One Welfare platform, a conceptual model was built. This is the first step of the systems dynamics methodology (Sterman, 2000) to build a computational model that simulates several alternative scenarios in silico. The conceptual model is represented in a causal loop diagram, which is a qualitative graphical tool used to make explicit the hypotheses about

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment

Animal welfare +

Environmentally friendly animal-keeping systems R1

+

One Welfare R4

+ Environment

+ R2

91

+

R3 + Human wellbeing +

Fig. 5.1. Causal loop diagram indicating the complexity of the dynamic interactions between the main variables (human wellbeing, animal welfare and environment) that constitute a One Welfare concept. Interconnections with positive infuences between the state variables ‘Animal welfare’, ‘Environment’ and ‘Human wellbeing’ create four reinforcement cycles (R), determining a dynamic virtuous circle of One Welfare over time, when actions are taken to make the ‘Environmentally friendly animal-keeping systems’. ‘+’ indicates causal inference with positive polarity, indicating variables follow in the same direction.

the causes of dynamics, to deduce and capture relevant factors contained in the researcher’s mental models (Senge, 1990). The conceptual models described here were built using Vensim® PLE software (version 8.2.1, Ventana Systems, Inc., Harvard, Massachusetts). Integrating the systems dynamics methodology in livestock production practices can provide a low-cost platform to foster an interdisciplinary approach to improve understanding and promote policies and actions linked to the One Welfare concept (García Pinillos et al., 2015). By achieving this, we will improve global standards of animal welfare and human wellbeing that are often addressed independently, without recognizing their dynamics. A computational model built on this conceptual model can provide a means of learning in silico (Fina et al., 2013), both to simulate scenarios to expand the knowledge within the livestock production chains, as well as to increase the resilience of the environment and communities associated with them.

5.2 The Long and Complex History of Human–Animal Relationships We live in an environment of great complexity, with multiple elements interacting continuously. Our relations with other living beings, in particular animals, are diverse and complex and often regarded from an ecological perspective, focusing on the relationships between populations sharing the same environment. These ecological relationships, classified according to

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

92

Mateus Paranhos da Costa et al.

the consequences they bring to each organism involved, can be defined as disharmonious (when at least one of the organisms involved is harmed by the relationship) or harmonic (when none of the organisms involved is harmed by the relationship). Regardless of whether the relationships between humans and animals are harmonious or disharmonious, historically these interactions resulted in the approximation of some human populations with various animal species populations, resulting in reciprocal effects on both humans and animals. This characterizes co-evolutionary processes (Beck, 2019), inherent in the domestication process. According to Zeder (2012, p. 246, emphasis added), domestication may have started from ecological relationships such as commensalism and predatism, or even through a directed path (defined by the author as a ‘fast-track to domestication [which] begins when the humans use knowledge gained from the management of already domesticated animals to domesticate a wild species that possesses a resource or set of resources that humans see as desirable …’). As proposed by Price (1984), domestication is a process by which a population of animals becomes adapted to humans and the captive environment by genetic changes that occur over generations and by recurrent developmentally induced events during each generation. This definition implies that the populations involved (domesticator and domesticated) share the same environment and live in close relationship in an environment controlled by the domesticator (i.e. captivity). Our relationships with domesticated animal populations have often been characterized as symbiotic, defined by Gontier (2016, p. 272) as ‘the phenomenon whereby two or more organisms with distinct genealogical, evolutionary histories live in close association with one another ...’, being characterized as an evolutionary strategy that results in benefits for one or more organisms involved in the relationship. Thus, it can be classified as harmonic, characterized by the typical situations of mutualism (Dekel et al., 2017) and commensalism (Hulme-Beaman and Searle, 2016) or disharmonious, when a typical relationship of parasitism occurs (Dekel et al., 2017). Broadly, social relationships can be defined as the connections between organisms that have recurring interactions perceived by the participants as having a meaning (August and Rook, 2013). According to the authors, this definition does not include brief, infrequent and accidental interactions. However, it is noteworthy that our social relations with domestic animals are not limited to the reciprocal effects between domesticators and domesticated animals. There are many other elements involved, in particular that we share the condition of being potential hosts for worms, fungi, bacteria and viruses, for example, which implies that our approximation with populations of vertebrate animals also results in the approximation with other macroorganisms and microorganisms. This issue is treated with an anthropological approach by Diamond (1997), in his book Guns, Germs and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies, exposing a side effect of the domestication

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment

93

process, which brought us closer to some vertebrate animal populations and concurrently brought us closer to other organisms, their symbionts. It is undeniable that these close relationships had an important role in the evolution of the involved populations (Diamond, 2002), influencing, for example, our ability (as a domesticator) to understand the signs of certain animal species and vice versa, enhancing our communication with them. This was well characterized by Galton (1865), who described that: the man understands the thoughts of the dog, so the dog understands the thoughts of the man, by attending to his natural voice, his countenance, and his actions. A man irritates a dog by an ordinary laugh, he frightens him by an angry look, or he calms him by a kindly bearing; but he has less spontaneous hold over an ox or a sheep. He must study their ways and tutor his behaviour before he can either understand the feelings of those animals or make his own intelligible to them. He has no natural power at all over many other creatures. Who, for instance, ever succeeded in frowning away a mosquito, or in pacifying an angry wasp with a smile? … (Galton, 1865, p. 133, emphasis added)

Regardless of the type of ecological relationship between us, as domesticators, with domesticated animal populations, our (individual) interactions with individuals of these populations are diverse and can be characterized by the nature of the interaction as negative, positive or neutral for one or both parties involved in the interaction (Hemsworth, 2003).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

94

Mateus Paranhos da Costa et al.

Next, we are going to discuss the quality of these interactions, focusing on beef cattle, the main subjects of our research. It is worth pausing to reflect on the statement of Hecht et  al. (2020, p. 9), who stated that ‘our species is blessed with the ability and cursed with the responsibility to understand our impact on our surroundings …’, which directly implies taking on the responsibility to improve our relationships with animals, mainly considering its real and potential impact on livestock production.

5.3

Livestock Production Systems

Livestock production systems are complex, comprised of multiple relationships between biotic and abiotic components, and natural and artificial factors, with inputs, transformations and outputs of matter and energy. The functionality and balance (or imbalance) of these systems are directly and indirectly influenced by human intervention, who decide which factors are to be part of the system and control them. For example, when cattle are kept under intensive conditions, in feedlots, the space is reduced, and food is offered exclusively in feed bunks. Under such conditions the animals are totally dependent on humans to access essential resources. A completely different situation is present under extensive production systems, when cattle are kept on pastures. The physical and social environment of these raising conditions vary a lot and affect animal welfare, human wellbeing and the environment in different ways as we demonstrate next.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment

95

5.3.1 Modelling the dynamics of beef cattle production system components within the One Welfare framework Under the One Welfare framework, all components of beef cattle production systems are interrelated and jointly support the health and welfare status of all players comprising the system. As pointed out a long time ago by Aristotle (Aristotle’s Metaphysics (1908) as translated by Ross, Book H, Part 6, p. 84), ‘the whole is something beside the parts …’! There is a complex synergism, with many interconnections among the environmental conditions and the welfare states of humans and animals, the effects of which (together or apart) have the potential to alter the balance of the entire system. We assume that our relationships with cattle start when a calf is born. Birth is the moment at which the calf leaves the uterine environment and is exposed to an external environment, facing novel conditions. This individual strives to cope with these new environmental challenges, and if it succeeds, it survives and grows. The first interaction of the newborn calf is generally with its mother, who is motivated to express maternal care. She will dry her calf and protect it from predators, besides providing warmth and feed (Paranhos da Costa and Cromberg, 1998). At some point, the newborn calf will also have a relationship with stockpeople during the first handling procedure, which usually consists of disinfecting the navel and ensuring the calf is well (Costa et al., 2021). This first human–animal contact is essential for future performance and the relationship that is created with stockpeople (Krohn et al., 2001). As the calves grow, they start to consume forage or other feeds, and a complex ruminal ecosystem is developed (O’Hara et  al., 2020). An adequate balance in the microbial populations of a cow’s digestive tract depends on many factors. However, when this equilibrium is broken, population dynamics change, increasing the risk of diseases (Zeineldin et al., 2018). Additionally, cattle are in a permanent relationship with other organisms present in the environment, including conspecifics, and other human and non-human animal species, as well as microorganisms. Abiotic factors present in the environment (e.g. climate elements, facilities and air quality) also have roles in modulating relationships with other organisms (Tarazona et  al., 2020). Under certain conditions, such factors can lead the animals to experience chronic stress, which often triggers physiological and behavioural alterations, changing the animals’ reactivity, and inducing immune suppression (Boissy et al., 1998; Dahl et al., 2020) that increases the risk of developing infectious diseases (Broom and Fraser, 2015). Humans have some control of the environment where cattle live, by defining, for example: (i) the size and shape of the area occupied by them; (ii) the design and maintenance of the facilities; and (iii) the management and distribution of resources. When such conditions are not properly planned or managed, they usually lead to environmental problems, such as soil erosion which, over time, can cause sedimentation of waterbodies. The consequent

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

96

Mateus Paranhos da Costa et al.

environmental damage caused by such conditions can compromise human wellbeing and cattle welfare and result in economic losses. Such problems can be prevented with appropriate pasture and facility designs and adequate provision of resources (e.g. drinkers, feeders and shelters), as well as adoption of good practices for soil conservation, taking into account the specific conditions of each system. As the calves grow, the interactions with humans increase, and these interactions can be perceived by animals as positive (e.g. feed and positive tactile interactions), negative (e.g. hot-iron branding, vaccination and weaning), or neutral (e.g. daily observation of animals) (Waiblinger et al., 2006). It is based on the quality of these interactions that an animal defines its reactions to stockpeople, who, in turn, will take its reactions into account to define how they will interact with the animal (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011). Humans’ decisions regarding the entire production system, including animal handling, depend on their attitudes, which are influenced by either internal (e.g. knowledge, emotions, personality, empathy, beliefs and motivation) or external factors (e.g. culture, working conditions and learning opportunities). Attitudes can be modified through cognitive-behavioural training of the staff (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2011). Animal behaviour is not only influenced by its interaction with humans, but also by its genetic constitution, interactions with conspecifics, and other factors (e.g. feed and other elements of the environment). The interaction of these factors has various consequences on the system balance. Usually, when the calves are 7–8 months old, they are separated from their mothers (weaned). Although weaning is a natural process, in nature it usually occurs between 8 and 14 months of age and without separation from their mothers (Reinhardt and Reinhardt, 1981). However, this is not the case on a cow-calf operation, where weaning occurs according to human criteria, being usually carried out earlier in life compared with natural conditions, and with complete separation of the dyad. This procedure usually aims to promote cows’ body condition to improve their reproductive performance (Enríquez et al., 2011). Under such conditions, weaning is stressful for both cows (Ungerfeld et al., 2011) and calves (Price et al., 2003), although the effects for calves are greater and more prolonged (Veissier et  al., 1990). Thus, the nature of human–calf relationships throughout the weaning process will be crucial to define the calves’ perception about the quality of the relationships with humans. There are various methods of weaning, the most traditional being abrupt separation, in which dams are suddenly and completely separated from their calves (WOAH, 2022). However, alternative weaning methods are recommended to reduce separation stress. For example, there is the two-stage weaning method, in which a device is fitted in the calves’ nostrils, preventing them from suckling, although cows and calves remain together. There is empirical evidence that such a procedure can result in frustration and injuries in the calves’ muzzles, negatively impacting calf welfare (Lambertz et al., 2015; Valente et al., 2022). Another alternative is

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment

97

fence-line weaning, in which cows and calves are maintained close to each other after separation, allowing them visual, auditory and olfactory contact prior to complete separation (Price et al., 2003). Regardless of the weaning method used, there will be some degree of stress, which can be minimized by the adoption of good practices of handling during this critical period of a calf’s life, among which the following are prominent: (i) offer calves feed supplements a few days before weaning (staying among them for a while) and keep this supply after weaning, aiming to reduce their fear of humans; (ii) conduct separation handling carefully, without causing fear or physical reprimands; (iii) do not perform other stressful procedures (e.g. branding or vaccinating) concurrently with weaning; and (iv) avoid placing calves in an unfamiliar location after separation. After weaning, calves are backgrounded to continue growth until reaching the desired weight for fattening. Humans have an important role during this process by grouping calves according to some criteria, defining, for example the total number of animals per group, the density of animals per area, space for feeders and drinkers per animal, availability of shade, age and weight of the animals, among others. Humans are also responsible for routine handling procedures (e.g. weighing, vaccinations, loading and unloading, among others). Many of these procedures trigger stress responses in cattle, and these interactions with humans are interpreted by them as negative, since they

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

98

Mateus Paranhos da Costa et al.

usually generate discomfort, stress, pain and, in extreme situations, suffering (Stookey and Watts, 2004). Nevertheless, such activities are unavoidable, since they are done regularly within production systems to prevent health problems (e.g. vaccinations and deworming). Thus, they should be done taking into account cattle behaviour and by adopting the best of cattle handling practices, making our interactions with them as positive as possible. Adoption of handling best practices requires skill, therefore training can improve stockpeople’s abilities to properly handle cattle. Additionally, cattle handling is easier when conducted in proper facilities, for example well-designed corrals facilitate cattle handling and reduce the risk of labour accidents. Conversely, corrals that are poorly designed or maintained create handling difficulties and increase the risk of stress, accidents and productive losses.

Case Study 6: Positive effects of the adoption of good handling practices on cattle welfare and human wellbeing There are many examples about the positive effects of implementing good handling practices on beef cattle farms, among them those reported by Paranhos da Costa et al. (2019), who quoted the testimony of two stockpeople about how the adoption of good handling practices infuenced their quality of life. In the frst one, Mr Joaquim, who worked as a stockperson on a beef cattle farm located in Três Lagoas, Mato Grosso do Sul state, Brazil, said: Before, at the end of the day, I used to go home very tired, going straight to bed just after a shower and dinner. Usually, I used to sleep thinking of the next day’s work, which would be started very early, at six in the morning. Today it is different; I go home, and after a shower and dinner, I still have energy to watch TV and to talk with my wife … (Mr Joaquim, emphasis added) Similarly, a stockperson from northern Uruguay, at the end of a training day on good handling practices, said (emphasis added): ‘in the past I used to be very nervous and displeased after everyday working with cattle, and now I feel more relaxed and less tired after working with them …’. Thus, in both cases, in addition to improving the welfare of animals, adopting good handling practices also provides better working conditions for stockpeople, improving their quality of life. More evidence about these benefts were reported by Ceballos et al. (2018a), in Brazil, whose results demonstrated that when cattle were handled inappropriately (with screams and physical aggression) there was a greater risk of personnel/staff accidents, and the heifers were more reactive and stressed, resulting in a lower reproductive performance compared with those handled properly. Based on the results of a complementary study on this subject, Ceballos et al. (2018b) concluded that stockpeople trained in good cattle handling practices had better attitudes and behaviours towards the animals, and they maintained a high standard of cattle handling over time. These testimonies and results of research make it clear the importance of training stockpeople in good practices of handling and animal welfare.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment

5.3.2

99

Finishing stage

Cattle finishing (or fattening) can be carried out on pastures, in feedlots or in a combination of both (in semi-confinement). Grazing cattle are usually kept in large areas, and their diet is mainly based on forage produced on pasture. Under such conditions, cattle face an important potential challenge, namely the reduction of forage availability and/or low-quality pastures during the dry period. The efficiency of this system is directly dependent on the way that the pastures are implemented and managed. This implies taking into account various factors, with emphasis on: (i) size and shape of pasture area; (ii) soil types and fertility; (iii) grazing pressure; (iv) the length of time that the cattle herd stay in the same pasture area; (v) location of resources (e.g. water and supplements); (vi) forage species; and (vii) terrain slope, among others. The combination of these factors can result in changes to the environment, as well as changes to the welfare of animals, and wellbeing of stockpeople and people who live nearby. For example, when implementing a pasture where a slope is present in the terrain, the definition of its shape and location of essential resources must be done very carefully to prevent the emergence of cattle pathways that increase the risk of soil erosion, which decreases the availability and quality of forage, and causes sedimentation of watercourses (Ongley, 1997; Issaka and Ashraf, 2017). This, in turn, results in the consumption of water with sediment, increasing the risk of animal disease. Additionally, this situation damages the environment, causing soil loss, water pollution and reducing water availability. Conversely, when cattle are kept in feedlots there is a considerable restriction of space, leading to a higher risk of agonistic interactions with conspecifics, and environmental problems. Most feedlots are outdoors and, due to this, the housing conditions are directly dependent on the weather. Under such conditions, high stocking density usually leads to a high concentrations of air dust during the dry period and mud accumulation during the rainy period. Both situations usually lead to a higher risk of health problems, affecting cattle (e.g. respiratory and kidney problems), stockpeople and the community that lives nearby the feedlot (Macitelli et al., 2020). 5.3.3

Conceptual model of a high-density feedlot system

The definition of a good balance between human wellbeing and cattle welfare, and a wholesome environment can be affected by both the production system adopted and the way it is managed. A conceptual model describing the relationships between the multiple factors associated with a high-density feedlot system taking into consideration the concept of One Welfare is shown in Fig. 5.2.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Mateus Paranhos da Costa et al.

100

+ Social competition

Beef cattle density

Climate conditions + (rain, dry) Environmental challenge

B2

– Desired One Welfare

+ + Discrepancy –

B1 –

Corrective actions

Beef cattle welfare +

+

One Welfare + +

Stockpeople’s wellbeing B2’ +

+ Palliative actions (sprinklers, cleaning pen surface)

B5

B3

+ B4

Other animals’ welfare B4’

+

B5’ Community wellbeing + + B3’ Environment quality

Plant health +

Fig. 5.2. Conceptual model of a high-density feedlot system. B = balance feedback loop; + = infuence with positive polarity; - = infuence with negative polarity; // = ‘delay’.

This model identifies nine balance cycles. The B1 balance cycle captures how high stocking density increases social competition between cattle, which can harm their welfare, whether causing injuries during agonist behaviour or making access to the resources (mainly food) more difficult for submissive animals. Under such conditions, corrective actions must be taken, by reducing stocking density. Cycles B2, B3, B4 and B5 exhibit negative impacts resulting from high stocking density on the environment quality. This includes various issues, such as weather conditions, which can result in mud accumulation during the rainy season, reducing cattle welfare and stockpeople’s wellbeing and making it more difficult to carry out the daily work routine. Conversely, during the dry season, it can result in high dust concentrations in the air, which also has negative impacts on the welfare of all living beings that stay or live near the feedlot (e.g. humans, cattle, other animals and plants, due to photosynthesis impairment (Sett, 2017)). These problems (mud accumulation and dust concentration) are usually progressive, getting worse over time. In the beginning, they usually cause discomfort, but later can result in health problems that can lead to death. The management of the system, looking for the promotion of the welfare of all (One Welfare) should consider a comparison of the One Welfare aspect observed and desired. The ‘discrepancy’ is the variable that indicates a gap between both, implying the need to adopt corrective measures.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment

101

The most effective way to improve the welfare of all living beings kept under such conditions is by reducing cattle stocking density. Other initiatives, like removing the mud from the yards and using sprinklers to reduce the concentration of air dust, are palliative, and can result in other environmental problems when not well planned and carried out carefully, increasing, for example, the risk of pollution and water footprint. Cycles B2', B3', B4' and B5' exhibit the potential effects of these palliative actions when trying to solve the problem in the short term. Those actions cause oscillations in animal welfare and human wellbeing states over time but, as suggested by the conceptual model, to solve the problems arising from feedlot operations, an effective corrective action must be taken, by reducing cattle stocking density.

5.3.4 Slaughter stage When cattle reach the desired weight, they are subjected to pre-slaughter handling procedures, being moved from the pasture or feedlot to a corral, where they are loaded on a truck and shipped to the abbatoir. There, they

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

102

Mateus Paranhos da Costa et al.

are unloaded and stay in the lairage pen before moving to the stunning box, where they are desensitized then slaughtered. This pre-slaughter handling process represents a very short interval in cattle’s life, which is not enough to correct previous problems that arose from negatively conducted interactions with humans during their lifetime on the farm. However, when pre-slaughter handling is carried out improperly, it usually causes animal suffering, carcass damage and low-quality meat (Adzitey, 2011). It is also essential that abbatoirs meet appropriate criteria to assure good animal welfare standards, such as water and shade provision, among others. Cattle reactions are a product of their life history; thus, it is a responsibility of all, stockpeople and abattoir staff, to carry out the handling procedures appropriately, from birth to slaughter.

5.4 Conceptual Model of One Welfare Applied to a Beef Cattle Production System The conceptual model shown in Fig. 5.3 connects the components that determine the dynamics of One Welfare over time in a beef cattle production system, approached throughout this chapter. It demonstrates the complexity of non-linear interactions in reinforcement and balance cycles that occur in the structure of the system. The types of interaction taking place in cattle’s daily life on a farm, particularly their relationships with humans, directly affects the behaviour of both, according to the R1 reinforcement cycle. A reinforcement cycle indicates that a variation in any variable propagates through the cycle reinforcing the change of the variable in the same direction. Thus, ‘Stockpeople behaviour’ drives the adoption of ‘handling practices’ influencing ‘Human–animal relationship’, which when carried out properly, can contribute to a virtuous circle, promoting the welfare of all (One Welfare) over time. However, when this is not the case, and the relationships are not properly conducted, a vicious circle will be reinforced, impoverishing the welfare of all. All reinforcement cycles included in this conceptual model (R2 to R18) follow the same dynamics described above. This ‘Human–animal relationship’ cycle is influenced by balance cycles with delay (B1 to B5) that can cause oscillations in the dynamics of the system. Relationships between stockpeople’s wellbeing and cattle welfare are reinforced by the dynamics of One Welfare as a whole. The stockpeople responsible for dealing directly with the animals must have appropriate attitudes to carry out their duties in relation to animals and the environment in a proper way. Training and appropriate skills are essential to align their behaviour with their attitudes and the recommendations of cattle handling best practices.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Production + Revenue

+ External to the stockpeople

+

Desired behaviour

Corrective + action B3

Internal to the stockpeople +

B1

+

Training

Attitudes + + + +

+

R1

Stockpeople + behaviour +

++

Perceived by animal

Handling + practices

–

B2 +

Social group + Social + environment

+ Discrepancy 0

+ Human–animal relationship +

R5

R2

Beef cattle behaviour +

+

+ Ethics

+

Investment decision

+

R14

Infrastructure

+

+ Stockpeople + wellbeing – + R9

Human disease –

+

B5

Genetic +

R15

+

One Welfare R18

R17

R12 +

R16

R6 R7

Environmental contamination

Environment

+ Contamination of the living environment

+

R10 +

R11

+

+

Adapted animal +

R3

+

Beef cattle + welfare

Animal disease – –

+

Temperament +

+ Salary and living conditions

Cattle temperament + – Discrepancy

+

R4 Professional profile

Productivity + –

R8

R13 +

Cattle physical environment

Climate

Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment

+

B4

+

Air quality conditions

103

Fig. 5.3. Conceptual model of One Welfare applied to a beef cattle production system, exhibiting the complex interrelationships that determine the dynamics of the system. R = reinforcement feedback loop; B = balance feedback loop; + = influence with positive polarity; - = influence with negative polarity; // = ‘delay’.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Mateus Paranhos da Costa et al.

104

5.5

Conclusions

All points addressed in this chapter demonstrate that livestock production systems have complex dynamics, where all the components are important. This implies that any change in one of its components can affect the entire system. The intensity of this effect varies according to the imbalance caused to the system, resulting in minor or major impacts on human wellbeing, animal welfare and on the environment. Thus, the use of the systemic approach can be characterized as a useful tool for the management of livestock production systems that aim to acknowledge and take into account the interconnections between animal welfare, human wellbeing and the environment (One Welfare) and in this way help to promote positive welfare for all.

Note The four of us conceived and wrote this chapter together, but unfortunately, Ariel Marcel Tarazona and Luciandra Macedo de Toledo passed away in April 2023. We want to honour them by telling you a little about how it was working with Ariel and Luciandra. Since we started work on this chapter, we met weekly for several months. We met online, brainstormed and followed up on our advances in the text over the weeks. They were enjoyable moments of learning! We had the opportunity to stop our daily duties for an hour or more and talk about many more things than just the manuscript we were writing. Ariel and Luciandra facilitated our ‘work meetings’, making them pleasant times in our very busy week. Both contributed with bright ideas. Luciandra was always quiet and attentive, offering short but relevant insights, and Ariel was more talkative and easy going, always offering signifcant contributions to our chapter. We are still processing their passing. We will keep the good memories of the time we had with them.

†

References Adzitey, F. (2011) Effect of pre-slaugther animal handling on carcass and meat quality. International Food Research Journal 19, 485–491. Aristotle (1908) Metaphysics. Translated by W.D. Ross. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. Available at: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/-384_-322,_ Aristoteles,_Metaphysics,_EN.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2021). August, K.J. and Rook, K.S. (2013) Social relationships. In. Gellman, M.D. and Turner, J.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. Springer, New York, pp. 119– 136. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_59. Beck, K. (2019) Coevolution: Definition, Types & Examples. Sciencing, 4 June. Available at: https://sciencing.com/coevolution-definition-types-examples13719185.html (accessed 21 April 2021). Bernardes, L. (2021) Holismo. Todo Estudo. Available at: https://www.todoestudo. com.br/historia/holismo#google_vignette (accessed 7 March 2021). Boissy, A., Terlouw, C. and Le Neindre, P. (1998) Presence of cues from stressed conspecifics increases reactivity to aversive events in cattle: evidence for the

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment

105

existence of alarm substances in urine. Physiology & Behavior 63(4), 489–495. DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00466-6. Broom, D.M. and Fraser, A.F. (2015) Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 5th edn. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 472 pp. Capra, F. (1996) The Web of Life – a New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Doubleday Books, New York, 368 pp. Capra, F. and Luisi, P.L. (2014) The systems view of life. Resurgence & Ecologist magazine 284, May/June. Available at: https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/ article4162-the-systems-view-of-life.html (accessed 12 May 2021). Ceballos, M.C., Sant’Anna, A.C., Góis, K.C.R., Ferraudo, A.S., Negrão, J.A. and Paranhos da Costa, M.J.R. (2018a) Investigating the relationship between human–animal interactions, reactivity, stress response and reproductive performance in Nellore heifers. Livestock Science 217, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. livsci.2018.08.001 Ceballos, M.C., Sant’Anna, A.C., Boivin, X., Costa, F.O., Carvalhal, M.V.L. and Paranhos da Costa, M.J.R. (2018b) Impact of good practices of handling training on beef cattle welfare and stockpeople attitudes and behaviors. Livestock Science 216, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.06.019 Costa, F.O., Valente, T.S., Toledo, L.M., Ambrósio, L.A., Del Campo, M. and Paranhos da Costa, M.J.R. (2021) A conceptual model of the human-animal relationships dynamics during newborn handling on cow-calf operation farms. Livestock Science 246: 104462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104462 Dahl, G.E., Tao, S. and Laporta, J. (2020) Heat stress impacts immune status in cows across the life cycle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6: 116. https://doi. org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00116 Dekel, Y., Machluf, Y., Brand, R., Noked Partouche, O., Ben-Shlomo, I. and Bercovich, D. (2017) Mammal domestication and the symbiotic spectrum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2017: E5280. DOI: 10.1073/ pnas.1705784114. Diamond, J. (1997) Guns, Germs, and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 480 pp. Diamond, J. (2002) Evolution, consequences and future of plant animal domestication. Nature 418, 700–707. DOI: 10.1038/nature01019. Enríquez, D., Hötzel, M.J. and Ungerfeld, R. (2011) Minimising the stress of weaning of beef calves: a review. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 53(1), 1–8. https://doi. org/10.1186/1751-0147-53-28 Fina, B.L., Lombarte, M. and Rigalli, A. (2013) Investigación de un fenómeno natural: ¿Estudios in vivo, in vitro o in silico? Actualizaciones en Osteología 9(3), 239–240. Galton, F. (1865) The first steps towards the domestication of animals. Transactions of the Ethnological Society of London 3, 122–138. Available at: https://www.jstor. org/stable/pdf/3014161.pdf (accessed 28 March 2021). García Pinillos, R., Appleby, M.C., Scott-Park, F. and Smith, C.W. (2015) One Welfare. Veterinary Record 177(24), 629-630. DOI: 10.1136/vr.h6830. Gontier, N. (2016) Symbiosis, History of. In: Kliman, R.M. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 272–281. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800049-6.00015-9. Hecht, L.B.B., Thompson, P.C. and Rosenthal, B.M. (2020) Assessing the evolutionary persistence of ecological relationships: a review and preview. Infection, Genetics and Evolution 84: 104441. DOI: 10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104441.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

106

Mateus Paranhos da Costa et al.

Hemsworth, P.H. (2003) Human–animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81(3), 185–198. DOI: 10.1016/ S0168-1591(02)00280-0. Hemsworth, P.H. and Coleman, G.J. (2011) Human–Livestock Interactions: the Stockperson and the Productivity of Intensively Farmed Animals, 2nd edn. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 194 pp. Hulme-Beaman, A. and Searle, J.B. (2016) Ecological and evolutionary framework for commensalism in anthropogenic environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 31(8), 633–645. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.001. Issaka, S. and Ashraf, M.A. (2017) Impact of soil erosion and degradation on water quality: a review. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes 1(1), 1–11. DOI: 10.1080/24749508.2017.1301053. Katinić, M. (2013) Holism in deep ecology and Gaia-theory: a contribution to eco-geological science, a philosophy of life or a new age stream? The Holistic Approach to Environment 3(1), 3–14. Krohn, C.C., Jago, J.G. and Boivin, X. (2001) The effect of early handling on the socialisation of young calves to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 121–133. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00161-7. Lambertz, C., Bowen, P.R., Erhardt, G. and Gauly, M. (2015) Effects of weaning beef cattle in two stages or by abrupt separation on nasal abrasions, behaviour, and weight gain. Animal Production Science 55(6), 786–792. https://doi. org/10.1071/AN14097 Lovelock, J.E. (1972) Gaia as seen through the atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment 6, 579–580. DOI: 10.1016/0004-6981(72)90076-5. Lovelock, J. (2003) The living Earth. Nature 426: 770. https://doi.org/10.1038/ 426769a Lovelock, J.E. and Lodge, J.P. (1972) Oxygen in the contemporary atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment 6, 575–578. Lovelock, J. and Margulis, L. (1974) Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the Gaia hypothesis. Tellus 26(1-2), 2–10. DOI: 10.3402/tellusa.v26i1-2.9731. Macitelli, F., Braga, J.S., Gellatly, D. and Paranhos da Costa, M.J.R. (2020) Reduced space in outdoor feedlot impacts beef cattle welfare. Animal 14(12), 2588–2597. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731120001652. O’Hara, E., Kenny, D.A., McGovern, E., Byrne, C.J., McCabe, M.S., et  al. (2020) Investigating temporal microbial dynamics in the rumen of beef calves raised on two farms during early life. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 96(2): fiz203. https:// doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiz203 Ongley, E.D. (1997) Lucha Contra la Contaminación Agrícola de los Recursos Hídricos. Estudio FAO Riego y Drenaje - 55. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ w2598s/w2598s00.htm#Contents (accessed 3 June 2021). Paranhos da Costa, M.J.R. and Cromberg, V.U. (1998) Relações materno-filiais em bovinos de corte nas primeiras horas após o parto. In: Comportamento Materno em Mamíferos. Sociedade Brasileira de Etologia, São Paulo, Brazil, pp. 215–235. Paranhos da Costa, M.J.R., Huertas, S.M. and Gallo, C. (2019) Handling and transport of cattle and pigs in South America. In. Grandin, T. (ed.) Livestock Handling and Transport, 5th edn. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 184–205. Price, E.O. (1984) Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. The Quarterly Review of Biology 59(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1086/413673 Price, E.O., Harris, J.E., Borgwardt, R.E., Sween, M.L. and Connor, J.M. (2003) Fenceline contact of beef calves with their dams at weaning reduces the negative effects of separation on behavior and growth rate. Journal of Animal Science 81, 116–121.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Livestock Production: Physical and Social Environment

107

Reinhardt, V. and Reinhardt, A. (1981) Natural sucking performance and age of weaning in zebu cattle (Bos indicus). The Journal of Agricultural Science 96(2), 309–312. DOI: 10.1017/S0021859600066089. Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday, New York, 424 pp. Sett, R. (2017) Responses in plants exposed to dust pollution. Horticulture International Journal 1(2), 53–56. https://doi.org/10.15406/hij.2017.01.00010 Stempsey, W.E. (2001) Plato and holistic medicine. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4, 201–209. DOI: 10.1023/a:1011425102809. Sterman, J.D. (2000) Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. McGraw Hill Companies, Chicago, Illinois, 982 pp. Stookey, J.M. and Watts, J.M. (2004) Production practices and well-being: beef cattle. In. Benson, G.J. and Rolin, B.E. (eds) The Well-Being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, Iowa, pp. 185–206. Tarazona, A.M., Ceballos, M.C. and Broom, D.M. (2020) Human relationships with domestic and other animals: One Health, One Welfare, One Biology. Animals 10(1): 43. DOI: 10.3390/ani10010043. Ungerfeld, R., Hötzel, M.J., Scarsi, A. and Quintans, G. (2011) Behavioral and physiological changes in early-weaned multiparous and primiparous beef cows. Animal 5(8), 1270–1275. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111000334. Valente, T.S., Ruiz, L.R.B., Macitelli, F. and Paranhos da Costa, M.J.R. (2022) Nose flap devices use for two-stage weaning produce wounds in the nostrils of beef calves: Case report. Animals 12: 1452. DOI: 10.3390/ani12111452. Veissier, I., Le Neindre, P. and Garel, J.P. (1990) Decrease in cow-calf attachment after weaning. Behavioural Processes 21, 95–105. DOI: /10.1016/03766357(90)90018-B. Waiblinger, S., Boivin, X., Pedersen, V., Tosi, M.V., Janczak, A.M., et al. (2006) Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 185–242. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001. World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) (2022) Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Chapter 7.9 Animal Welfare and Beef Cattle Production Systems, Article 7.9.5. Recommendations. Available at https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/ standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1& htmfile=chapitre_aw_beef_cattle.htm (accessed 12 June 2023). Zeder, M.A. (2012) Pathways to animal domestication. In: Gepts, P., Famula, T.R., Bettinger, R.L., Brush, S.B., Damania, A.B., et al. (eds) Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 227–259. Zeineldin, M., Barakat, R., Elolimy, A., Salem, A.Z.M., Elghandour, M.M.Y. and Monroy, J.C. (2018) Synergetic action between the rumen microbiota and bovine health. Microbial Pathogenesis 124, 106–115. DOI: 10.1016/j. micpath.2018.08.038.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators and their Relation to Workers’ Wellbeing and their Environment

6

Déborah Temple,1 Antoni Dalmau,2 Xavier Manteca1,3 and Antonio Velarde2

Animal Welfare Education Center (AWEC), Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Spain; 2Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA), Monells, Spain; 3School of Veterinary Science, UAB, Spain 1

6.1

Introduction

The concept of animal welfare can be approached from different perspectives, and these have been grouped into three categories: (i) biological functioning; (ii) emotional state; and (iii) ‘naturalness’ (Fraser et al., 1997). Animal welfare is closely linked to animal health, the health and wellbeing of people, and the sustainability of the socio-economic and ecological systems (World Organisation for Animal Health’s (WOAH) global animal welfare strategy; WOAH, nd). Each of these approaches has its own merits but none of them captures on its own the different aspects of animal welfare. It has been suggested, therefore, that the assessment of animal welfare must include all three approaches. It is widely accepted that animal welfare encompasses not only the physical health of the animals (i.e. the absence of diseases and injuries) but also their behaviour and emotions (Duncan and Fraser, 1997; Mendl, 2001). It is therefore important to remember that the concept of animal welfare is broader than the concept of physical health, understood as the absence of diseases and injuries, since animal welfare includes both the physical state and the mental state of the animals (WOAH, 2022). It is evident, therefore, that the concept of animal welfare is multidimensional, and its evaluation requires taking into account all the elements mentioned above. For many years, the five freedoms and provisions (Farm Animal Welfare Council, 1992) have provided a useful framework to identify the welfare problems of farm animals. These freedoms represent baseline needs to achieve a welfare state rather than actual standards for animal welfare. The freedoms are: (i) freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition; (ii) freedom from thermal and physical discomfort; (iii) freedom from pain,

108

DOI: 10.1079/9781789249507.0006

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

109

injury and disease; (iv) freedom to express most patterns of normal behaviour; and (v) freedom from fear and distress. More recently, the five freedoms have been criticized on the grounds that they can be misunderstood as aiming at eliminating all negative experiences but also because they fail to capture our current understanding of the biological processes underlying animal welfare (Mellor, 2016). The five freedoms principle is limited almost exclusively to the absence of negative situations and pays less attention to the importance of the positive aspects of wellbeing. In fact, in recent years several authors have emphasized the so-called ‘positive welfare’ (i.e. the fact that to reach true animal welfare it is not enough to guarantee the absence of suffering in animals, but that we must also provide them with the necessary conditions so that they experience positive emotions) (Lawrence et al., 2019). As an alternative to the five freedoms, the so-called five domains model for assessing animal welfare was developed to address these problems. According to this model, the wellbeing of an animal results from its global emotional state (i.e. from the balance between the positive and negative emotions that the animal experiences at a certain moment or over a period of time). This global emotional state constitutes the fifth domain of the model. The model recognizes four other domains which are ‘physical’ domains (food, environment, health, and behaviour) from which positive and negative emotions are derived, which, when combined, define the fifth domain (Mellor and Beausoleil, 2015; Mellor et al., 2020). The welfare of an animal must be measured using indicators (i.e. objective and quantifiable parameters that provide information on one or more of the aspects that determine welfare). Due to the multidimensional nature of the concept of animal welfare that we have described above, there is no indicator that by itself provides all the information necessary to evaluate it, so that the evaluation of animal welfare must always be done by combining different indicators. Ideally, the indicators used to assess animal welfare should be combined in a protocol that includes the different elements of welfare, as well as the methodology to measure each indicator and, where appropriate, obtain a score that allows quantifying the degree of welfare of the animal. Many welfare protocols used in livestock are based on the Welfare Quality® protocols that were initially developed for animals kept under intensive production systems (Botreau et al., 2007). The Welfare Quality® protocols include four animal welfare principles (food, environment, health and behaviour), which coincide with the four physical domains of the five domains model (see above). In turn, each principle includes several animal welfare criteria and, finally, each criterion is evaluated through one or several indicators. This chapter covers the different schemes of animal welfare indicators, the five domains and how they connect to the wellbeing of workers and their environment. It discusses how monitoring welfare indicators is important to support management and staff and how they can facilitate and support their work overall. Examples of best practice farming systems are provided within the chapter.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

110

Déborah Temple et al.

The chapter is divided into two sections. In the first one, the scientific principles of farm animal welfare are discussed, starting with a brief discussion of the concept of animal welfare and following with a description of welfare indicators and assessment protocols. In the second section, three case studies that illustrate the relationship between farm animal welfare and human wellbeing are presented. The rationale behind these case studies is that having a science-based methodology to assess farm animal welfare is necessary to identify problems and monitor improvement strategies which, ultimately, will benefit human wellbeing.

6.2 Animal Welfare Indicators: Animal-based versus Resource-based Indicators It is possible to assess welfare looking at the environment of the animals. Resource and management-based measures can indicate if the environment is acceptable for the animals. Resource-based measures include, for example, dimensions of the feeding area, number of drinking places, dimensions of resting area, quality of the resting area, and quality of the water. Those indirect measures are based on assumptions concerning the relationships between aspects of the environment and the actual welfare state of the animals. Environmental factors are fundamental for the provision of advice on the prevention of a welfare problem and for the detection of a risk of deficient welfare. Information on the risk of welfare problems is particularly important to detect problems whose incidences are rare. Instead of measuring the provision of good husbandry, welfare can be measured by observing the animal more directly. Animal-based measures (outcomes) indicate the effect of the indirect environmental measures and their interactions on the animal. Since welfare is a condition of the animal, animal-based measures are likely to provide the most direct information on its welfare state. Therefore, they are generally considered more valid measures of welfare compared with environmental measures. Animal-based measures involve both animal observations and the use of farm records of the animals and fall into five main categories: (i) performance; (ii) health; (iii) physiology; (iv) behaviour; and (v) post-mortem measurements. Environmental and animal-based measures present both advantages and disadvantages. Consequently, the combination of both types of parameters gives the most valid and complete assessment of animal welfare and enables us not only to assess the current welfare state of the animals but also to evaluate potential risks to their welfare.

6.3 Validity, Reliability and Feasibility The choice of measures to be included in a welfare assessment tool is determined on the basis of feasibility, validity and repeatability (Winckler et al.,

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

111

2003). One of the main concerns regarding welfare assessment is the extent to which an indicator is actually measuring what it is supposed to measure. Validity is determined by accuracy (free from systematic errors), specificity and scientific validity (Martin and Bateson, 2007). For instance: (i) a human–animal relationship test (HAR) should reflect the animal’s perception of their interactions with humans; (ii) a record of negative social behaviour should be related to situations where the animal suffers pain, fear and/or distress; and (iii) evaluation of skin lesions should consider all factors that cause these, such as aggressive behaviour from other animals or rough handling. Repeatability (or reliability) is defined as the similarity of repeated measurements on the same animal. Inter-observer repeatability is evaluated if two (or more) persons carrying out an observation of the same animals get similar scores. Intra-observer repeatability analyses if the same person assigns similar scores to the same animals. Repeatability is especially important when the welfare assessment tool is developed for certification purposes. Finally, the welfare assessment protocol should be easy to carry out in commercial conditions and only take a short time to complete. Most of the physiological measures and several behavioural indicators may be excluded for being too invasive or for requiring too much time (Smulders et al., 2006).

6.4 New Developments: Precision Livestock Farming, Precision Slaughter, Indicators of Good Welfare and Extensive Systems Precision livestock farming (PLF) is the use of advanced technologies to reduce labour and to monitor and optimize farming processes. It is based on the use of sensors capable of monitoring a vast range of variables with an interest in animal welfare, environmental impact and productivity. Although not so widely applied, precision slaughter (PS) equally describes how advanced technologies can be used to improve animal welfare and worker’s efficiency within slaughterhouses (García Pinillos, 2018). These technologies provide real-time data of individual animals and groups of animals as a whole; this allows us to monitor their welfare status and make sure that prompt action is taken to remedy specific problems. There is a wide range of different technologies developed for animal welfare monitoring on farm, much of which can also be transferred to slaughterhouses. Bespoke technology is also available for slaughterhouses although not at the same scale as on farm. For instance, on-farm sensors installed on animals (i.e. in collars) or in the nearby environment (i.e. in feeders) can detect changes in the behaviour of the animals, such as variations in feeding patterns, drinking, activity, vocalization. Moreover, the physical state of the animal, such as body temperature,

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

112

Déborah Temple et al.

can be monitored by thermal cameras for example. PLF systems generate large volumes of on-farm data that has the potential to support farmers. Changes in animal behaviour indicative of injury, disease or discomfort, such as reduced locomotion, reduced feed intake, and/or altered distribution pattern could be automatically detected, and mechanisms to alert the farmer so that rapid treatment could be provided (Rutter, 2016) are now a reality. It is important to bear in mind that, although PLF technologies have a great potential to support farmers, they are not a substitute for farmers’ skills and experienced stockpeople with a direct knowledge of animals’ needs and behaviour can accomplish many things technology cannot (Meuret and Provenza, 2015). PLF does not replace good stockmanship as those skills are crucial to understand and interpret all the data. PLF is a tool that helps farmers to monitor their livestock. There are limitations to PLF technologies: 1. Farmers cannot rely fully on PLF technologies and must set up contingency plans and be prepared to respond adequately when the system fails. 2. PLF data is sometimes diffcult to interpret and the use of relevant digital applications may need appropriate training (Rutter, 2016). 3. A potential barrier to the uptake of PLF technologies is the availability of reliable Internet access, especially in remote, rural locations typical of many extensive farms. To access cloud services, farmers need reliable Internet access, and more needs to be done to ensure rural communities can have the benefts of fast and reliable Internet access. 4. PLF represents a substantial fnancial cost. A survey of Scottish sheep farmers (Morgan-Davies and Lambe, 2015) found that the cost of the equipment was the main barrier to the adoption of electronic identifcation. Cost of PLF represents a big impairment for its application on many farms in the world. Table 6.1 provides details of the barriers and possible solutions to adoption of PLF. Table 6.1. Barriers and possible solutions to adoption of precision livestock farming (PLF). Barrier

Possible solutions

PLF systems may fail Interpretation of data may be diffcult

Contingency plans Training of stockpeople and support by trained personnel Internet access may not be reliable in Public or private investment to remote rural areas guarantee fast and reliable Internet access in remote rural areas PLF systems may have a substantial cost Financial support from private companies or governments

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

113

6.5 Welfare Indicators I: On-farm Welfare Assessment 6.5.1

Indicators related to feeding

6.5.1.1 Body condition Body condition represents a valid and feasible indicator for good/optimal nutrition, malnutrition or undernutrition. It is the result of the cumulative outcome of many days, weeks or months of feeding/nutrition. Very low body condition weakens the animal and impairs their welfare because it compromises their immune system; very low body condition scores increase the risk of health problems during lactation in lactating animals (Roche et al., 2008). Moreover, underfeeding is likely to have direct negative effects on the affective state of the animals, for example by causing a state of hunger. Further, this may also impact the animal’s progeny: as an example, ensuring a good body condition in lactating ewes in an extensive system is important for lamb survival and for the survival of the mother herself under very cold conditions. Monitoring of body condition is especially important in extensive farming conditions where the provision of pasture and climate can be highly variable. Considering a One Welfare approach this is relevant as it is linked to farmers workload and economy, affecting their wellbeing too. 6.5.1.2 Water Water is often one of the most limited resources, especially for animals kept under extensive conditions. Climate change is increasing the episodes where many livestock animals suffer from lack of water as a result of drought. Depending on ambient temperature and feed intake, water intake can vary drastically. In terms of water requirements, livestock need to drink more water under heat stress and when forage conditions are poor. Two main factors can still impair the consumption of water: (i) water availability; and (ii) water quality. Water is not always available near a good pasture. Livestock may then face a dilemma having to choose between forage and water. Access to water of poor quality can drastically alter the health of the animals. Drinking water may be contaminated by minerals, manure, microorganisms (i.e. bacteria, parasites, etc.) and/or algae. Some contaminants may directly impact animal health by causing disease and infection; others have a more indirect effect and may cause livestock to decrease their overall water intake. When water intake is suppressed, feed intake will also decrease, and, as a result, animals will gain less weight. Contamination with manure can be a frequent problem when animals drink from ponds, as they may defecate into the water or carry manure on their hooves. Water quality is also affected by total dissolved salts (TDS). Water with a high salt content can produce acute effects such as excessive salivation and diarrhoea in exposed animals. Water quality should be checked regularly. Small changes in water management

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

114

Déborah Temple et al.

can enhance health and performance (Brew et al., 2009). Reducing the concentration of TDS, blue-green algae and other microorganisms, preventing faecal contamination, providing fresh rather than pond water and cleaning watering devices regularly can all result in measurable improvements in livestock welfare and performance (Brew et al., 2009). It may be useful to test the quality of the water at each water source. Despite a lack of solid research information to set validated and practical guidelines for ruminants and other species, many different water quality guidelines for farm livestock are suggested in the literature and can be useful (e.g. Beede, 2012). 6.5.2 Indicators related to the environment 6.5.2.1 Injuries related to the environment There are several indicators that can be used to assess the experience of life of animals in a specific environment. These can be based on physical traits, such as the presence of injuries caused by an inappropriate environment. For instance, the presence of bursitis in pigs is associated with the type of floor where the animals are resting, with a higher prevalence of these problems when pigs are on slatted rather than concrete floors, and with more incidence on bare concrete than on a floor covered with straw bedding. In the case of broilers, the presence of pododermatitis is associated with a combination of factors that usually includes poor bedding. Other physical indicators can include wounds on the body produced by contact of the skin with sharp edges or the presence of lameness due to the inability to perform enough exercise in confined environments. In contrast, in extensive conditions lameness can occur when animals are on slippery terrains, with a high presence of stones and pronounced slopes, especially that are not well adapted to these conditions. 6.5.2.2 Animal-based indicators related to the environment Related to this, it is possible to assess animal-based indicators, such as animals slipping and falling as part of problems with the environment where they live. Another indicator is based on checking how the animals are lying down and standing. For instance, an abnormal sequence of this behaviour in cattle indicates problems and even the time taken to lie down (should be less than 6 s) or collisions with structures (e.g. housing) can indicate that something is wrong in the environment of these animals. Body cleanliness is another animal welfare indicator to consider. In general, animals tend to keep themselves clean. Monitoring natural behaviours such as dust bathing in laying hens is important because it realigns feather structure and removes lipids from the skin of birds, helping them to keep their plumage clean, and this contributes to cleanliness scoring. In cattle, body cleanliness can be used

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

115

as an indicator of how clean and dry the animals’ resting area is, while in pigs it is important to distinguish between dirtiness produced by manure (faeces on the skin) or just mud, as they will use the latter to reduce their body heat in environments with high temperatures. For sure, the presence of faeces on the skin of any species increases the risk of diseases for the animal as well as for any other animal in contact with it, including humans. In addition, in animals intended for human consumption this increases the risk of contamination in the final food product. 6.5.2.3 Indicators related to thermal stress Other indicators that can be used to assess how well adapted the animals are to the environment are related to thermal stress. Animals shivering or showing huddling behaviour indicate that conditions are too cold for the animals, while animals panting (e.g. pigs, chickens and cows) or sweating (e.g. horses) indicate that environmental conditions are too hot for the animals. Prior to animals reaching these states, animals can be monitored to observe and record competition for space in shade areas, in front of a fan or for accessing a watering system with fresh water. Competition for space in these areas should be considered as a sign that animals are out of their thermal comfort. 6.5.3

Indicators related to health

Several of the indicators mentioned above also serve as indicators of health. These include presence of injuries, body condition (as it affects the immune system), body cleanliness, shivering or huddling. Also, there are additional indicators such as mortality, multifactorial diseases and indicators of painful situations. 6.5.3.1 Mortality Performance parameters give an overview of animal welfare problems at farm level, especially for health problems that a herd may experience over time. Their main limitation is their lack of specificity which makes them difficult to interpret. Mortality, excluding culled or euthanized animals, merely reflects the number of animals becoming so sick or injured that they die prior to any action taken by the farmer, such as slaughter, culling or euthanasia. Neonatal mortality is a concern in both intensive and extensive systems. Neonatal mortality is a strong economical concern, especially for the sustainability of extensive production systems. Furthermore, neonatal mortality raises the issue of animal welfare both for the neonate and for the mother (Mellor and Stafford, 2004; Dwyer and Baxter, 2016) making this a key One Welfare indicator.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

116

Déborah Temple et al.

6.5.3.2 Multifactorial disease Some diseases provide relevant information on the overall quality of the environment (including management) in which the animal lives and this is particularly true for so-called multifactorial diseases. Health problems are among the most severe welfare problems for farm animals. Disease and injuries have a negative effect on the emotional state of the animals (through pain and discomfort) and also interfere with their normal behaviour. Also, disease and injuries are important economic problems that affect the sustainability of individual farms. Moreover, personnel or consumers becoming infected with zoonotic infections can be a consequence of working with animals affected by some multifactorial diseases. The impact of these diseases largely depends on the combination of several management, housing and hygienic conditions on the farm. As an example, several types of mastitis, lameness, gastrointestinal and respiratory disorders are considered multifactorial diseases. Clinical signs and abnormalities are usually evaluated by veterinarians and farmers to detect these diseases. For instance, coughing, sneezing, pumping (heavy and laboured breathing), purulent and nasal discharge are clinical indicators of respiratory problems. The advantage of direct animal-based health indicators is that their link to suffering is clear, and therefore they are more easily validated than other types of indicators. Prevention programmes for multifactorial diseases and injuries should include regular monitoring and prompt treatment of the affected animal. 6.5.3.3 Pain Pain is a major welfare problem caused in farm animals mainly by disease and injuries as well as by some husbandry practices. Monitoring and assessment of pain is generally done by animal caretakers, farmers and veterinarians. Besides its negative impact on productivity, pain can alter the behaviour of the animal and affect handling and the dynamic of human–animal interactions, making it a key One Welfare indicator. Livestock animals experience several handling procedures throughout their lives that can be both stressful and painful. These situations can easily be perceived by the animal as aversive. Even if some painful procedures are necessary, applying both low-stress handling methods and pain mitigation strategies can significantly decrease the stress reaction and the fear response of the animals. As a practical example, the use of the intradermal vaccination method instead of intramuscular vaccination in gestating sows reduces pain during the procedure and improves the human–animal relationship after vaccination (Temple et  al., 2017). On-farm pain management is often inadequate and one of the reasons given by veterinarians for not administering analgesics to animals in pain is the alleged difficulty in identifying and assessing pain, especially in ruminants (Steagall et al., 2021). In ruminants, for instance, the main signs of

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

117

pain include: (i) reduced feed intake and rumination; (ii) licking, rubbing or scratching painful areas; (iii) reluctance to move; (iv) teeth grinding and lip curling; (v) altered social interactions; and (vi) changes in posture to avoid moving or causing contact with a painful body area. High-pitched vocalizations (HPVs) are also frequently used in several species to assess the intensity of pain. Recently, a Sheep Pain Facial Expression Scale (SPFES) has been developed to identify animals suffering pain caused by diseases, for example footroot (McLennan et al., 2016). The difficulty in pain identification can be compounded in many extensive systems where animals have little contact with humans, with infrequent handling. Using sensitive indicators of pain allows for early detection of illness and therefore supports farmers in rapid diagnosis and treatment of ill animals. However, in terms of feasibility, applying those indicators under some very extensive conditions represent a great challenge for the farming industry. 6.5.4 Indicators related to behaviour 6.5.4.1 Variations in normal behavioural patterns There are several types of behaviours that can be used to assess animal welfare. Some of them could be classified as normal behaviour: these are behaviours that are expected to be performed by a specific individual or species. Monitoring normal behaviours can be useful to detect that everything is as we would expect it to be for a good animal welfare state. For instance, for ruminants, a change in the frequency or total time ruminating can indicate changes in the physiological or emotional state of the animal that need to be controlled. In several species in extensive systems, the time spent walking can indicate how difficult it is to find food (i.e. increased walking time indicates finding food is more difficult). In the same line, vigilance behaviour in different animals can show how safe the herd feels (i.e. increased vigilance indicates that the herd feels less safe). In fact, a common way to study the welfare state of a group of animals consists of studying their activity budgets, where the most frequent behaviours (resting, grazing/eating, walking, socializing) are included. Pigs fighting, rabbits jumping on top of each other, head butting in cattle or displacements in birds (i.e. one bird moving another out of the way, by fighting) are all signs of hierarchy that can show there is too much competition for resources if they occur at a high frequency and/or close to a specific resource. 6.5.4.2 Occurrence of abnormal behaviours Another group of behaviours are those defined as abnormal: these are usually behaviours that are only performed by animals with difficulties in coping with a poor environment. In this group we will find the stereotypies,

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

118

Déborah Temple et al.

defined as a repetitive movement with no apparent objective for the animal. So, behaviours like sham chewing in sows, tongue rolling in cows or pacing in horses are signs that the animal has poor welfare, usually due to a barren environment and lack of stimulation. Another example of abnormal behaviours is the presence of redirected behaviours. This means behaviours that should be addressed against a specific stimulus but due to the impossibility of the animals to fulfil the action, the behaviour is redirected against another stimulus. Good examples of this are tail biting in pigs and feather pecking in hens. Although tail biting in pigs (pigs bite the tail of other pigs) is defined as a multifactorial problem, it is generally associated with a barren environment, where the animals are not stimulated enough, in combination with competition for resources, frustration and stress. Feather pecking in hens is also defined as a redirected foraging behaviour that occurs in barren environments where some laying hens peck others, sometimes removing feathers. This can result in poor plumage, patches of feather loss, skin damage and even death. 6.5.4.3 Behavioural indicators of emotions or affective states Finally, there are a group of behaviours that can be used as signs of affective states, which may be either negative or positive. Unpleasant negative emotions, such as fear and pain, can be assessed through a large variety of behavioural indicators. Examples of indicators of acute fear are reluctance to move or turning back in cattle or pigs (i.e. the animal turns around and goes back the way it has come), immobility in birds, and kicking in rabbits or horses. Fearful animals are much more difficult to handle, are unpredictable and may react suddenly. This represents a major occupational risk. When animals associate humans with situations that trigger fear, stress and pain, they are more likely to be afraid of humans later in life. Positive human–animal interactions facilitate animal handling and contribute to better job satisfaction. Both the quality of human–animal interactions and the behaviour of animals when performing HARs are key indicators of One Welfare. Indicators of positive emotions or affective states should also be considered. Based on evidence about the validity and reliability of different indicators of positive affective states in cattle, Keeling et al. (2021) suggested ear position, play, allogrooming and brush use as potential indicators to be included in a welfare assessment protocol. In pigs, tail movement and position (in undocked pigs) are promising parameters of a positive affective state (as it is of negative ones) alongside with play and barks (Reimert et al., 2013). Play behaviour can also be a valuable indicator of a positive affective state in poultry (Jacobs et al., 2023). Despite their importance, indicators of positive affective states have been understudied and need further applied research on commercial farms.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

119

6.6 Welfare Indicators II: Welfare Assessment During Transport Most farmed animals are transported at least once in their lives between farms or/and to the slaughterhouse. Transport includes different stages such as preparation for transport, loading, transit, journey breaks and unloading. Transport poses major challenges for the animals as they have to cope with a variety of physical, psychological, social and climatic stressors over a relatively short period of time. During these stages animals might experience group stress, handling stress, injuries, restriction of movement, resting problems, sensory overstimulation, motion stress, heat stress, cold stress, prolonged hunger and thirst (EFSA Panel on AHAW, 2022). The occurrence of these welfare consequences varies depending on the stage and means of transport and can be exacerbated during longer journeys. Making sure that animals are fit for transport before departure is of utmost importance in order to avoid pain and discomfort. However, indicators of fitness for transport have often not been established or validated. Suggested indicators to assess fitness for transport are: •

• • • •

Lameness: Abnormality of movement and is most evident when the animal (and so the legs) is in motion. It is caused by reduced ability to use one or more limbs in a normal manner. Lameness can vary in severity from reduced mobility to inability to bear weight. When an animal appears lame or is reluctant to walk, it is most likely experiencing pain. Body condition: A poor body condition score can originate from hunger or disease, or both and would make the animal unfit for transport. Abnormal physiological function: This includes abnormal temperature or respiratory levels (i.e. pyrexia or dyspnoea) which aggravate suffering during transport. Wounds or injuries: These include swollen joints, abscesses, hernias, rectal and vaginal prolapse and bone fractures. Physiological damage to somatic tissue induces pain. Advanced pregnancy: This is associated with increased risk of welfare problems during transport. Animals should not be transported in the last 10% of their pregnancy.

While some of the indicators above can clearly indicate an animal is unfit for transport (i.e. the animal has a broken leg and is unable to stand on all four legs during the journey) other times you may need to consider a combination of the above indicators (i.e. an animal with poor body condition may not be unfit for transport per se, but it may have additional signs that

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

120

Déborah Temple et al.

make the animal unfit for transport). Guidelines based on indicators for conditions leading to animals being unfit, including thresholds, should be established and validated. During loading and unloading, animals face a novel environment and handling that may cause fear. Inappropriate handling, corridors/races and pen design, discontinuities in floor texture and colour, drafts and (poor) lighting may all induce fear and undesirable consequences (Grandin, 2000). The assessment of handling stress in pigs can be carried out by observation of indicators such as: • • • • •

high-pitched vocalizations or HPVs: squealing or screaming, at group level when pigs are moved or manipulated (adapted from Welfare Quality®, 2009); falling: a loss of balance in which a part of the body other than the legs is in contact with the floor (Velarde and Dalmau, 2012); slipping: a loss of balance without the body touching the floor (Velarde and Dalmau, 2012); refusal to move forward: animals show reluctance to move when they stop walking, moving the body and the head for a period of time (e.g. at least 2 s); and mounting/overlapping: a pig mounts another pig, with its front legs on the back of the other pig (Welfare Quality®, 2009).

In poultry handling stress during catching and crating may be measured by observing escape attempts, piling up and alarm calls, which are behaviours generated in response to predators with the aim of reducing detection and capture. As sensory overstimulation induces a fear response, the indicators are similar to those for handling stress. Injuries may be caused by inappropriate catching of the birds (i.e. by one leg instead of two), or rough handling, the latter being more common when animals are loaded and unloaded. Injuries can also result from accidents, such as when animals become entangled in wire or run into a fence or other obstacle. Indicators of injuries during transport are skin lesions, wounds and lameness. During unloading, lame animals can be assessed by observing/ monitoring the gait of the animals when walking, according to a three-point scale (Welfare Quality®, 2009) (Table 6.2). Restriction of movement and resting problems may be a consequence of an excessive density of animals or inadequate vehicle design. Indicators of restriction of movements during transport are mounting/overlapping or increased time spent standing. During transport, temperatures which are too high or too low cause heat and cold stress, respectively. The effects of the thermal environment

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

121

Table 6.2. Indicators of lameness according to the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. From Welfare Quality®, 2009. Scale Defnition 0 1 2

Normal gait Diffculties walking, but still using all legs Severely lame, minimum weight-bearing on affected limb or even not able to walk

are not solely dependent on air temperature but on ‘effective temperature’, which is the end result of the interaction between air temperature, relative humidity, ventilation and flooring. Solar radiation is also important. Heat stress also increases the amount of water required and can therefore increase the risk of prolonged thirst if water supply is limited (National Research Council, 1981). Indicators of heat stress are increased respiratory rate, rectal temperature and panting. In poultry, huddling, fluffing up of feathers, shivering and cloacal temperature can be used for the assessment of cold stress. Hunger may also be a problem during transport and thereafter during lairaging time. Fasting before slaughter, within reasonable limits, is beneficial for the welfare of pigs as it prevents vomiting and hyperthermia. However, a prolonged fasting period causes hunger, aggressiveness (Warriss and Brown, 1994), weakness, lethargy and sensitivity to cold (Gregory, 1998). Dehydration might appear in animals that are transported over long distances during dry hot weather and when airflow through the moving truck is high. Prologued thirst will increase plasma osmolarity and plasma total protein concentration. Dead on arrival (DOA) is the most widely used indicator, when assessing the overall consequence of transport on the welfare of poultry and rabbits. DOA is an iceberg indicator linked to several welfare consequences and stages of transport, but it can only be assessed mainly at the end of the journey. One of the main challenges in relation to the welfare assessment during transport is the access to, and visibility of the animals, especially during the transit stage. This problem can be partially overcome by the use of cameras and/or other types of sensors. However, the mere presence of cameras or sensors does not overcome all of these challenges, as data generated by such sensors need to be analysed in some way leading to an interpretation of the practice in question. Currently, technological tools within this area are under development outside the transport context (Larsen et al., 2021), but not yet applicable in transport practice.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

122

Déborah Temple et al.

6.7 Welfare Indicators III: Welfare Assessment at Slaughter During lairaging, animals can be assessed for a number of different indicators. These include: •

•

• •

•

•

Absence of prolonged hunger: This is assessed by monitoring the feed provision in all overnight lairage checking the time animals the staff about the type and quantity of food, and checking the time animals are fed (Velarde and Dalmau, 2012). Absence of prolonged thirst: This can be calculated based on the number of drinking points in each pen (in the case of drinking valves) or the total surface area of water supplied (in the case of water troughs) per animal, their functionality, and cleanliness with regard to the presence of old or fresh dirt on the inner side of the troughs (Velarde and Dalmau, 2012). Thermal comfort: Behavioural thermoregulation measures, such as huddling, shivering or panting can be used to assess thermal comfort (Velarde and Dalmau, 2012). Comfort around resting: Comfort around resting is evaluated based on the space allowance and the suitability of flooring and bedding during lairage. For this purpose, the length and width of the pens are measured, and the number of animals counted. For this calculation only the percentage of pens or floor areas with suitable rubber, straw, wood shavings or sawdust should be considered. Absence of injury and/or diseases: Injuries include tissue damage (bruises, scratches, broken bones, dislocations) leading to pain. The numbers of animals showing injuries (and the severity of injuries) and lameness should be assessed. Another important stage at which welfare can be compromised is during the movement from the lairage pen to the stunning area. Most of the time, animals are forced to move quickly during the last metres prior to stunning to maintain the slaughterhouse throughput speed. This will cause fear and pain to the animals. A key indicator at this stage is HPV, associated with electric prod use, excessive pressure from a restraint device, stunning problems or slipping on the floor (Grandin, 1997, 2001). In the Welfare Quality® protocol (2009), HPVs, defined as squealing or screaming, at group level when pigs are moved from lairage to the stunning area can be used to assess the human–animal relationship. Prevalence of coercion observations: This is another indicator of the human–animal relationship defined as the use of any item that can frighten or hurt that animal such as electric goads, sticks, flappers, rattles, etc.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

123

In the stun box, absence of fearfulness is assessed by monitoring indicators such as absence of struggling, kicking and jumping. Struggling is defined as continuous struggling/panicking movements of escape, as general slipping, forward and backward movements and body trembling, lasting for more than 3 s, with no breaks of calm behaviour. Kicking is defined as hind-leg kicking, often as a reaction to touch/pain, and jumping as a sudden startle flight reaction. The effectiveness of stunning includes loss of consciousness without pain and fear, and prolongation of this until the animal’s death. When electrical stunning is carried out effectively, it produces immediate onset of tonic seizure (the whole body of the animal becomes rigid) followed by clonic seizure (involuntary kicking of both the fore and the hind legs). During this period, the absence of rhythmic breathing (as indicated by the movements of the flanks), righting reflex and vocalizations are useful indicators to assess stunning effectiveness. For head-only electrical stunning the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) (2013a) suggested the flowchart shown in Fig. 6.1, where animal-based measures (ABMs) to monitor the state of consciousness are suggested and included in toolboxes (blue boxes in Fig. 6.1), to be used at three key stages. For each key stage three ABMs that are reliable in monitoring consciousness are suggested (above the dashed line), plus another two or three ABMs, which are less reliable, that can be additionally used (below the dashed line). For each ABM, corresponding outcomes of consciousness and unconsciousness are reported (EFSA Panel on AHAW, 2013a). In case outcomes of consciousness are observed in Key Stage 1 then an intervention should be applied (i.e. a backup method). After any reintervention, the monitoring of unconsciousness, according to the flowchart, should be performed again. Only when outcomes of unconsciousness are observed can the process continue to the next steps. Following Key Stage 3, in case outcomes of life are observed an intervention should be applied; only when outcomes of death are observed can the animals be processed. The effectiveness of stunning after captive bolt stunning is assessed by the absence of: (i) corneal reflex (through physical stimulation of the eyeball); (ii) spontaneous blinking (without physical stimulation); (iii) eyeball rotation (the pupil/pupils are partly or completely hidden); (iv) rhythmic breathing (repeated inhaling/exhaling in a rhythmic fashion); and (v) righting reflex (arched back righting reflex with the head bent straight back). These ABMs are therefore included in the flowchart for penetrative captive bolt stunning shown in Fig. 6.2, including toolboxes of ABMs to be used at three key stages to monitor the state of consciousness. For each ABM, corresponding outcomes of consciousness and unconsciousness are reported. In case outcomes of consciousness are observed in Key Stage 1 then an intervention should be applied (i.e. a backup method). After any reintervention, the monitoring of unconsciousness, according to the flowchart, should be

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Déborah Temple et al.

124

PIG SLAUGHTER WITH STUNNING (HEAD-ONLY ELECTRICAL METHOD) Key Stage 1 (between end of stunning and shackling): check for outcomes of consciousness OUTCOMES OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS

TOOLBOX 1

apnoea

tonic/clonic seizures breathing

absence of corneal or palpebral reflex

corneal or palpebral reflex

absence of spontaneous blinking

spontaneous blinking

immediate collapse of the animal

posture

presence of tonic/clonic seizures

absence of vocalization

vocalizations

OUTCOMES OF CONSCIOUSNESS absence of tonic/clonic seizure presence of breathing presence of corneal or palpebral reflex presence of spontaneous blinking failure to collapse presence of vocalization

Risk of consciousness: apply intervention Key Stage 2 (during sticking): check for outcomes of consciousness OUTCOMES OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS apnoea presence of tonic/clonic seizures lack of righting reflex, lack of attempts to raise the head absence of corneal or palpebral reflex absence of spontaneous blinking absence of vocalization

TOOLBOX 2 breathing tonic/clonic seizures muscle tone corneal or palpebral reflex spontaneous blinking vocalizations

OUTCOMES OF CONSCIOUSNESS presence of breathing absence of tonic/clonic seizure righting reflex, attempts to raise the head presence of corneal or palpebral reflex presence of spontaneous blinking presence of vocalization

Risk of consciousness: apply intervention Key Stage 3 (during bleeding): check for outcomes of consciousness

OUTCOMES OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS apnoea loss of muscle tone

TOOLBOX 3 breathing muscle tone

OUTCOMES OF CONSCIOUSNESS presence of breathing righting reflex, attempts to raise the head

absence of corneal or palpebral reflex

corneal or palpebral reflex

presence of corneal or palpebral reflex

absence of spontaneous blinking

spontaneous blinking

presence of spontaneous blinking

absence of vocalization

vocalizations

No risk of consciousness

presence of vocalizations

Risk of consciousness: apply intervention

Fig. 6.1. Flowchart of pig slaughter for head-only electrical stunning, including indicators for the monitoring of state of consciousness. The outcomes of unconsciousness presented in grey have a limited predictive value, as conscious animals might not show these outcomes. Nevertheless, the presence of these indicators suggest that the animal is conscious. From EFSA Panel on AHAW, 2013a.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

125

CATTLE - SLAUGHTER WITH STUNNING (CAPTIVE BOLT) Key Stage 1 (between end of stunning and shackling): check for outcomes of consciousness

OUTCOMES OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS immediate and permanent collapse apnoea presence of tonic seizures absence of corneal or palpebral reflex loss of muscle tone fixed eyes absence of vocalization

TOOLBOX 1 posture breathing tonic seizures corneal or palpebral reflex muscle tone eye movements vocalization

OUTCOMES OF CONSCIOUSNESS no collapse/attempts to regain posture rhythmic breathing no tonic seizure presence of corneal or palpebral reflex righting reflex presence of nystagmus, eye rotation presence of vocalization

Risk of consciousness: apply intervention Key Stage 2 (during neck cutting or sticking): check for outcomes of consciousness

OUTCOMES OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS absence of body movements in response to sticking loss of muscle tone apnoea

TOOLBOX 2 body movements muscle tone breathing

OUTCOMES OF CONSCIOUSNESS body movenents in response to sticking righting reflex rhythmic breathing

fixed eyes absence of corneal or palpebral reflex

eye movements corneal or palpebral reflex

presence of nystagmus, eye rotation

absence of spontaneous blinking

spontaneous blinking

presence of spontaneous blinking

presence of corneal or palpebral reflex

Risk of consciousness: apply intervention Key Stage 3 (during bleeding): check for outcomes of consciousness

OUTCOMES OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS loss of muscle tone apnoea absence of spontaneous blinking

TOOLBOX 3

OUTCOMES OF CONSCIOUSNESS

muscle tone

flexion of forelegs

breathing

rhythmic breathing

spontaneous blinking

No risk of consciousness

presence of spontaneous blinking

Risk of consciousness: apply intervention

Fig. 6.2. Flowchart of cattle slaughter for penetrative captive bolt stunning, including indicators to be used for monitoring the state of consciousness. The outcomes of unconsciousness presented in grey have a limited predictive value, as conscious animals might not show these outcomes. Nevertheless, the presence of these indicators suggest that the animal is conscious. From EFSA Panel on AHAW, 2013b.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Déborah Temple et al.

126

PIG SLAUGHTER WITH STUNNING (CARBON DIOXIDE) Key Stage 1 (between end of stunning and shackling): check for outcomes of consciousness OUTCOMES OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS relaxed body apnoea absence of corneal or palpebral reflex absence of vocalizations absence of response

TOOLBOX 4 muscle tone breathing corneal or palpebral reflex vocalizations response to nose prick or ear pinch

OUTCOMES OF CONSCIOUSNESS righting reflex, attempts to raise the head presence of breathing presence of corneal or palpebral reflex presence of vocalizations presence of response

Risk of consciousness: apply intervention Key Stage 2 (during sticking): check for outcomes of consciousness OUTCOMES OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS relaxed body apnoea absence of vocalizations absence of corneal or palpebral reflex absence of response

TOOLBOX 5

OUTCOMES OF CONSCIOUSNESS

muscle tone

righting reflex, attempts to raise the head

breathing vocalizations corneal or palpebral reflex response to nose prick or ear pinch

presence of breathing presence of vocalizations presence of corneal or palpebral reflex presence of response

Risk of consciousness: apply intervention Key Stage 3 (during bleeding): check for outcomes of consciousness

OUTCOMES OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS relaxed body apnoea absence of corneal or palpebral reflex absence of vocalizations

TOOLBOX 6 muscle tone breathing corneal or palpebral reflex vocalizations

No risk of consciousness

OUTCOMES OF CONSCIOUSNESS righting reflex, attempts to raise the head presence of breathing presence of corneal or palpebral reflex presence of vocalizations

Risk of consciousness: apply intervention

Fig. 6.3. Flowchart of pig slaughter for carbon dioxide (CO2) stunning, including indicators for the monitoring of the state of consciousness. The outcomes of unconsciousness presented in grey have a limited predictive value, as conscious animals might not show these outcomes. Nevertheless, the presence of these indicators suggest that the animal is conscious. From EFSA Panel on AHAW, 2013a.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

127

performed again. Only when outcomes of unconsciousness are observed can the process continue to the next steps. Following Key Stage 3, in case outcomes of life are observed an intervention should be applied; only when outcomes of death are observed can the animals be processed further. Gas stunning generates loss of consciousness although this is not immediate. The effectiveness of stunning in pigs and poultry exposed to gas is assessed by the absence of: (i) rhythmic breathing (as indicated by the movements of the flanks or cloaca); (ii) corneal reflex (through physical stimulation of the cornea); (iii) spontaneous blinking; (iv) the righting reflex; and (v) vocalizations. For gas stunning the EFSA Panel on AHAW (2013a) suggested the flowchart shown in Fig. 6.3, where ABMs to monitor the state of consciousness are suggested and included in toolboxes (see blue boxes in Fig. 6.3), to be used at three key stages. For each key stage three ABMs are suggested that are reliable in monitoring consciousness (above the dashed line), plus another two or three ABMs, that can be additionally used, which are less reliable (below the dashed line). For each ABM, corresponding outcomes of consciousness and unconsciousness are reported. In case outcomes of consciousness are observed in Key Stage 1 then an intervention should be applied (i.e. a backup method). After any reintervention, the monitoring of unconsciousness, according to the flowchart, should be performed again. Only when outcomes of unconsciousness are observed can the process continue to the next steps. Following Key Stage 3, in case outcomes of life are observed an intervention should be applied; only when outcomes of death are observed can the animals be processed further. The assessment of skin lesions on the carcass provides valuable information regarding the management of animals on the farm of origin, transport or in the lairage pens. Furthermore, the health status of the animals on the farm of origin can be also assessed after slaughter. As an example, the presence of a number of conditions such as pleurisy and pneumonia in the lungs, pericarditis in the heart or white spots in the liver can be inspected.

6.8 Animal Welfare Indicators and Workers’ Wellbeing Case Study 7: Management of adult animals without previous experiences with humans A poor human–animal relationship results in the animals being fearful of the stockperson and other humans. This can also have detrimental effects on the wellbeing of the stockpeople. A good example is related to cattle reared in extensive conditions. Although it is normal for animals reared in extensive conditions to have longer fight distances than animals reared in intensive conditions this is considered to be an animal welfare problem, especially when animals need to be handled or Continued

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

128

Déborah Temple et al.

Case Study 7. Continued. transported to or from the feld, for veterinary treatment or to be moved and slaughtered. In other words, livestock reared in extensive conditions will have contact with humans at some point in their life and for this a good human–animal relationship is important to support animal welfare and the wellbeing of human handlers. For cattle slaughterhouse workers it is very different handling beef cattle reared in intensive conditions that are familiar with close contact from humans compared with handling animals that arrive stressed, excited and with fear of humans from mountain areas, or rustic breeds with little genetic selection. The preference is to work with calm animals such as those kept indoors and so handled regularly, and from breeds where genetic selection has been done in the past (e.g. Holstein Friesian or Aberdeen Angus). Fearful animals are much more diffcult to handle, are unpredictable and may react suddenly. This represents a major health and safety risk for workers. For instance, a boar with a poor human–animal relationship will increase the risk of accidents with humans compared with handling a friendly boar. A fearful buck or doe will produce more scratches in caretakers than calm animals. There are many examples that show how a good human–animal relationship produces better worker wellbeing. In fact, positive human–animal interactions not only facilitate animal handling but also contribute to better job satisfaction. For the animal, the improvements are also important as fear causes a stress response which, if long lasting, can impair immune function, reproductive performance, food intake, food conversion, growth and product quality. Fear of humans may cause injuries in animals as they try to move away from the stockperson, catchers or other handlers. Prolonged fear can lead to increased anxiety, apathy and the expression of harmful behaviours. The environment in which animals are handled is also key. Equipment that facilitates movement, provides unobstructed views, reduced noise, without refections, etc. can facilitate good human–animal relationships. If upon arrival at the slaughterhouse the animal needs to face different types of challenges (e.g. being moved to darker areas, in corridors that are too narrow with very abrupt angles) this will increase the animal’s stress, and consequently handling the animal for humans will be more diffcult and there is a risk of harm to both animal and worker. It is true that if the animal arrives calm and is used to humans, it will be handled more easily than animals that are already very nervous and inexperienced with humans. However, it is important to remember that stress factors can add to each other, so every time we add a challenge to an animal in these conditions we are reducing its welfare a little more and increasing the risk that the humans around it work in suboptimal conditions and may even end up being harmed. All these elements together demonstrate the importance of ensuring a comprehensive One Welfare approach during animal handling.

Case Study 8: Poultry red mites The poultry red mite (PRM), Dermanyssus gallinae, is an obligatory ectoparasite that feeds on the blood of its host. This blood-sucking parasite needs blood to fulfl its life cycle preferably from birds but also from other hosts such as mice, dogs, horses and humans. It is considered the major pest for the laying-hen industry. It has a worldwide distribution and is associated with severe economic losses in the Continued

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

129

Case Study 8. Continued. egg production industry (Sigognault Flochlay et  al., 2017). The PRM affects all poultry production types, from backyard and organic farms to more intensive, enriched cage or barn systems. More than 90% of layer farms in Europe are infested. The PRM strongly impairs hen welfare and acts as a mechanical vector of important viral and bacterial pathogens to animals and humans. Human health can also be affected by PRM parasitosis. When asked, most producers commonly state that PRM is the major issue concerning hen welfare (Lima-Barbero et al., 2017; Rayner et al., 2019). A laying hen can lose more than 3% of its blood volume every night (Cosoroaba, 2001), which can produce severe anaemia. The PRM bites cause signifcant pain and skin irritation, contributing to chronic stress in infested birds characterized by feather pecking, head scratching, altered preening and resting behaviours (Kilpinen et al., 2005; Temple et al. 2020). Such a severe chronic stress situation can depress birds’ immunity thereafter increasing their susceptibility to bacterial infections (Sigognault Flochlay et al. 2017). Severe infestations signifcantly increase bird mortality. Besides being a great cause of distress for birds, the PRM has been shown to be a vector of important viral and bacterial pathogens, including Salmonella enteritidis and avian infuenza virus (Mul et al., 2009; Sparagano et al., 2014). Zoonotic infections and human contact dermatitis can be a consequence of living or working in close association with infested poultry. As commented, D. gallinae is described as a bird ectoparasite but it has low host specifcity (Roy et al., 2010). This lack of specifcity allows the PRM to feed on mammals, including humans, when the natural host is not available (Cafero et al., 2019). The usual signs for human infestation with PRM are raised reddened papules on the skin and urticarial lesions (Cafero et al., 2019). Skin lesions generally cause discomfort and affect human wellbeing as they are usually itchy and can be distributed throughout the entire body, but are more frequently located on the arms, legs and upper trunk (Cafero et al., 2019). Human parasitosis from the PRM can affect the health and wellbeing of many workers, posing a risk for family members too. The mites are diffcult to control as they hide, rest, digest and mate in cracks and crevices in the vicinity of the laying hen. Most of the time, infestations by PRM are noticed late, when the mites start biting humans or by fnding blood spots on the eggs or faecal spots on equipment. When these signs are evident the infestation is too severe, widespread and diffcult to control. The problem of fock infestations with PRM has been exacerbated by the diffculties of implementing measures that are effective in the face of increasing resistance to registered chemicals (i.e. synthetic acaricides), while being safe for birds, workers and the environment and also avoiding egg and meat residues that could have a detrimental effect on those consuming the eggs or meat. Effective control of the red mite should include frst of all regular monitoring on farm through feasible and sensitive on-farm parameters. A description of the most used monitoring methods has been recently reviewed by Mul et al. (2015). Many monitoring systems are based on the placement of traps that emulate the hiding places of the mites and that are checked routinely. Monitoring the fock regularly for the presence of PRM (i.e. at least once a week) and prompt intervention in the case of presence of mites will prevent an increase in the infestation. The monitoring method selected will depend on the time and resources available on Continued

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

130

Déborah Temple et al.

Case Study 8. Continued. each farm. Qualitative traps such as tube traps can be excellent tools to monitor PRM infestation on many commercial farms as they are simple and easy to use (van Emous and ten Napel, 2007; Lima-Barbero et al., 2017). After identifying the frst mite in the tube trap, treatments (with or without synthetic acaricides) should be applied. When the infestation is severe and widespread, acaricides applied to the environment will only target a small proportion of the red mite population. This is because this type of acaricide does not reach the mites deep in the cracks and crevices. Moreover, the effect of these acaricides is limited as the mites only emerge for a blood meal for 30–60 min every 2 days. The control of PRM infestations in poultry has relied on synthetic acaricides, but the lack of effcacy, the development of resistance that can affect wildlife, ecosystems and extend to human wellbeing, and the restricted list of authorized products makes it crucial to develop novel control measures such as plant-derived products, inert dusts, biological control and vaccines (Lima-Barbero et al., 2020). Recently, a systemic treatment for PRM infestation has been approved (European Medicines Agency, 2018). This facilitates the management of PRM in poultry, supporting the birds’ welfare and improving the poultry keepers’ role in controlling this parasite.

Case Study 9: Predation From a global perspective, livestock losses due to predators are relatively low and non-predator losses such as mortality due to diseases or malnutrition are much higher. However, predation losses are not evenly distributed, and some farmers experience much higher losses than others (Nowak et al., 2005; Gazzola et al., 2008). Furthermore, in some regions, conficts between farmers and predators have recently increased, leading to a reduced acceptance of wild carnivores (Lescureux et  al., 2018). Predators may therefore represent a threat to pastoral farming systems in some areas besides causing chronic anxiety to farmers who suffer attacks on their herd or fock. Wherever possible, strategies that allow the coexistence of extensive livestock with predators should be encouraged. This includes: (i) the use of perimeter electric fences; (ii) night confnement; (iii) working with livestock guarding dogs (LGDs); (iv) shepherding; (v) close supervision of livestock during high-risk periods such as lambing; (vi) regular/periodic removal of dead animals to avoid attracting predators; and (vii) supervision of weak, sick and young animals. Depending on the context of a given local area and herd management, some of these measures are diffcult to implement in a feasible way without negatively affecting the welfare of farmers and their livestock (Meuret et al., 2017). Many extensive farmers rely on the maximum use of natural resources to feed their animals. Depending on the type of livestock and the quality of the pastures, foraging time can vary considerably. Animals with high energy requirements such as lactating ewes/goats or animals in the fnal stage of gestation need to forage for many hours and cover long distances, especially if the quality of the pasture is poor. Under predation pressure, this implies an increased number of hours dedicated Continued

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

131

Case Study 9. Continued. to shepherding and supervision of the herds or focks during the early morning and evening. Night confnement and/or the use of perimeter electric fences to prevent predation attacks will imply drastic changes in feeding management of the herd or fock. In terms of livestock welfare, night confnement may reduce foraging time, especially during hot summers. Additionally, the area of night confnement can easily become dirty with faeces which can have a negative effect on the health of the animals. Overall, however, LGDs remain one of the most effective non-lethal methods to reduce losses to predators. The ability of LGDs to protect livestock from predators has been documented in different environments (reviewed in Rigg, 2001; Gehring et  al., 2010; Yilmaz et  al., 2015). Besides the direct impact they have reducing damages from predation, farmers also report that their livestock become calmer and are therefore easier to handle and more productive in the presence of LGDs. As a work companion, LGDs transmit self-security and emotional support to the farmer and shepherds (Fig. 6.4). However, despite the effcacy and widespread use of LGDs, many farmers still struggle to raise these dogs in an effective manner. A mismatch of knowledge and recommendations are often found between the traditional literature (e.g. Coppinger and Coppinger, 1980) and current problems and expectations (Liebenberg, 2017) and there is a lack of knowledge on how to breed and train LGDs effectively (Liebenberg, 2017). Finally, the general public often does not know how to behave in the presence of LGDs, which may cause conficts in tourist areas. Despite the educational warnings signs and documents placed along the trails, complaints are increasing against LGDs. Farmers are going to court, and more and more mayors from rural tourist areas are worried about what is becoming a public safety problem.

Fig. 6.4. Livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) in Solsonès, Spain are effective at reducing fock losses due to predators and are work companions with the farmer or shepherd due to mutual respect and trust. Photograph courtesy of Déborah Temple. Continued

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

132

Déborah Temple et al.

Case Study 9. Continued. Promoting networking and knowledge exchange between farmers, as well as providing farmers with proper technical support on raising and training LGDs to avoid undesirable behaviour may help to solve or prevent conficts (Fig. 6.5) (Mauriès, 2016; Ribeiro et al., 2017; Temple and Manteca, 2020). Education for the public in areas where LGDs are present is also key to ensure a harmonious environment in rural areas, preserving both the welfare of animals and the wellbeing of people.

Fig. 6.5. LGDs Patú and Pirene with their fock of sheep in Pallars Sobirà, in the mountainous north-west of Catalonia, Spain. It is important to have well-balanced dogs that bond with the fock and are kind and well behaved with people, who should behave correctly too. Photograph courtesy of Déborah Temple.

References Beede, D.K. (2012) What will our ruminants drink? Animal Frontiers 2, 36–43. DOI: 10.2527/af.2012-0040. Botreau, R., Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bracke, M.B.M. and Keeling, L.J. (2007) Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 225–228. Brew, M.N., Carter, J. and Maddox, M.K. (2009) The Impact of Water Quality on Beef Cattle Health and Performance. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Extension, Gainsville, Florida. Cafiero, M.A., Barlaam, A., Camarda, A., Radeski, M., Mul, M., et  al. (2019) Dermanysuss gallinae attacks humans. Mind the gap! Avian Pathology 48, S22–S34. DOI:10.1080/03079457.2019.1633010. Coppinger, R. and Coppinger, L. (1980) Livestock-guarding dogs. Country Journal 7(4), 68–77.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

133

Cosoroaba, I. (2001) Massive Dermanyssus gallinae invasion in battery-husbandry raised fowls. Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire 152, 89–96. Duncan, I.J.H. and Fraser, D. (1997) Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby, M.C. and Hughes, B.O. (eds) Animal Welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 19–31. Dwyer, C.M. and Baxter, E.M. (2016) Neonatal mortality of farm livestock in extensive management systems. In: Villalba, J.J. and Manteca, X. (eds) Animal Welfare in Extensive Production Systems. 5M Publishing Ltd, Sheffield, UK, pp. 157–187. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) (2013a) Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs. EFSA Journal 11(12): 3523. DOI: 10.2903/jefsa.2013.3523. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) (2013b) Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for bovines. EFSA Journal 11(12): 3460. Available at: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j. efsa.2013.3460 (accessed 21 June 2023). EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) (2022) Scientific Opinion: Welfare of domestic birds and rabbits transported in containers. EFSA Journal 20(9): e7441. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7441 European Medicines Agency (2018) Exzolt: Summary of Product Characteristics. Available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/ exzolt-epar-product-information_en.pdf (accessed 18 November 2022). Farm Animal Welfare Council (1992) FAWC updates the Five Freedoms. Veterinary Record 17: 357. Fraser, D., Weary, D.M., Pajor, E.A. and Milligan, B.N. (1997) A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6, 187–205. García Pinillos, R. (2018) We need to make more use of technology in the slaughter industry to improve welfare. Veterinary Record 183, 198–199. https://doi. org/10.1136/vr.k3465 Gazzola, A., Capitini, C., Mattioli, L. and Apollonio, M. (2008) Livestock damage and wolf presence. Journal of Zoology 274, 261–269. Gehring, T.M., VerCauteren, K.C. and Landry, J.M. (2010) Livestock protection dogs in the 21st century: is an ancient tool relevant to modern conservation challenges? BioScience 60, 299–308. Grandin, T. (1997) Assessment of stress during handling and transport. Journal of Animal Science 75, 249–257. Available at: http://www.grandin.com/references/ handle.stress.html (accessed 18 November 2022). Grandin, T. (2000) Livestock Handling and Transport, 2nd edn. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Grandin T. (2001) Perspectives on transportation issues: the importance of having physically fit cattle and pigs. Journal of Animal Science 79, E201–E207. https:// doi.org/10.2527/jas2001.79e-supple201x Gregory, N.G. (1998) Stunning and slaughter. In: Gregory N.G. (ed.) Animal Welfare and Meat Science. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 223–240. Jacobs, L., Blatchford, R.A., de Jong, I.C., Erasmus, M.A., Levengood, M., et al. (2023) Enhancing their quality of life: environmental enrichment for poultry. Poultry Science 102: 102233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102233 Keeling, L.J., Winckler, C., Hintze, S. and Forkman, B. (2021) Towards a positive welfare protocol for cattle: a critical review of indicators and suggestion of

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

134

Déborah Temple et al.

how we might proceed. Frontiers in Animal Science 2: 753080. DOI: 10.3389/ fanim.2021.753080. Kilpinen, O., Roepstorff, A., Permin, A., Norgaard-Nielsen, G., Lawxon, L.G. and Simonsen, H.B. (2005) Influence of Dermanyssus gallinae and Ascaridia galli infections on behaviour and health of laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). British Poultry Science 46, 26–34. Larsen, M.L.V., Wang, M. and Norton, T. (2021) Information technologies for welfare monitoring in pigs and their relation to Welfare Quality®. Sustainability 13: 692. Lawrence, A.B., Vigors, B. and Sandøe, P. (2019) What is so positive about positive animal welfare? A critical review of the literature. Animals 9: 783. DOI: 10.3390/ani9100783. Lescureux, N., Garde, L. and Meuret, M. (2018) Considering wolves as active agents in understanding stakeholders’ perceptions and developing management strategies. In: Hovardas, T. (ed.) Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions. Routledge, London, pp. 147–167. Liebenberg, L. (2017) The evolving use of LGDs in Western Canada. Carnivore Damage Prevention 15, 28–35. Lima-Barbero, J.F., Höfle, U., Boadella, M., Manteca, X., Mül, M. and Temple, D. (2017) Mite monitoring can improve hen welfare. Paper presented at the 3rd COST COREMI Conference, 19–22 September, Oeiras, Portugal. Lima‐Barbero, J.F., Höfle, U., Villar, M. and de la Fuente, J. (2020) Challenges for the control of the poultry red mite (Dermanyssus gallinae). In: Bastidas, G. and Kamboh, A.A. (eds) Parasitology and Microbiology Research. IntechOpen, London, pp. 1–21. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.90439. Martin, P. and Bateson, P. (2007) Measures of behaviour. In: Measuring Behaviour: an Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Mauriès, M. (2016) Le Montagne des Pyrénées: Chien de Protection de Troupeaux: Elevage, Sélection, Education, Utilisation. L’édition à façon, Forcalquier, France. McLennan, K.M., Rebelo, C.J.B., Corke, M.J., Holmes, M.A., Leach, M.C. and Constantino-Casas, F. (2016) Development of a facial expression scale using footrot and mastitis as models of pain in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 179, 105–107. Mellor, D.J. (2016) Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond the ‘Five Freedoms’ towards ‘A Life Worth Living’. Animals 6(3), 21. DOI: 10.3390/ ani6030021. Mellor, D.J. and Beausoleil, N.J. (2015) Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare 24, 241–253. Mellor, D.J. and Stafford, K.J. (2004) Animal welfare implications of neonatal mortality and morbidity in farm animals. Veterinary Journal 168, 118–133. Mellor, D.J., Beausoleil, N.J., Littlewood, K.E., McLean, A.N., McGreevy, P.D., et al. (2020) The 2020 Five Domains Model: including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals 10: 1870. DOI: 10.3390/ ani10101870. Mendl, M. (2001) Animal husbandry: assessing the welfare state. Nature 410, 31–32. Meuret, M. and Provenza, F.D. (2015) When art and science meet: integrating knowledge of French herders with science of foraging behavior. Rangeland Ecology and Management 68, 1–17.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Animal Welfare Indicators, Workers’ Wellbeing and Environment

135

Meuret, M., Garde, L., Moulin, C.H., Nozières-Petit, M.O. and Selmet, M.V. (2017) Élevage et loups en France: historique, bilan et pistes de solution. INRA Productions Animales 30, 465–478. Morgan-Davies, C. and Lambe, N. (2015) Investigation of barriers to uptake of electronic identification (EID) for sheep management. Rural Policy Centre Research Briefing, SRUC, Scotland. Mul, M., van Niekerk, T., Chirico, J., Maurer, V., Kilpinen, O., et al. (2009) Control methods for Dermanyssus gallinae in systems for laying hens: results of an international seminar. World Poultry Science Journal 6, 589–600. Mul, M.F., van Riel, J.W., Meerburg, B.G., Dicke, M., George, D.R. and Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G. (2015) Validation of an automated mite counter for Dermanyssus gallinae in experimental laying hen cages. Experimental and Applied Acarology 66, 589–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-015-9923-2 National Research Council (1981) Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp. 75–84. Nowak, S., Myslajek, R.W. and Jedrzejewska, B. (2005) Patterns of wolf Canis lupus predation on wild and domestic ungulates in the Western Carpathian Mountains (S. Poland). Acta Theriologica Sinica 50, 263–276. Rayner, A.C., Higham, L.E., Gill, R., Michalski, J.-P. and Deakin, A. (2019) A survey of free-range egg farmers in the United Kingdom: knowledge, attitudes and practices surrounding antimicrobial use and resistance. Veterinary and Animal Science 100072. DOI: 10.1016/J.VAS.2019.100072. Reimert, I., Bolhuis, E., Kemp, B. and Rodenburg, T.B. (2013) Indicators of positive and negative emotions and emotional contagion in pigs. Physiology & Behavior 109, 42–50. Ribeiro, S., Guerra, A. and Petrucci-Fonseca, F. (2017) The use of livestock guarding dogs in north-eastern Portugal: the importance of keeping the tradition. Carnivore Damage Prevention 15, 9–19. Rigg, R. (2001) Livestock guarding dogs: their current use worldwide. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)/Species Survival Commission (SSC) Canid Specialist Group Occasional Paper No. 1, 133. Roche, J.R., Blache, D., Kay, J.K., Miller, D.R., Sheahan, A.J. and Miller, D.W. (2008) Neuroendocrine and physiological regulation of intake, with particular reference to domesticated ruminant animals. Nutrition Research Reviews 21, 207–234. Roy, L., Chauve, C.M. and Buronfosse, T. (2010) Contrasted ecological repartition of the northern fowl mite Ornythonyssus sylviarum (Mesostigmata: Macronyssidae) and the chicken red mite Dermanyssus gallinae (Mesostigmata: Dermanyssidae). Acarologia 50, 207–219. Rutter, S.M. (2016) Advanced livestock management solutions. In: Ferguson D.M., Lee C. and Fisher, A. (eds) Advances in Sheep Welfare. Elsevier, Kidlington, UK, pp. 245–261. Sigognault Flochlay, A., Thomas, E. and Sparagano, O. (2017) Poultry red mite (Dermanyssus gallinae) infestation: a broad impact parasitological disease that still remains a significant challenge for the egg-laying industry in Europe. Parasites & Vectors 10: 357. Smulders, D., Verbeke, G., Mormède, P. and Geers, R. (2006) Validation of a behavioral observation tool to assess pig welfare. Physiology and Behavior 89, 438–447.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

136

Déborah Temple et al.

Sparagano, O.A., George, D.R., Harrington, D.W. and Giangaspero, A. (2014) Significance and control of the poultry red mite Dermanyssus gallinae. Annual Review of Entomology 59, 447–466. Steagall, P.V., Bustamante, H., Johnson, C.B. and Turner, P.V. (2021) Pain management in farm animals: focus on cattle, sheep and pigs. Animals 11: 1483. DOI: 10.3390/ ani11061483. Temple, D. and Manteca, X. (2020) Animal welfare in extensive production systems is still an area of concern. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: 545902. DOI: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.545902. Temple, D., Escribano, D., Jiménez, M., Mainau, E. Cerón, J.J. and Manteca, X. (2017) Effect of the needle-free ‘intra dermal application of liquids’ vaccination on the welfare of pregnant sows. Porcine Health Management 3: 9. DOI: 10.1186/ s40813-017-0056-3. Temple, D., Manteca, X., Escribano, D., Salas, M., Mainau, E., et al. (2020) Assessment of laying-bird welfare following acaricidal treatment of a commercial flock naturally infested with the poultry red mite (Dermanyssus gallinae). PLoS ONE 15(11): e0241608. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241608 van Emous, R.A. and ten Napel, J. (2007) Monitoring van bloedluispopulatie op praktijkbedrijven; buis met stokje zeer geschikt voor bewustwording. De Pluimveehoderij 37, 8–9. Velarde, A. and Dalmau, A. (2012) Animal welfare assessment at slaughter in Europe: moving from inputs to outputs. Meat Science 92, 244–251. Warriss, P.D. and Brown, S.N. (1994) A survey of mortality in slaughter pigs during transport and lairage. Veterinary Record 134, 513–515. Welfare Quality® (2009) Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs (Sows and Piglets, Growing and Finishing Pigs). Welfare Quality® consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands. Winckler, C., Capdeville, J., Gebresenget, G., Hörning, B. and Roiha, U. (2003) Selection of parameters for on-farm welfare-assessment protocols in cattle and buffalo. Animal Welfare 12, 619–624. World Organisation for Animal Health’s (WOAH) (nd) Strategy. Available at: https:// www.woah.org/en/who-we-are/strategy/ (accessed 15 June 2013). World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) (2022) OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, section 7. WOAH, Paris. Yilmaz, O., Coskun, F. and Ertugrul, M. (2015) Livestock damage by carnivores and use of livestock guardian dogs for its prevention in Europe - a review. Journal of Livestock Science 6, 23–35.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

The Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements within Livestock Production Systems, State Aid and Trade

7

Adolfo Sansolini1 and Peter Stevenson OBE2

Director, Animal Welfare and Trade, London, UK; 2Chief Policy Advisor, Compassion in World Farming, Godalming, UK

1

7.1

Introduction

International trade is bound to be multifaceted and subject to constant changes determined by an infinite variety of factors, from consumer preferences to international relations. In this context, over time ethical factors have increasingly become part of private standards such as those set by retailers, and by legislation and international agreements. Attitudes have and are gradually changing, although at a different pace depending on countries or regions, and there is a clear tendency throughout the history of trade relations to take increasing account of the treatment of human beings and of animals, and of the consequences for the environment of production and trade practices. All types of change generate fears, concerns and doubts about their viability. It is therefore worth highlighting that the concept of One Welfare can help bringing together into the trade environment, and more specifically into the context of the production, sale and consumption of foods of animal origin, many parallel existing practices rather than propose radical innovations. This is because all the elements we need in order for the One Welfare approach to be adopted have already been extensively tested. Rather than inventing new separate concepts, in many cases it can be best to bring together a set of attitudes and choices that have already shown the value of an approach in which the welfare of some does not translate into harm to others. In relation to adopting a One Welfare approach in the context of food production, this will necessarily lead to the end of some systems and practices that have an impact on our societal wellbeing and/or are inherently welfare-averse, such as systems that use painful procedures (e.g. force-feeding),

DOI: 10.1079/9781789249507.0007

137

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

138

Adolfo Sansolini and Peter Stevenson

or deprive animals from expressing their natural behaviours, to name just a few. By elaborating policies looking through the One Welfare lens, additional advantages of such choices can be identified, such as benefits to the environment. Also flanking measures to ensure the wellbeing of workers during the necessary transition will become an essential part of the picture. In this chapter, we will provide specific examples of existing practices and proposals that could raise the level of ambition in various contexts.

7.2 The Use of Public Funding to Support Agriculture Governments in most countries set up funding schemes to support agriculture including the livestock sector. Some such subsidy schemes include funding for animal welfare and environmental improvements as well as other support for farming communities. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a group of 38 developed member countries that discuss and develop economic and social policy. A report by the OECD covering 54 countries found that these countries provide support to their agriculture sectors of USD619 billion/year. The OECD reports that while some of this has positive impacts, more than two-thirds of the support tends to have negative effects including harming the environment (OECD, 2020a). In a separate report on biodiversity finance the OECD states that ‘governments spend approximately USD500 billion per year in support that is potentially harmful to biodiversity i.e. five to six times more than total spending for biodiversity’ (OECD, 2020b, p. 3). Very little of the public financial support given to agriculture is directed at helping farmers to improve animal welfare. As an example we can look at the European Union’s (EU) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This policy provides a framework of payments to support the farming sector. Some of the CAP funding contributes to animal welfare objectives through what is referred to as ‘conditionality’ (full receipt of most CAP payments is conditional on farmers complying with legislative requirements on animal welfare and the environment) and by financing activities and projects that aim to improve animal welfare. However, there is no requirement for EU member states to use a proportion of their CAP funds to specifically improve animal welfare. Less than 0.4% of the CAP budget is spent on payments directly intended for actual animal welfare improvements (European Court of Auditors, 2018).1 Moreover, these are often given for unambitious projects such as marginal increases in space provided for animals that are likely to produce only minimal welfare improvements. Also, other CAP payments (e.g. investments in modernizing farms) sometimes have a detrimental impact on animal welfare (Bergschmidt and Schrader, 2009). The European Court of Auditors noted that CAP funding had been used to fund farms that fail to comply with EU legislation on animal welfare (European Court of Auditors, 2018). In 2021 the EU adopted a new legal framework for the

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

139

CAP post-2022 (European Commission, 2021), which hopefully will lead to increased support for animal welfare improvements. A positive example of financial support for animal welfare is Lower Saxony’s Curled Tail Bonus scheme. This scheme supports compliance with tail docking legislation and gives a financial incentive of €16.50 for each pig slaughtered with an undamaged, undocked tail, provided that such animals constitute at least 70% of a batch (Buijs and Muns, 2019). A technical report prepared for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stressed that an intact (neither bitten nor docked) curly tail is recognized as a key welfare indicator for pigs (Spoolder et al., 2011). In addition, it stands for high-quality management and respect for the integrity of the pig (Spoolder et al., 2011). A far-reaching rethink of the purpose of public support for agriculture is needed. Some policy frameworks are based on the principle of ‘public money for public goods’ to provide subsidies. This means that public funding aims to support only the delivery of public goods (i.e. goods wanted by many members of the public but that the market cannot, or can only partially, deliver such as high environmental and animal welfare standards). This is how the term is commonly understood by policy makers. Its definition in economic theory focuses on the following two key characteristics of public goods: • •

Non-excludability: This occurs when a good that is provided is available for everyone without needing to pay for it. Non-rivalry: This means that when a good is consumed, it does not reduce the amount available for others.

As an example, the UK Agriculture Act 2020 adopts a ‘public money for public goods’ policy and includes animal welfare among the public goods that can be supported as well as protection and improvement of environmental factors such as water and soils (UK Government, 2020). There is growing awareness of the links between animal welfare, human health and environmental sustainability. The links between good animal welfare and human wellbeing are multifaceted. Farm animals whose welfare is good tend to be healthier and less vulnerable to disease, so reducing the use of antimicrobials and the risk of zoonotic diseases and pandemics (Council for Agriculture, Science and Technology, 2005; Otte et al., 2007; EMA and EFSA, 2017; IPBES, 2020; UNEP and ILRI, 2020). Reduced incidence of disease and lower use of antimicrobials not only enhance human wellbeing, but also generate substantial economic benefits. For example, an OECD report found that without action to stem antimicrobial resistance, infections with resistant microorganisms could in the next 30 years cost up to USD3.5 billion/year in the 33 countries examined in the report (OECD, 2018a). The EU suggests that the costs could be even higher. It calculates that additional health expenditure per year by 2050 due to the rise of antimicrobial resistance could be USD1.2 trillion (JPIAMR, nd).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Free-range systems have the potential, if well managed, to provide good welfare. In addition, free-range animals – who consume fresh forage and have higher activity levels – often provide meat of higher nutritional quality than animals that are reared in intensive indoor systems (Compassion in World Farming, 2012). Pasture-fed beef has less fat and higher proportions of the beneficial omega-3 fatty acids than grain-fed beef (PFLA, nd). Meat from free-range chickens contains substantially less fat and generally a higher proportion of omega-3 fatty acids than meat from chickens reared industrially. Moreover, the fast growth rates of today’s chickens are having a detrimental impact on the nutritional quality of chicken breast meat with increased fat content and less and lower quality protein (Petracci et al., 2014). From an economic point of view, the consumption of meat of higher nutritional quality may well lead to better health outcomes and so to reduced expenditure in treating disease and lower productivity losses due to people being off work through ill-health. Free-range eggs have a better nutritional quality than cage eggs (RaduRusu et al., 2014). This arises from the diet of free-range hens who are able to consume seeds, green plants, insects and worms. Compared with cage eggs, free-range eggs have higher levels of vitamin E and omega-3 fatty acids as well as a healthier ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 fatty acids (Karsten et al., 2010; Mugnai et al., 2013). Moreover, the very livestock systems in which poor welfare is common (i.e. intensive systems) are those which are responsible for immense environmental damage. Intensive animal agriculture is dependent on feeding

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

141

human-edible cereals to animals; 40% of global cereals are used to feed animals (Pradhan et al., 2013). Intensive livestock’s huge demand for cereals has played a major part in fuelling the intensification of crop production. This, with its monocultures and agrochemicals, has led to biodiversity loss (UNCCD, 2017; UNEP and CBD, 2020), soil degradation (Edmondson et  al., 2014; Tsiafouli et  al., 2015), and overuse and pollution of water (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has said: ‘Agricultural intensification is placing tremendous pressure on ecosystems, leading to large-scale ecosystem degradation and loss of productivity in the long term’ (FAO, 2020, p. 203). These harmful impacts on the environment entail substantial economic losses. For example, between USD235 billion and USD577 billion in annual global crop output is at risk as a result of declines in pollinator numbers (IPBES, 2019). The use of a high proportion of human-edible cereals in feed is resource inefficient as animals convert these crops very inefficiently into meat and milk (Lundqvist et  al., 2008; Nellemann et  al., 2009; Berners-Lee et  al., 2018). Calculations based on two major studies indicate that for every 100 calories of human-edible cereals fed to animals, just 17–30 calories enter the human-food chain as meat or milk (Lundqvist et al., 2008; Nellemann et al., 2009). More recent studies calculate that for meat the conversion efficiency is poorer than the 17–30% indicated by the above studies. Cassidy et  al. (2013) have calculated both calorie and protein conversion rates for different types of animal products when human-edible cereals are fed to animals. Their findings are set out in Table 7.1.

7.3 Investments in Agriculture – a Path to Support Animal Welfare, Human Health and the Environment As indicated earlier, farm subsidies often have negative impacts on the environment. In addition, financial institutions – both commercial and public – provide substantial amounts of funding for intensive livestock operations of major meat and dairy companies (Feedback, 2020; Portfolio Earth, 2020; Sinergia Animal, 2021). Subsidies and investments, both by commercial banks and by public finance institutions such as the International Finance Table 7.1. Livestock conversion effciencies of human-edible cereals in calories and protein. From Cassidy et al., 2013 (open access).

Calorie conversion effciency (%) Protein conversion effciency (%)

Dairy

Eggs

Chicken

Pork

Beef

40

22

12

10

3

43

35

40

10

5

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

142

Adolfo Sansolini and Peter Stevenson

Corporation and other multinational development banks, should be repurposed to support improvements in animal welfare and a move away from environmentally damaging livestock practices. Adopting a One Welfare approach means that there should, for example, be a focus on supporting the economic viability of ‘health-oriented systems’ for rearing animals in which good health is inherent in the farming methods rather than being propped up by routine use of antimicrobials. These systems avoid overcrowding and excessive herd and flock sizes (Otte et al., 2007; O’Neill, 2016). They minimize stress and ensure that animals are able to engage in their natural behaviours (EMA and EFSA, 2017). Such systems can simultaneously provide high welfare and health standards, minimize the use of antimicrobials and substantially reduce the risk of the emergence of zoonotic diseases. Public funding and subsidies could, as an example, be used to incentivize livestock production systems that use little or no human-edible cereals or soy as animal feed, but instead mainly feed their animals on materials that humans cannot consume such as grass, by-products, crop residues, and properly treated, unavoidable food waste. An IMF Working Paper by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) suggests using fiscal measures to support farms producing pulses and cereals for human consumption and deterring those producing animal feed (Batini et al., 2020). It also proposes using fiscal measures to encourage operations involving animals raised on pasture at lower densities while discouraging ‘confined animal feeding operations using forage produced through embodied deforestation or intensive monocrops’ (Batini et al., 2020, p. 40). In conclusion, investments and public support should be targeted to incentivize and promote the adoption and maintenance of high environmental, animal welfare and health standards. This could lead to several beneficial transformations in the livestock sector, our society and the planet, including support for a reduction in antimicrobial resistance, improved food security and better nutrition.

7.4 The Cost Implications of Improving Animal Welfare It tends to be assumed that improving animal welfare will entail increased costs for farmers and hence for consumers. However, this is not always so. In some cases improved animal welfare can produce savings and reduced costs. For example, animals with higher welfare may be healthier resulting in lower veterinary costs and reduced disease and mortality as well as in some instances better growth rates and feed conversion. Gentler handling of animals on the farm, at markets and during transport and slaughter may involve few costs other than training but may bring substantial economic benefits in the form of reduced bruising and carcass downgrades. For example, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which is part of the World Bank Group, writes of a case where improved handling practices resulted in

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

143

a more than 50% reduction in carcass bruising compared with routine farm handling practices (IFC, 2014). The IFC also refers to a client that addressed bruising and carcass downgrading of chickens by training, and so improving the practices of the workers who catch the birds on the farm and load them into containers ready for transport to the slaughterhouse (IFC, 2006). Unloading at the slaughterhouse was also modified. Downgrades (caused by broken wings and legs, and bruises) dropped by 8%. The IFC said: ‘These improvements were worth USD320,000 per annum and showed clearly the benefits of handling animals gently, transporting them with care, and slaughtering them in a quiet, efficient and compassionate manner’ (IFC, 2006, p. 7). The Dutch organization CowSignals has years of experience in advising dairy producers on how to maximize welfare, productivity and profitability. It highlights the value of providing comfortable bedding of straw or sand. Such bedding results in cows resting for longer and so providing more milk. CowSignals estimates that an additional 1 hour of resting/day leads to cows giving 1 litre extra of milk. The average resting time in cubicle systems is around 10 h/day, but in the best farms it can be 14 h/day (J. Driessen, Founder of CowSignals, 13 October 2017, personal communication). This gives 4 litres extra of milk per cow/day. An Australian study reports that providing shade infrastructure for cattle reduced the intensity of the heat load experienced by the animals and led to an increase in profits that outweighed the cost of installing shade (Fernandes et al., 2021). Beef cattle and pigs raised on pasture in systems with high welfare potential grow more slowly than those fed on grain. However, this reduced growth rate is compensated for by the savings involved in not having to purchase expensive cereals and soy as animal feed. Members of the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association (PFLA) raise their cattle and sheep exclusively from pasture and grass. No grains are fed. The PFLA Certification Standards lay down high animal welfare standards. PFLA beef finishers have lower variable costs and higher gross and net margins than conventional beef finishers (PFLA, 2018). Minimizing lameness and mastitis in dairy cows benefits both the cow and the farmer as such cows produce more milk and need less costly veterinary treatment and medication. Typically, a case of lameness costs in the region of £75–£520 (pounds sterling) (Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, 2020).

7.5

Negative Externalities of Food Systems

One must consider costs from the point of view not only of farmers and consumers but also from the standpoint of society as a whole.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Intensively produced meat and milk are cheap at the supermarket checkout. But the low price of these products is only achieved because certain costs are ignored. Our economic system takes account of some costs such as housing and feeding animals, but ignores others including the detrimental impact of intensive agriculture on the environment and human health. It is important to include these costs in prices to avoid producing a skewed view of the true cost of producing certain foods. This has global relevance and has been acknowledged by organizations such as the FAO which states: In many countries there is a worrying disconnect between the retail price of food and the true cost of its production. As a consequence, food produced at great environmental cost in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, air pollution, and habitat destruction, can appear to be cheaper than more sustainably produced alternatives. (FAO, 2015, p. 5)

These detrimental impacts are referred to by economists as ‘negative externalities’. They represent a market failure as the costs associated with them are not included in the prices paid by farmers for inputs or the prices paid by consumers of livestock products, but instead are borne by third parties or society as a whole. In some cases the costs are borne by no one and key resources such as soils and biodiversity are allowed to deteriorate so undermining the ability of future generations to feed themselves. An editorial in the journal Nature stated that the global ‘food industry, especially, bears responsibility for the fact that 680 million people are obese,

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

145

but it is largely governments and their citizens who have to pick up the costs of treatment’ (Nature, 2019, p. 1). The editorial added: When industrial-scale farms draw copious quantities of water to irrigate crops, again it is taxpayers who foot the bill for the water scarcity that can follow. It’s the same for agrochemicals and their effects on the health of people and ecosystems. Governments fnd themselves shouldering the costs of biodiversity loss, and mopping up agriculture’s contribution to greenhouse-gas emissions. (Nature, 2019, p. 1)

Several studies have calculated the costs that arise from these problems (UNEP, 2010; Sutton et al., 2011; OECD, 2012; The Food and Land Use Coalition, 2019; FAO, 2020). As an example, the United Nations (UN) states: ‘the hidden environmental, health and economic costs of the food system are estimated at almost USD12 trillion a year and are expected to rise to USD16 trillion a year by 2050’ (UN, 2020). The diet-related costs of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with current dietary patterns are projected by an FAO report to exceed USD1700 billion annually by 2030. The report compares current dietary patterns with four healthy alternatives each including less meat and dairy (FAO et al., 2020). These four diets are: (i) flexitarian; (ii) pescatarian; (iii) vegetarian; and (iv) vegan.2 The report states that in 2030 ‘any of the four alternative healthy diet patterns worldwide would reduce projected dietrelated GHG emission by 41–74%’ (FAO et al., 2020, p. 106). The FAO report also calculates that on a business-as-usual basis, dietrelated health costs linked to non-communicable diseases (coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, type 2 diabetes) will exceed USD1300 billion annually by 2030. It states that the adoption of any of the four alternative healthy diets would reduce health costs worldwide by an average of 95% in 2030.

7.6

Mending our Price System

Olivier de Schutter, former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food has said ‘any society where a healthy diet is more expensive than an unhealthy diet is a society that must mend its price system’ (de Schutter, 2011, p. 14). This applies equally to a society where food that respects natural resources and animals’ wellbeing is more expensive than food that originates from animals with low welfare and causes damage to the environment. So, how can we ‘mend our price system’? An IMF Working Paper states: ‘Fiscal policy has a central role in promoting a shift from intensive animal agriculture to more sustainable, safer methods as well as natural climate change solutions, and nudging consumers into dietary changes that are both sustainable and healthy’ (Batini et  al., 2020, p. 40). The term ‘fiscal policy’ includes both subsidies and taxation. Many bodies and reports have

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Adolfo Sansolini and Peter Stevenson

146

recommended using taxation to rebalance our food system (Nature, 2019; Swinburn et al., 2019; Willett et al., 2019). The use of fiscal measures should be based on two interlocking principles: •

internalization of the costs generated by unsustainable farming methods and diets; and provision of sufficient incentives and disincentives to promote systemic change.

•

Taxation should not be viewed as simply a negative factor as the revenue raised can – and indeed must – be used to subsidize the cost of nutritious, environmentally friendly food and to support farmers who operate to high standards.

7.7

Provision of Incentives and Disincentives

7.7.1

Measures that affect farmers

Farmers who produce nutritious food in systems with high environmental and animal welfare standards may face additional capital costs such as replacing a cage-based system, as well as extra running costs as the new system may require more labour. Farmers could receive financial support with part of the extra capital costs and for a transitional period of, say, 5 years with a proportion of any additional running costs involved (Fig. 7.1). This need not require new public expenditure. Existing subsidies should be redirected to funding public goods on the principle of ‘public money for public goods’.

Redirect subsidies on ‘public goods for public money’ principle

Place taxes on inputs of intensive farming, e.g. Chemical pesticides Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers Use of soy and cereals in concentrate feeds

Use the redirected subsidies and the revenue raised by taxes on intensive inputs to support farmers with the costs of: Moving to regenerative agriculture, e.g. agroecology, agroforestry, organic farming Building soil health and restoring biodiversity High animal welfare standards, e.g. ending use of farrowing crates and enriched cages, using slow-growing free-range broilers, pasture-based dairy (no zero grazing)

Fig. 7.1. Using fscal measures to support farmers in the production of nutritious, sustainable, humane food.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

147

Taxes could be placed on the damaging inputs of industrial agriculture such as synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides and feed containing soy and human-edible cereals. Such kinds of feed as well as agrochemicals are responsible for very substantial damage to the environment and human health. Accordingly, it is appropriate that taxes are placed on them to internalize these negative externalities. The funds raised by taxes on the inputs of intensive agriculture and the repurposing of subsidies should be used to support farmers who produce nutritious food to high animal welfare and environmental standards following a One Welfare approach. Such support could include not only subsidies but also an extra tranche of tax-free income and generous capital allowances when calculating net profits for tax purposes. Farmers who provide food produced to high animal welfare and environmental standards may also benefit from higher prices paid for their products by retailers and other food businesses. 7.7.1.1 ‘Feebates’ An IMF Working Paper proposes ‘feebates’ in which fees are charged for environmentally damaging farming practices, while rebates are given to farmers who adopt sustainable practices (Batini et al., 2020). For the government and taxpayers, feebates are revenue neutral: they simply entail a redistribution of money between farmers in that the additional income received by high-standard producers comes from fees paid by producers using damaging standards. 7.7.2

Measures that affect consumers

A tax could be placed on intensively produced meat and dairy, unhealthy food and food produced in environmentally damaging ways. All the revenue raised by these taxes must be used to lower the price (through subsidies) of healthy, sustainable, humane food and to enable such food to be zero rated for value added tax (VAT) (Fig. 7.2). However, there must not be any unfair impact on poorer people nor any overall increase in the price of food, but simply a rebalancing of the respective prices of good and harmful food. The World Health Organization points out that for poor socio-economic groups a food tax may lead to dietary shifts and so to improved dietary health provided that untaxed, healthy alternatives are available; such health gains may contribute to reducing health inequalities (WHO Europe, 2015). US research found that small price differences at the point of purchase can be highly effective in shifting consumer demand from high-calorie milk to healthier low-calorie alternatives (Khan et  al., 2015). It reports that lowincome consumers who are at higher risk of obesity are particularly responsive. The OECD has concluded that, of all actions to prevent obesity ‘fiscal measures are the only intervention producing consistently larger health gains in the less well-off’ across the countries studied (Sassi, 2010, p. 21).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Adolfo Sansolini and Peter Stevenson

148

Place taxes on: Intensively produced meat and dairy Unhealthy food Food produced to low environmental standards ALL the revenue raised by taxes must be used to reduce the cost of healthy, humane, sustainable food

Subsidies on healthy food produced to high environmental and animal welfare standards

Zero VAT rate on healthy food produced to high environmental and animal welfare standards

Max VAT rate on intensively farmed meat, unhealthy food and food produced to low environmental standards

Fig. 7.2. Using fscal measures to support consumption of nutritious, sustainable, humane food (VAT, Value added tax).

7.8 A Fresh Approach to Economics Our current economic model focuses on gross domestic product (GDP) which is the total monetary value of goods produced and services provided in a country during the course of 1 year. This is an inadequate way of measuring progress because it is a quantitative measure which only indicates how large the economy is and tells us little about the quality of goods and services that are being provided. Nor does GDP inform us whether our society is producing things that many people value, such as improved social care for older people or a fairer, more equitable society (Pilling, 2018). To enable human, animal and planetary wellbeing to develop in unison, we need to move to a more nuanced model such as Doughnut Economics (Fig. 7.3) (Raworth, 2020). The outer ring of the Doughnut Economics model sets out the planetary boundaries, such as GHG emissions and biodiversity loss, which we must not overshoot. The inner circle contains societal objectives, such as gender equality, good health and nutritious food, where we must not fall short. Kate Raworth, the founder of Doughnut Economics (Raworth, 2017), highlights the need: ‘to ensure that no one falls short on life’s essentials (from food and housing to healthcare and political voice), while ensuring that collectively we do not overshoot our pressure on Earth’s life-supporting systems, on which we fundamentally depend’ (Raworth, 2021). Doughnut Economics can help us assess whether proposed economic activities are going to harm the environment and whether they are going to contribute to, or detract from, societal objectives. It is an excellent model for helping to ensure that humanity frames its activities in ways that support a wide range of planetary and social objectives and that some goals are not achieved at the expense of others. The model includes 21 planetary

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

149

Beyond the boundary Boundary not quantified climate change r ye la ion t

en e

e ce and

in c

ng ge eq

it ers div bio loss

ua nde lit y r

y

soc e q ui ial ty

lan dc

onv ersio n

al p o li t i c voice

ac i pe just

ph ni os trog ph en oru an s lo d adin g

h ousi

om e w or a n d k

ical chem tion pollu

L

AL TF OR

SH

T OO

SH

ER OV

cation edu

net work s

he a lth

air pollutio n

food er Wat L FOUNDATIO A I C N SO

y rg

ac oce idi a fic n at io n

oz o de ne pl e

LOGICAL CEILING ECO

er wat freshrawals withd

Fig. 7.3. The Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries. Credit: Kate Raworth and Christian Guthier. CC-BY-SA 4.0

boundaries and societal objectives, and, to encompass the full One Welfare approach, it is important that a 22nd element is added to the doughnut: good animal welfare.

7.9

International Trade

Generally, international trade relations are not very agile in responding to emerging ethical demands and changes in consumer preferences or even major global crises such as deforestation, biodiversity loss and climate change. However, countries or groups of countries that want their trade strategies to be successful must understand trends, consumers’ desires and ethical developments that will influence people’s preferences. The laws of many countries related to the ways farm animals are kept are still often based on post-World War II priorities, such as producing high volumes of food at the lowest possible cost. Nevertheless, citizens’ demands and private standards have evolved more quickly, often leading to positive developments.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has been the subject of countless international initiatives conducted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governments or groups of governments, aimed at ensuring that the possible negative effects of trade liberalization are mitigated by adequate measures or exemptions. Human welfare, including the right to have access to food, water and medicines, is explicitly protected by various measures, and the importance of environmental protection is acknowledged, including in relation to the possibility of providing non-trade-distorting but unlimited subsidies (Article 6, Agreement on Agriculture; WTO, 1995). On the other hand, animal welfare is not mentioned anywhere in the WTO rules. Measures aimed at protecting animal welfare, such as the EU bans on leghold traps and seal products, are based on the exceptions designed to protect public morals that are present in Article XX (WTO, 2012) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (WTO, 1947). This clearly limits the ability of countries to protect animal welfare or wildlife. For example, there was a case brought by a number of countries against one nation in relation to its restrictions on imports of tuna caught in ways that could harm dolphins which was settled ‘out of court’. In eastern tropical areas of the Pacific Ocean, schools of yellowfin tuna often swim beneath schools of dolphins. When tuna is harvested with purse seine nets, dolphins are trapped in the nets. They often die unless they are released (WTO, 1991). The attempt was made to embargo all imports of tuna from countries that were unable to prove that they met the dolphin protection standards set out in the importing country’s law.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

151

The case was brought to the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body by the countries affected by this embargo under the rules of the GATT. The WTO panel concluded that the GATT rules ‘did not allow one country to take trade action for the purpose of attempting to enforce its own domestic laws in another country — even to protect animal health or exhaustible natural resources’ (Mexico etc. versus US: ‘tuna-dolphin’; WTO, 1991). Agreement was then sought among the relevant countries to allow the imports of tuna caught in a way that responded to the importer’s needs by offering favourable market conditions. While the WTO recognizes the importance of the One Health approach in collaboration with other intergovernmental organizations, this position should evolve into the adoption of One Welfare, so that the measures, rules and rulings of the organization can finally leave behind an anachronistic approach that basically sees animals as goods to trade rather than sentient beings. Trade policies determine the types of products that are seen as suitable by business actors, in relation to various factors such as food safety, respect for human rights, animal welfare standards and environmental impact. Based on WTO rules, such policies should not constitute discriminatory measures aimed at favouring specific sectorial interests or a country’s own producers over imports, but be genuinely focused on achieving environmental protection or animal welfare goals, alongside others. The WTO Appellate Body has often been asked to judge on environmental disputes, and its rulings have allowed progress on various fronts. It has recognized that, under WTO rules, governments have every right to protect human, animal or plant life and health, and to take measures to conserve exhaustible resources. The WTO does not have to ‘allow’ them this right, as confirmed in a ruling related to a ban on shrimp and shrimp products to protect sea turtles as a conservation measure, in which the Appellate Body: ‘have not decided that the sovereign nations that are Members of the WTO cannot adopt effective measures to protect endangered species, such as sea turtles. Clearly, they can and should’ (India etc. versus US: ‘shrimpturtle’; WTO, 1998). Measures to protect sea turtles can be legitimate and compatible with WTO rules, (e.g. based on GATT Article XX), however, they would have to comply with certain criteria such as consistency and non-discrimination. More progress has been seen in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) between countries or groups of countries, but here, too, there is much room for improvement. Despite varied views and approaches, all FTAs tend to contain articles related to cooperation to protect human rights or welfare and the environment. The first FTA that explicitly mentioned cooperation on animal welfare was agreed in 2003 between Chile and the EU. The section related to the Agreement on Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures acknowledged the importance of animal welfare and established cooperation on this topic.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

152

Adolfo Sansolini and Peter Stevenson

This first step, moderate but revolutionary at the same time, was to open the doors to more ambitious phrasing in other FTAs negotiated by the EU and to the regular inclusion of references to animal welfare. While mentions of animal welfare in FTAs signed by the EU have been regularly included in the sanitary and phyto-sanitary chapter of such FTAs, this is not the only possible approach. Two other examples of FTAs that include all elements of the One Welfare approach are the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) and USA–Peru. In these cases, animal welfare was not explicitly mentioned, nevertheless it was enhanced thanks to mentions of wildlife in the environment chapter. This reference was also used to trigger the support of the US Administration for various projects aimed at improving animal welfare at the time of slaughter in various countries. 7.9.1

Rules and guidelines for international trade

International trade is regulated or influenced by various other rules and guidelines, which are often non-mandatory or purely aspirational, but which nevertheless inform the behaviour of countries and individual traders. As an example, the 2014 EU Directives on Public Procurement provide guidance on when public authorities, such as government departments or local authorities, purchase work, goods or services from companies. They are translated into national legislation by its member states, which can add more stringent requirements if they wish. The potential impact of such purchases is immense because the size of the contracts can generate market opportunities for higher human and animal welfare and environmentally friendly policies. This can have a domino effect: suppliers may decide to switch everything they offer to those that meet higher standards, so the benefits would ripple out to their other clients too. In 2008 the EU Commission acknowledged in its Communication on Green Public Procurement that ‘significant demand from public authorities for “greener” goods will create or enlarge markets for environmentally friendly products and services’ (Commission of the European Communities, 2008, p. 2). In 2020, in its introduction to the Farm to Fork Strategy the EU Commission stated that ‘A shift to a sustainable food system can bring environmental, health and social benefits, offer economic gains and ensure that the recovery from the crisis puts us onto a sustainable path’ (European Commission, 2020, p. 4). The existing legislation and guidelines on public procurement are aspirational when it comes to ethical requirements, so their value remains largely symbolic, but some good examples of public procurement requiring

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

153

high environmental, social and animal welfare standards, usually adopted at the local/municipal level, can be found in various EU countries. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD, 2023) are the leading international standards for responsible business conduct (RBC). They have a big influence on the corporate social responsibility (CSR) or environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies adopted by companies around the world and apply to the supply chain too. Respect for human rights and environmental protection are among the values and policies promoted by the guidelines. OECD Watch and other organizations have raised the need to also include animal welfare, which is already mentioned in the sector guidelines OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains (OECD and FAO, 2016) and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector (OECD, 2018b). In 2021 animal welfare was discussed as part of the stocktaking exercise, and this may result in the inclusion of animal welfare in the general OECD Guidelines too. In April 2023 animal welfare was explicitly mentioned in the draft text that was still under discussion. The outcome could still be either an improvement of such mention, or its dilution, or even its total deletion. There is no set periodical revision of the Guidelines. Observance of the Guidelines by enterprises is voluntary and not legally enforceable, but they are highly influential on both companies’ and governments’ policies. If the OECD were to include animal welfare in the Guidelines, it would be adopting a more comprehensive approach that is already accepted by many companies worldwide, which regard animal welfare as an integral part of their corporate sustainability ambitions. 7.9.2

Private standards

The businesses that succeed are the ones that can identify their clients, talk to them, listen, and understand from this dialogue the direction in which their activities should move. Generally speaking, the private sector has made progress responding to the call of consumers for fairer trade practices and translating this into concrete policies. Nowadays, almost everywhere in the world we can find supermarkets and other retailers that have already introduced – either exclusively or as an addition to their range – fair trade products, goods with a lower carbon footprint, and animal products certified as produced under higher welfare standards. Private standards are those that are defined by NGOs and/or the private sector. They are adopted by companies of all sizes and have often anticipated and paved the way for legislation adopted by governments. In order to be credible to consumers and to avoid undermining the company’s reputation, such standards tend to be regularly monitored and sometimes

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

154

Adolfo Sansolini and Peter Stevenson

independently audited. Larger companies can afford the cost of in-house monitoring systems, while smaller ones benefit from membership of various assurance schemes that limit the economic impact of these decisions and offer additional market opportunities. The essential characteristic of such schemes is to go above and beyond the minimum legal requirements, thus echoing the demands of informed customers and giving a timely impetus to producers and politicians to pay more attention to what society is asking for. This said, some assurance schemes do little more than ask producers to respect minimum legislative requirements and may mislead consumers into thinking they are buying high-standard food. When private standards are adopted, they remain in place and evolve if they are properly communicated to consumers and are viable while remaining ambitious. If costs increase, an increase in consumer trust can compensate for this. Countless examples exist of promotional materials that have emphasized the choices made by companies, such as to end the use of child labour, eggs from caged hens, or carbon-intensive practices, to name just a few. Over time, such experiences have provided abundant evidence of the positive impact of specific choices on the welfare of individual humans or other animals, and of the planet itself. They have also shown that change is both possible and economically viable. Farmers who, by adopting progressive policies, respond to the demands of consumers are more resilient, less dependent on public subsidies and more equipped for the future challenges that they will inevitably face in the development of their operations. Sets of policies that well represent the One Welfare principle in action have been adopted by companies worldwide. In the African context, some excellent examples have been present since at least 2007 through the implementation of voluntary bans on battery eggs and fur, the adoption of high environmental standards, and the development of workplace Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) strategies. On animal welfare, such policies include: • • • •

the sale and use as ingredients of cage-free eggs only; auditing for humane slaughter; the exclusion of real fur; and the production of cruelty-free cosmetics.

On the environmental front, their low-carbon transition strategy includes elements such as: (i) applying an in-house green building protocol to ensure that their facilities have the most energy-efficient equipment possible; (ii) sourcing renewable energy for their direct operations; and (iii) working with logistics partners and suppliers to identify sustainable solutions for the production and distribution of their products. Only 20 years ago, companies that adopted progressive CSR policies were exceptions, and they were mostly based in wealthier countries. Thanks

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

155

to consumer preference, practical experience and sometimes legislation that has phased out inherently negative practices and systems, the business world has been radically transformed. Indeed, nowadays it is very difficult to find – anywhere in the world – companies that do not adopt and communicate to their clients policies aimed at playing a positive role in society. 7.9.3

Development policies

Providing support to struggling populations, assisting vulnerable economies or offering vital help in the event of disasters are all intensive activities that have often left little room for other considerations, such as the protection of the environment or animal welfare. A gradual change in this attitude has been driven by evidence of the impact of other factors on the formulation of effective plans. On the environmental front, climate change has increasingly been a driver for this shift, especially in relation to natural disasters and the growing number of climate refugees (IDMC, 2020). It is now widely recognized that, alongside development policies, work should be done to prevent additional tragedies. The importance of including animal welfare in development policies springs from ethical as well as practical factors. Most people around the world, regardless of their financial situation or level of education, have an empathic relationship with animals of various species. Even if we wanted to focus exclusively on human welfare, neglecting our sense of connection with animals can lead to psychological conditions that limit our ability or motivation to react to difficult situations. ‘Many good animal welfare practices have multiple benefits for people as well as animals’, by supporting the livelihoods of small-scale animal producers and thus preserving stable rural communities, and by contributing to food safety, human health and psychological wellbeing (FAO, 2009). Furthermore, among vulnerable populations, small backyard farming activities involving just a few animals can be the key to survival and to the possibility of generating some income. The FAO reports that in the developing world, smallholders produce the bulk of the food that is consumed (Rapsomanikis, 2015). For decades, a range of activities aimed at protecting humans, animals and the environment in which they live have been developed by various organizations. However, a turning point in the acceptance that these elements are interconnected could be seen in the Expert Meeting on ‘Capacity building to implement good animal welfare practices’, organized by the FAO in October 2008 (reported in FAO, 2009). Development policies, like any other human activity, are more likely to be fully implemented if the political and environmental conditions allow it. Nevertheless, this problem mostly highlights the fundamental importance of prevention and preparedness. Political conflicts, natural disasters and endemic corruption are only some of the factors that can hijack the proper implementation of plans based on the One Welfare concept. Clarity about

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

156

Adolfo Sansolini and Peter Stevenson

the relevance of all its components in legislation, international agreements and strategies can help to mitigate the impact of external problems. As a practical example, the exclusion of animal welfare considerations from food security programmes in exchange for short-term gains can lead to the establishment of systems or practices that are inherently incompatible with animal welfare, undermine the livelihoods of small farmers and damage the environment. 7.9.4

Public education

Trade policy can play an enormous role in educating the general public on the possibility and need to improve our relationships with other humans, animals and the environment.The presence of what we can collectively describe as higherwelfare products on menus and on supermarket shelves is clear evidence that quality and ethics can and should be linked. Furthermore, surveys and opinion polls show that the public associate higher-welfare products with higher quality. Various governments and private companies are already using these attributes to promote their products, while at the same time reinforcing the message that higher welfare is better for all. For instance: (i) some meat producers have circulated advertisements in which they proudly state that growth-promoting hormones are banned in their country; (ii) some multinational companies have decorated their lorries with images and slogans that advertise their choice to refuse eggs from caged hens; (iii) investments in the empowerment of disadvantaged communities are part of the CSR policies of companies everywhere; and (iv) Pride parades around the world are increasingly sponsored by companies that are keen to show their inclusive attitude towards staff and customers. Trade can be a driver of progress rather than of lowering standards in an attempt to bring down prices, often at very high and hidden costs to workers, animals and/or the environment. Governments can support a virtuous cycle of change, and a key role has been played by NGOs around the world that have denounced harmful practices, highlighted alternatives and paved the way for the creation of market opportunities for higher welfare standards. By educating pupils about various production methods, schools can improve transparency, thus increasing informed consumer choice.

7.10

One Welfare in the Trade Environment

The examples provided in this chapter show that, even without giving it a name, the One Welfare concept is already partly present or widespread in many existing laws and policies. Some trade activities aim to use economic exchanges to improve human rights, animal welfare and environmental protection. These examples also show that very often such decisions proceed on

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

157

parallel tracks, without the connective tissue of a more coherent approach in which the individual components strengthen each other. The One Welfare approach provides a holistic viewpoint, in which ethical and scientific inputs merge into more ambitious objectives. Humans should not be seen as mere consumers; animals are not agricultural products but sentient beings; natural resources should be managed and used in a responsible way. If we bring together these three elements, we will see real and significant change.

Notes European Court of Auditors (2018) Report 31 entitled Animal welfare in the EU states in paragraph 93 that in the period 2014–2020 €1.5 billion was allocated for animal welfare payments. A European Parliament factsheet shows that the overall CAP budget for this period was €408 billion. These fgures indicate that 0.37% of the overall CAP budget was used for animal welfare payments. 2 A fexitarian diet is based on plant food but allows the occasional consumption of meat. A pescatarian does not eat meat, but does eat fsh. A vegetarian eats neither fsh nor meat but does consume eggs and dairy products. A vegan diet does not include any products derived from animals at all. 1

References Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (2020) What is the best way to express costs of lameness? Available at: https://ahdb.org.uk/news/what-is-the-bestway-to-express-costs-of-lameness (accessed 5 September 2021). Batini, N., Parry, I. and Wingender, P. (2020) Climate mitigation policy in Denmark: a prototype for other countries. IMF [International Monetary Fund] Working Paper No. 2020/235. Bergschmidt, A. and Schrader, L. (2009) Application of an animal welfare assessment system for policy evaluation: does the Farm Investment Scheme improve animal welfare in subsidised new stables? Landbauforschung Völkenrode 59, 95–103. Berners-Lee, M., Kennelly, C., Watson, R. and Hewitt, C.N. (2018) Current global food production is sufficient to meet human nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 6(1): 52. Buijs, S. and Muns, R. (2019) A review of new knowledge on tail biting and tail docking. Agri-food & Biosciences Institute (AFBI). Available at: https://www. afbini.gov.uk/sites/afbini.gov.uk/files/publications/Buijs%20and%20Muns%20 2019%20-%20A%20review%20of%20new%20knowledge%20on%20tail%20 biting%20and%20tail%20docking_.pdf (accessed 7 June 2023). Cassidy, E.S., West, P.C., Gerber, J. and Foley, J.A. (2013) Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environmental Research Letters 8(3): 034015. Commission of the European Communities (2008) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

158

Adolfo Sansolini and Peter Stevenson

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 16 July 2008, COM(2008) 400 final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0400:FIN:EN:pdf (accessed 13 June 2023). Compassion in World Farming (2012) Nutrition Report. Research reviewed in Nutritional benefits of higher welfare animal products. Available at: https:// www.ciwf.com/research/nutrition-report/ (accessed 13 June 2023). Council for Agriculture, Science and Technology (2005) Global risks of infectious animal diseases. Issue Paper 28 (February), 15 pp. de Schutter, O. (2011) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. 26 December 2011. A/HRC/19/59. United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Nineteenth session, Agenda item 3. Edmondson, J.L., Davies, Z.G., Gaston, K.J. and Leake, J.R. (2014) Urban cultivation in allotments maintains soil qualities adversely affected by conventional agriculture. Journal of Applied Ecology 51, 880–889. European Commission (2020) Farm to Fork Strategy: For a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. Available at: https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/ files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf (accessed 13 June 2023). European Commission (2021) Political agreement on new Common Agricultural Policy: fairer, greener, more flexible. Press release 25 June. Available at: https:// ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_2711 (accessed 13 June 2023). European Court of Auditors (2018) Animal welfare in the EU. Report 31, paragraph 93. European Court of Auditors, Luxembourg. European Medicines Agency (EMA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2017) EMA and EFSA Joint Scientific Opinion on measures to reduce the need to use antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry in the European Union, and the resulting impacts on food safety. EFSA Journal 15(1): 4666. Feedback (2020) Butchering the Planet. Available at: https://feedbackglobal. org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/FeedbackReport-ButcheringPlanet-Jul20HighRes.pdf (accessed 7 June 2023). Fernandes, J.N., Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G. and Tilbrook, A.J. (2021) Costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare. Agriculture 11: 104. DOI: 10.3390/ agriculture11020104. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2009) Capacity building to implement good animal welfare practices. Report of the FAO Expert Meeting, FAO Headquaters (Rome) – 30 September–3 October, 2008. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2015) Natural Capital Impacts in Agriculture: Supporting Better Business Decision-making. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2020) State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity: Status, Challenges and Potentialities. FAO, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), UNICEF, World Food Programme (WFP) and World Health Organization (WHO) (2020) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets. FAO, Rome. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (2019) Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES, Bonn, Germany.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

159

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (2020) Workshop on Biodiversity and Pandemics. IPBES, Bonn, Germany. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) (2020) Global Report on Internal Displacement (GRID 2020). IDMC, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-report-internal-displacement-2020-grid-2020-0 (accessed 13 June 2013). International Finance Corporation (IFC) (2006) Good Practice Note: Animal Welfare in Livestock Operations. IFC, World Bank Group, Washington, DC. International Finance Corporation (IFC) (2014) Good Practice Note: Improving Animal Welfare in Livestock Operations. IFC, World Bank Group, Washington, DC. Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR) (nd) What is AMR? Available at: https://www.jpiamr.eu/resources/what-is-amr/ (accessed 1 June 2022). Karsten, H.D., Patterson, P.H., Stout, R. and Crews, G. (2010) Vitamins A, E and fatty acid composition of the eggs of caged hens and pastured hens. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25(1), 45–54. Khan, R., Misra, K. and Singh, V. (2015) Will a fat tax work? Marketing Science 35(1). DOI: 10.1287/mksc.2015.0917. Lundqvist, J., de Fraiture, C. and Molden, D. (2008) Saving Water: From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. SIWI Policy Brief. SIWI. Available at: http://www.siwi.org/documents/Resources/Policy_Briefs/PB_From_ Filed_to_Fork_2008.pdf (accessed 7 June 2023). Mekonnen, M. and Hoekstra, A. (2012) A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15(3). DOI: 10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8. Mugnai, C., Sossidou, E.N., Dal Bosco, A. and Ruggeri, S. (2013) The effects of husbandry system on the grass intake and egg nutritive characteristics of laying hens. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 94(3), 459–467. Nature (2019) Editorial. Nature (17 October) Vol 574, 1. Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., et  al. (eds) (2009) The Environmental Food Crisis: the Environment’s Role in Averting Future Food Crises. A United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) rapid response assessment. UNEP, GRID-Arendal, a UNEP Partner. Available at: https://gridarendal-website-live.s3.amazonaws.com/production/documents/:s_document/221/ original/FoodCrisis_lores.pdf?1486728701 (accessed 13 June 2013). O’Neill, J. (2016) The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. Tackling Drug-resistant Infections Globally: Final Report and Recommendations. Available at: http:// amr-review.org/sites/default/files/160518_Final%20paper_with%20cover.pdf (accessed 7 June 2023). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2012) Agriculture and Water Quality: Monetary Costs and Benefits across OECD Countries. OECD, Paris. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018a) Stemming the Superbug Tide: Just a Few Dollars More. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307599-en Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018b) OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/oecddue-diligence-guidance-for-responsible-supply-chains-in-the-garment-andfootwear-sector_9789264290587-en (accessed 13 June 2023).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

160

Adolfo Sansolini and Peter Stevenson

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2020a) Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation. OECD, Paris. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2020b) A Comprehensive Overview of Global Biodiversity Finance. OECD, Paris. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2023) OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct. Available at: http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/mneguidelines/ (accessed 13 June 2023). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2016) OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains. Available at: http:// mneguidelines.oecd.org/oecd-fao-guidance-responsible-agricultural-supplychains.htm (accessed 13 June 2023). Otte, J., Wells Roland-Holst, D., Udo Pfeiffer, D., Soares Magalhaes, R.J., Rushton, J., et al. (2007) Industrial Livestock Production and Global Health Risks. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative Research Report. FAO, Rome. Pasture-Fed Livestock Association (PFLA) (nd) Research demonstrates the health benefits of Pasture for Life Meat. Available at: https://www.pastureforlife.org/ research/research-demonstrates-the-human-health-benefits-of-pasture-for-lifemeat/ (accessed 10 March 2022). Pasture-Fed Livestock Association (PFLA) (2018) Pasture for Life. It can be done. Available at: https://www.pastureforlife.org/media/2018/10/Pasture-for-Life-Itcan-be-done-e-version-Oct-18.pdf (accessed 4 April 2021). Petracci, M., Mudalal, S., Babini, E. and Cavani, C. (2014) Effect of white striping on chemical composition and nutritional value of chicken breast meat. Italian Journal of Animal Science 13(1): 3138. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ full/10.4081/ijas.2014.3138 Pilling, D. (2018) The Growth Delusion: the Wealth and Well-being of Nations. Bloomsbury Publishing, London. Portfolio Earth (2020) Bankrolling extinction. Available at: https://portfolio.earth/ wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Bankrolling-Extinction-Report.pdf (accessed 7 June 2023). Pradhan, P., Lüdeke, M.K.B., Reusser, D. and Kropp, J.P. (2013) Embodied crop calories in animal products. Environmental Research Letters 8(4). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044044. Radu-Rusu, R.M., Usturoi, M.G., Leahu, A., Amariei, S., Radu-Rusu, C.G. and Vacaru-Opris, I. (2014) Chemical features, cholesterol and energy content of table hen eggs from conventional and alternative farming systems. South African Journal of Animal Science 44(1): 33. Rapsomanikis, G. (2015) The Economic Lives of Smallholder Farmers. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. Raworth, K. (2017) Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist. Penguin Random House, London. Raworth, K. (2020) Kate Raworth: Exploring Doughnut Economics. Available at: https://www.kateraworth.com/ (accessed 24 August 2020). Raworth, K. (2021) What on Earth is the Doughnut? Available at: https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/ (accessed 1 June 2021). Sassi, F. (2010) Obesity and the Economics of Prevention. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Economics of Animal Welfare Improvements, State Aid and Trade

161

Sinergia Animal (2021) Financial Institutions and Animal Welfare. Sinergia Animal International, Austria. Spoolder, H., Bracke, M.B.M., Müller-Graf, C.D.M. and Edwards, S.A. (2011) Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of pigs – Report 2: Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of weaned, growing and fattening pigs including aspects related to space allowance, floor types, tail biting and need for tail docking. EFSA Supporting Publications 8(7). DOI: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2011.EN-181. Sutton, M.A., Howard, C.M., Erisman, J.W., Billen, G., Bleeker, A., et al. (2011) The European Nitrogen Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Swinburn, B.A., Kraak, V., Allender, S., Atkins, V.J., Baker, P., et  al. (2019) The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: The Lancet Commission report. The Lancet Commissions 393(10173), 791–846. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32822-8 The Food and Land Use Coalition (2019) Growing Better: Ten Critical Transitions to Transform Food and Land Use. The Food and Land Use Coalition, London. Tsiafouli, M., Thébault, E., Sgardelis S. and de Ruiter, P.C. (2015) Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Global Change Biology 21, 973–985. UK Government (2020) Agriculture Act 2020, UK Public General Acts 2020, c.21, Part 1. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), London. United Nations (UN) (2020) Action Track Discussion Starter: Action Track 3 – Boost Nature-Positive Food Production at Scale. Available at: https://www.un.org/sites/ un2.un.org/files/2020/12/unfss-at3-discussion_starter-dec2020.pdf (accessed 13 June 2013). United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) (2017) Global Land Outlook. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2010) UNEP emerging issues: Global honey bee colony disorder and other threats to insect pollinators. UNEP, Nairobi. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) (2020) Preventing the Next Pandemic: Zoonotic Diseases and How to Break the Chain of Transmission. UNEP, Nairobi. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2020) Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. CBD, Montreal, Canada. Willett, W., Rockström, J, Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., et al. (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 World Health Organization (WHO) Europe (2015) Using Price Policies to Promote Healthier Diets. World Health Organization Europe, Copenhagen. World Trade Organization (WTO) (1947) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947). Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_ 02_e.htm (accessed 13 June 2023). World Trade Organization (WTO) (1991) Mexico etc versus US: ‘tuna-dolphin’. Environment: Disputes 4. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ envir_e/edis04_e.htm (accessed 13 June 2023).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

162

Adolfo Sansolini and Peter Stevenson

World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995) Agreement on Agriculture. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag.pdf (accessed 13 June 2023). World Trade Organization (WTO) (1998) India etc. versus US: ‘shrimp-turtle’. Environment: Disputes 8. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ envir_e/edis08_e.htm (accessed 13 June 2023). World Trade Organization (WTO) (2012) Article XX. Available at: https://www.wto. org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art20_e.pdf (accessed 13 June 2023).

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Index

Note: The page numbers in italics and bold represents fgures and tables respectively. A agricultural farming systems 50 animal neglect defnition 6 employees suffer 12–14 intensive pig production systems 7 over-stressed farmer, pigs to die 10 poor animal health 7 robot worker, as pigs scream 11–12 animal welfare animal neglect 6 case-by-case approach 20 defnition 2 early warning system 16–17 farmer–animal relations 3, 5 farmers under pressure 5–6 guiding principles 2 human animal bond 1 human–animal relationships 3–5 human health 2 numerous disciplines 2 stress different stages 62 enteropathogenic microorganisms 63 host homeostasis disturbance, intestinal microbiota 64–65 housing system (see housing systems) initial stress phase/eustress 62

livestock production systems 63 microbial pathogens 63 neuroendocrine hormones/ glucocorticoids 63 supporting farmers 18–19 veterinary inspections 14–16 animal welfare indicators animal-based vs. resource-based indicators 110 cattle slaughter 125 freedoms 108, 109 on-farm welfare (see on-farm welfare assessment indicators) pig slaughter 124, 126 PLF 111–112, 112 transport farmed animals 119 injuries 120 poultry handling stress 120 welfare quality® assessment protocol 121 validity/reliability/feasibility 110–111 welfare assessment, slaughter 122–123, 127 aquaculture 46 B biodiversity loss xxvi, xxvii, xxviii

163

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

164

Index

C climate change xxv, xxvi Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 138 corporate social responsibility (CSR) 153 E economics cost implications, animal welfare 142–143 food systems, negative externalities 143–145 incentives/disincentives affect farmers, measures 146, 146–147 affect consumers, measures 147–148, 148 international trade 137 investments in agriculture 141–142 livestock conversion effciencies 141 price system 145–146 public funding, support agriculture 138–141 education/research/policy/NGO interventions xxix–xxxiv European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 31, 139 F fve domains model 109 food production systems cell-cultured 36–37 health 26 impacts 26–27 mortality of animals 28–29 non-farmed food/welfare 27–28 welfare 25–26 welfare of animals bees/insects 31 broiler chickens 33–34 dairy cows 32–33 farmed animal welfare studies 29–31 farmed fsh/aquatic animals 31–32 pigs 34–36 food safety, animal welfare

aquaculture 67 environmental contaminants 75–76 food-producing animals 66 transport vehicles 67 food security xxiii, 48, 51, 54 free-range production systems 71 free-range systems 69, 140 G General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 150 genetic selection 77–78 glycogen 68 greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions 43, 145 gross domestic product (GDP) 148 H holistic approach xxxiii housing systems cattle indoor-housing 70 consumers 69 environmental factors 71 free-range systems 69 intensive/extensive outdoor systems 70 mastitis 73 pastoralism 70 pig production 70 preventative/biosecurity protocols 74 re-emergent disease 72 SPS 69 zoonotic parasites 72 I infuenza/fu 73 intensive indoor systems 140 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 52 International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) 46 International Finance Corporation (IFC) 142

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Index

International Monetary Fund (IMF) 142 international trade consumer preferences 149 development policies 155–156 FTA 152 laws 149 One Welfare 156–157 private standards 153–154 public education 156 rules/guidelines 152–153 trade policies 151 WTO 150, 151 J Johne’s disease 72 L large-scale animal farming systems 45 livestock farming 51 livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) 130, 131, 132 livestock production beef cattle production, conceptual model 102, 103 beef cattle production systems 95–98 cattle fnishing 99 cattle welfare/human wellbeing 98 conceptual model 90 environment/human wellbeing 91, 104 ‘Gaia’ hypothesis 90 high-density feedlot system 99–101, 100 human–animal relationships 91–94 One Welfare 91, 91 physical/social environment 94 self-regulated system 90 slaughter stage 101–102 systemic analysis 90 livestock production systems 55, 63 lower Saxony’s Curled Tail Bonus scheme 139 M monocultures/agrochemicals 141 multifactorial diseases 115, 116

165

N native silvopastoral (NS) system 54 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 150 O One Health approach 151 One Welfare approach xxxiv, xxxii, 137, 142 on-farm welfare assessment indicators feeding 113–114 behaviour 117–118 environment 114–115 health 115–117 organic farming system 69 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 138 outdoor barns systems 69 P pale, soft and exudative (PSE) pork or poultry 68 pasture-fed livestock association (PFLA) 143 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 75 precision livestock farming (PLF) 111 polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) 75 polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) 75 positive welfare 109 poultry red mite (PRM) 128–130 PPILOW project xxxiii R responsible business conduct (RBC) 153 S silvopastoral systems (SPS) 47, 48–49, 69 slaughter-chain Hazards 67–68 stress different stages 62 enteropathogenic microorganisms 63

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

166

Index

stress (Continued ) host homeostasis disturbance, intestinal microbiota 64–65 housing system (see housing systems) initial stress phase/eustress 62 livestock production systems 63 microbial pathogens 63 neuroendocrine hormones/ glucocorticoids 63 sustainability assessment of food and agriculture (SAFA) systems 54, 55 sustainable development goals xxiv sustainable farming systems ecosystem services/poverty alleviation 52–54 food systems 43 globalization 45 key elements 43–44 economic growth 49–50 environmental health 45–49

social equity 50–52 production system, unsustainable 44 T total dissolved salts (TDS) 114 toxic equivalent quantity (TEQ) 75 V value added tax (VAT) 147 W World Organisation for Animal Health’s (WOAH) 108 World Trade Organization (WTO) 150 Z zoonotic parasites 72

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by Ivanov Ivan, on 11/04/24. Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions