Display options
Cite
Averós X, Aparicio MA, Ferrari P, et al. The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists' Perceptions of Animal Welfare. Animals (Basel). 2013;3(3):786-807doi: 10.3390/ani3030786.
Averós, X., Aparicio, M. A., Ferrari, P., Guy, J. H., Hubbard, C., Schmid, O., Ilieski, V., & Spoolder, H. A. (2013). The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists' Perceptions of Animal Welfare. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 3(3), 786-807. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3030786
Averós, Xavier, et al. "The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists' Perceptions of Animal Welfare." Animals : an open access journal from MDPI vol. 3,3 (2013): 786-807. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3030786
Averós X, Aparicio MA, Ferrari P, Guy JH, Hubbard C, Schmid O, Ilieski V, Spoolder HA. The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists' Perceptions of Animal Welfare. Animals (Basel). 2013 Aug 14;3(3):786-807. doi: 10.3390/ani3030786. PMID: 26479534; PMCID: PMC4494436.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Animals (Basel). 2013 Aug 14;3(3):786-807. doi: 10.3390/ani3030786.

The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists' Perceptions of Animal Welfare.

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI

Xavier Averós, Miguel A Aparicio, Paolo Ferrari, Jonathan H Guy, Carmen Hubbard, Otto Schmid, Vlatko Ilieski, Hans A M Spoolder

Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Producción Animal y Ciencia de los Alimentos, Universidad de Extremadura, Avda. de la Universidad s/n Campus Universitario, 10003 Cáceres, Spain. [email protected].
  2. Departamento de Producción Animal y Ciencia de los Alimentos, Universidad de Extremadura, Avda. de la Universidad s/n Campus Universitario, 10003 Cáceres, Spain. [email protected].
  3. Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali C.R.P.A. S.p.A., Viale Timavo 43/2, 42121, Reggio Emilia, Italy. [email protected].
  4. School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK. [email protected].
  5. School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK. [email protected].
  6. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse, 5070 Frick, Switzerland. [email protected].
  7. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. [email protected].
  8. Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands. [email protected].

PMID: 26479534 PMCID: PMC4494436 DOI: 10.3390/ani3030786

Abstract

Information about animal welfare standards and initiatives from eight European countries was collected, grouped, and compared to EU welfare standards to detect those aspects beyond minimum welfare levels demanded by EU welfare legislation. Literature was reviewed to determine the scientific relevance of standards and initiatives, and those aspects going beyond minimum EU standards. Standards and initiatives were assessed to determine their strengths and weaknesses regarding animal welfare. Attitudes of stakeholders in the improvement of animal welfare were determined through a Policy Delphi exercise. Social perception of animal welfare, economic implications of upraising welfare levels, and differences between countries were considered. Literature review revealed that on-farm space allowance, climate control, and environmental enrichment are relevant for all animal categories. Experts' assessment revealed that on-farm prevention of thermal stress, air quality, and races and passageways' design were not sufficiently included. Stakeholders considered that housing conditions are particularly relevant regarding animal welfare, and that animal-based and farm-level indicators are fundamental to monitor the progress of animal welfare. The most notable differences between what society offers and what farm animals are likely to need are related to transportation and space availability, with economic constraints being the most plausible explanation.

Keywords: European Union; animal welfare; animal welfare initiative; societal perceptions; standards

References

  1. Vet J. 2005 Jul;170(1):91-100 - PubMed
  2. Br Poult Sci. 1998 May;39(2):198-202 - PubMed
  3. Poult Sci. 2010 Sep;89(9):1905-14 - PubMed
  4. J Anim Sci. 1996 Apr;74(4):769-78 - PubMed
  5. J Anim Sci. 2008 Oct;86(10):2723-9 - PubMed
  6. Poult Sci. 2011 Jan;90(1):278-94 - PubMed
  7. Meat Sci. 2008 Sep;80(1):2-11 - PubMed
  8. Vet Rec. 2010 Nov 20;167(21):815-9 - PubMed
  9. Animals (Basel). 2013 Aug 14;3(3):767-85 - PubMed
  10. Aust Vet J. 2008 Nov;86(11):446-8 - PubMed
  11. Animal. 2011 Mar;5(3):415-27 - PubMed
  12. N Z Vet J. 2005 Oct;53(5):271-8 - PubMed
  13. Vet Rec. 1991 May 4;128(18):419-21 - PubMed
  14. Ambio. 2005 Jun;34(4-5):402-7 - PubMed
  15. J Anim Sci. 2008 Nov;86(11):3137-45 - PubMed
  16. Can Vet J. 2003 Jun;44(6):496-9 - PubMed
  17. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2010 Jul;26(2):243-59 - PubMed
  18. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2010 Jan-Feb;123(1-2):11-9 - PubMed
  19. Meat Sci. 2006 Aug;73(4):553-8 - PubMed
  20. Rev Sci Tech. 2005 Aug;24(2):613-23 - PubMed
  21. J Dairy Sci. 2011 Feb;94(2):853-63 - PubMed
  22. Vet Rec. 2008 Sep 27;163(13):386-90 - PubMed
  23. J Anim Sci. 2006 Jan;84(1):229-35 - PubMed
  24. J Dairy Sci. 2007 Jul;90(7):3349-54 - PubMed
  25. Animal. 2012 Aug;6(8):1275-89 - PubMed
  26. Animal. 2010 May;4(5):777-83 - PubMed
  27. J Vet Intern Med. 2010 Sep-Oct;24(5):1203-10 - PubMed
  28. J Anim Sci. 2002 Feb;80(2):367-75 - PubMed
  29. Vet Rec. 1999 Feb 20;144(8):197-201 - PubMed
  30. Meat Sci. 2010 Sep;86(1):56-65 - PubMed

Publication Types