Rationale behind the Welfare Quality®
assessment of animal welfare
Isabelle Veissier & Adrian Evans
Animal welfare
as a multidimensional concept (1/2)
Consensus on animal welfare being a multidimensional concept
e.g. Five freedoms (FAWC 1992)
1.
Freedom from hunger and thirst
2.
Freedom from discomfort
3.
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
4.
Freedom to express normal behaviour
5.
Freedom from fear and distress
Consequences for the assessment of welfare
Æ
Æ
There is no unique measure of animal welfare
Each aspect of welfare needs to be checked
What is the relative importance of each aspect?
Can there be compensations between aspects???
For some scientists it is pointless to design an overall assessment of welfare;
we should identify welfare problems and propose remedial solutions.
We believe that an overall assessment of animal welfare can encourage producers
to take up such remedial solutions (e.g. by enabling labelling).
Animal welfare
as a multidimensional concept (2/2)
David Fraser, 1995
“Type 3 are concepts involving multiple attributes which are
grouped together because they serve some common function,
and whose relative importance cannot be established in an
entirely objective way. […] Animal welfare is best seen as a
type 3 concept.”
We believe science can help
- define welfare indices,
- formalise the judgement made on their relative
importance
by societal groups.
Overall assessment of animal welfare
A multicriteria evaluation problem (1/2)
We need to define a list of criteria fulfilling theoretical and practical
requirements:
•
•
•
•
•
It must be exhaustive, i.e. containing every important aspect;
It must be minimal, i.e. containing only necessary criteria
(banning redundant or irrelevant criteria);
Criteria must be independent of each other. The interpretation from one
criterion shall not depend on that from another criterion. To avoid double
counting there should be no functional links between criteria;
The list of criteria should be agreed by all stakeholders and considered
as a sound basis for operating a practical assessment;
To be ‘legible’ the list of criteria should be composed of a limited number of
criteria. It is generally considered that 12 is a maximum.
(Bouyssou, 1990)
Overall assessment of animal welfare
A multicriteria evaluation problem (2/2)
Additional considerations to set up a list of welfare criteria
•
•
•
Welfare criteria should be applicable to all farm animal species;
Welfare aspects should be grouped according to how they are
experienced by animals
E.g. Poor resting areas may lead to abnormal behaviours and to
injuries, with the former resulting in discomfort and the latter in pain.
Hence, these two aspects are considered separately.
In contrast, injuries, whatever their cause, are grouped together
because they all result in pain;
Compensation within a given criterion may be allowed but
compensation between criteria should be limited
E.g. good human-animal relationships do not compensate for the lack
of social contact between animals (Raussi et al., 2003), expression of
behaviour does not compensate for poor health, etc.
(Botreau et al., 2007)
WelfareQuality® list of criteria
Welfare criteria
Good feeding
Good housing
Good health
Appropriate
behaviour
Welfare subcriteria (principles)
1.
Absence of prolonged hunger
2.
Absence of prolonged thirst
3.
Comfort around resting
4.
Thermal comfort
5.
Ease of Movement
6.
Absence of injuries
7.
Absence of disease
8.
Absence of pain induced by management procedures
9.
Expression of social behaviours
10.
Expression of other behaviours
11.
Good human-animal relationship
12. Absence of general fear
(Botreau et al., 2007; WQ fact sheet Veissier & Miele 2007)
Reactions of consumers
Consumer concerns about animal welfare were addressed thanks to
literature reviews, representative quantitative surveys,
and in-depth focus group research.
7 EU countries
France, Hungary, Italy, Norway,
the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.
7 focus groups per country
- Urban Mothers
- Rural Women
- Empty Nesters
- Seniors
- Young Singles
- Politically Active
- Vegetarian Consumers.
Reactions of consumers
Each focus group lasted for approximately 2 hours.
The discussions focused on a number of themes, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Food consumption, preparation and shopping habits
Consumer knowledge about animal welfare and welfare-friendly foods
Potential incentives/barriers for purchasing welfare-friendly foods
Who consumers thought should be responsible for improving welfare
Consumers’ spontaneous animal welfare concerns/priorities
Consumers’ reactions to the Welfare Quality list of welfare principles
Reactions of consumers
The research indicated that there was a great deal of
societal support for the scientific monitoring scheme.
E.g. one Italian consumer:
“The categories … represent what we have said but in a deeper way”.
However: 4 important differences
(a)State AND Provision: Consumer-citizens view animal welfare
- not only in terms of the state of the animal
- but also in terms of the type of environment the animal is offered.
In particular, consumers expressed several concerns about ‘intensive
systems’ (e.g. lack of space, extreme breeds, over-use of medication).
E.g. one Hungarian consumer : “… And their forms of behaviour.
Because I’d say that means playing, flying, running around.
How would that be possible in an industry?”
Reactions of consumers
(b) Naturalistic view: Consumer-citizens consistently point to the
importance of providing natural environments for farm animals.
Certain elements appear naïve (e.g. idyllic images of green fields)
Other elements appear closer to animal welfare:
- outdoor living,
- performance of natural behaviours,
- animals being ‘fit for their environments’.
(c) Holistic approach: Consumer-citizens tend to adopt a holistic
approach to farm animal welfare
= they see welfare as an overall state of well-being
Æ they are not willing to break welfare down into component parts
Æ they reject the idea that it is possible to rank welfare concerns.
Reactions of consumers
(d) Bundle of issues: Consumer-citizens’ understandings of what
counts as good animal welfare are less tightly circumscribed
than scientific understandings.
For example, consumers link issues of animal welfare with
- environmental sustainability,
- food quality/taste
- human health
(e.g. concerns about GMO in animal feeds affecting human health).
Reconciling scientific and societal views
Consumer concern 1: State AND Provision
©Barbet
• Measures on resources & management
guaranty of means
/ quality
the living
ÆÆMeasures
taken
intoof account
Measures depend
on systems
so welfare
tobut:
diagnose
causes
of poor
- difficult to compare farming systems
and
advice
farmers
ways
- may
not suitable
for new on
systems
to improve animal welfare
©Botreau
• Measures on animals: health, behaviour…
Æ Measures to be preferred
guaranty of results / quality of the life
to Æ
assess
animal welfare state
- more difficult to use
©Botreau
- closer to animal welfare
social licking
©ZINPRO
lameness
Reconciling scientific and societal views
Consumer concern 2: Naturalistic view
• Natural environments offer more freedom for animals
to express behaviours:
social interactions, foraging, exploration…
• They can expose animals to more dangers
(e.g. predators) and discomfort (e.g. warmth, rain etc.).
• Certain natural behaviours are associated with stress
(e.g. flight from predators).
© I Veissier
© D Pomiès
Æ The expression of natural behaviours for which
the animals seem to be motivated (e.g. walking,
social interactions) is considered an indicator
of good welfare whereas the occurrence of
abnormal behaviours resulting from the lack of
natural behaviours (e.g. oral non nutritive activities
in calves) are considered indicators of poor welfare.
Reconciling scientific and societal views
Consumer concern 3: Holistic approach
The holistic approach confirms that
animal welfare is multidimensional
- all welfare criteria/subcriteria identified
need to be considered
- an animal unit can be considered welfare-friendly
only if all of them are fulfilled.
© C Terlouw
© S Edwards
Æ Development of measures for each welfare subcriterion
(See Keeling and Bock presentation)
Æ The methods to integrate the data produced by the various
measures into an overall assessment are chosen so that we can
limit compensations between different welfare criteria / subcriteria
(See Botreau et al. presentation).
Reconciling scientific and societal views
Consumer concern 4: Bundle of issues
The fact that consumer-citizens bundle animal welfare with
other issues (e.g. environmental issues or food quality)
will certainly impact on the strategies proposed to implement
Welfare Quality® results.
Æ Stakeholders may wish to set up
- a labelling system for animal welfare alone,
- or alternatively a labelling system
combining various issues related to sustainability
of production systems?
(work for the future)
Conclusion
WefareQuality® monitoring systems
- Develop from an agreement on what shall be taken into
account to assess animal welfare,
- Constitute a tool to stimulate science-society dialogue
on animal welfare,
- Can form the basis for exchanges between stakeholders
on welfare grounds,
- Can be used in several ways to deliver information
on animal welfare
(See Butterworth and Kjaernes presentation)
Thank you for your attention