Sponsors

The animal welfare movement has been with us for approximately 200 years. Laws concerning the treatment of animals were passed in many countries in the early 1800's. Numerous animal welfare societies, such as the various Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, were also formed at that time. Until the 1960's most welfare issues related to acts of deliberate cruelty or abject neglect. In the case of farm animals, the most significant legislation addressed humane slaughter and long distance transportation. Although some systems of intensive animals production have been in existence for over a century, there was a rapid increase in the use of such methods following World War II. This widespread adoption of intensive methods gave rise to a book that would have a profound effect on farm animal welfare concerns.

Ruth Harrison's Animal Machines, published in 1964, criticized the intensive animal production systems developing in the United Kingdom on several issues. These included the use of antibiotics, intensive feeding programs, indoor animal production and space restriction. As a result of this publication, the British government commissioned an enquiry into intensive animal production, generally referred to as the Brambell Report (Command Paper 2836, 1965). This committee made a number of very significant and often insightful contributions to the issue of farm animal welfare. It included the concept of mental well-being, as well as physical, in its description of welfare. The committee also indicated, based on their structure, function and behaviour, that animals likely experience many of the same feelings as do we, but differing in intensity. In addressing the crowding and degree of confinement to which Harrison objected, the committee concluded that animals 'should be able, without difficulty, be able to stand up, lie down, turn around, stretch its limbs and interact with others'. The report also identified most of the concepts that were later incorporated into the Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (1992), whose establishment itself was recommended by the committee.

Various conceptual frameworks as to how to best define and/or assess animal welfare have been developed following the publication of the Brambell Report. Three of these were presented at major conferences in both North America and Europe in 1991 and 1994, respectively. Moberg (1993, 1996) suggested that animal welfare be viewed as a type of risk assessment. The risks being that animals would become ill, perform poorly, fail to reproduce or even die. When an animal's behaviour or biological functions are affected to such a degree that these risks are probable, the animal's welfare is compromised. Broom (1993, 1996) maintains that welfare should be seen as an animal's state in regards to its attempts to cope with its environment. Any evidence of attempting to cope with the environment, whether successful or not, would be reflective of an animal's welfare. Welfare is seen as a continuum, ranging from very poor to very good, and the ethical question becomes one of what level of welfare is considered acceptable. The third view of animal welfare maintains that it is the animal's mental perception of its condition that defines its welfare, and that health and physical condition are only of relevance if they reflect an animal's feelings (Duncan, 1993, 1996). All of these approaches would reach the same conclusion in most cases in which the animal's welfare would be considered poor. Yet each would emphasize different means of assessment and interpretation of those conditions. The literature on general concepts of animal welfare published during the last five years builds upon these three approaches.

The following are Chapters in the Welfare Issues Resource Centre:

1. Acknowledgements
2. Cattle
3. Horses
4. Pigs
5. Poultry
6. Sheep
7. Summary