Making sustainable improvements in animal welfare Judy MacArthur Clark, CBE, DVMS, DipECLAM, DACLAM, MRCVS

Introduction For centuries, man has domesticated animals. We have provided food, water, shelter, protection from predators, assistance with birthing, medicine and other forms of support. In return, animals have provided us with many essential elements for our existence including warmth, companionship, food, clothing, power to plough and haul, transportation and, ultimately, their lives. The term “husbandry” is derived from the Old Norse words “hus” and “bond” meaning that the animals were bonded to one’s household. The essence of husbandry was thus grounded in animal care. This is the basis of what Temple Grandin refers to as the “ancient contract” we have had with domesticated animals and, as part of that contract, it was important that animals experienced good welfare throughout their lives and, at the end of their lives, they died humanely.1

This is widely viewed as a “sustainable” relationship between man and animals. But is that truly so, and if so, what is it that may make other production systems unsustainable? The answer depends upon the sustainability factors being assessed. The term “sustainability” is frequently used and abused in modern terminology. For example, in that historical scenario, animals often starved and suffered significantly, as also did their human companions, during harsh winters and periods of drought and severe food shortages. Therefore, rather than reflecting on some imagined scenario of the past, I believe it is more helpful to consider sustainability in relation to modern livestock production and to determine, against that backdrop, how welfare improvements may be made.

In this presentation I will propose three key factors, the absence of which would render a livestock production system unsustainable, and I will relate these to a conceptual model which explores the relationship between animal welfare and productivity. I will consider the issues associated with sustainability from the perspective of producers and consumers, and highlight a number of current concerns and initiatives which may                                                             

1

Rollins, B. (2008). The ethics of agriculture: the end of true husbandry. In: The future of animal farming. Eds Dawkins and Bonney. Blackwell; Oxford. 

influence our ability to make sustainable improvements in animal welfare. Finally I will consider the impact of livestock production on the environment, and what that may mean for animal welfare, as well as the converse in terms of what environmental changes such as global warming may have on both animal and human welfare. Most of my comments will relate to livestock production, but the principles I will outline apply similarly to other situations in which we have a relationship with animals.

What factors render systems unsustainable? There are three factors which threaten the sustainability of livestock production systems. Some are external to the animals themselves; for example a system becomes economically unsustainable when it no longer makes a profit for the producer, usually due to changes in costs or output prices.

In addition, there are internal factors which are most closely related to intrinsic welfare issues. The genetic selection of broilers to grow so fast that their bodies can no longer take the strain is one example. The increase in dairy cow yields to the point where they can no longer get in calf is another. In both these examples, the level of productivity demanded is biologically unsustainable.

However there are also examples of increased intensification practices which, whilst biologically and economically sustainable in that the animals will continue to be productive and profitable, are nevertheless considered to be socio-politically unsustainable. Governments may ban certain practices (e.g. veal crates) or the general public may reject them for a number of reasons including their perceived welfare problems. If welfare improvements challenge a system economically, the market will normally respond by sourcing its food from alternative cheaper sources where such welfare improvements are not explicitly required. It is therefore these socio-political factors which need to come into play if anything above a minimal welfare system is to be sustainable.

So when we speak of sustainability of welfare improvements, it is important that we are clear against which of these factors we are measuring sustainability or the lack thereof. They are often considered in isolation but, in reality, they are generally inextricably intertwined and form the core against which the sustainability of proposed changes must be assessed.

The impact of developments in farming technology From the perspective of the “ancient contract” we have with our animals, there is no doubt that the move to increasing intensification in farming has placed new strains upon this relationship. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual correlation between possible states of animal welfare and livestock productivity2.

The region between ‘A’ and ‘B’ demonstrates that it is possible to achieve, through domestication, both higher productivity and higher welfare compared to the animal in its ‘wild’ state. The purpose of domestication was to capture greater productivity from the animals but, in the process of providing protection, care and sustenance, it also increased their welfare. Furthermore, through selective breeding, man produced animals more suited to the domestic environment and with enhanced genetic ability to be productive. Better understanding of the needs of animals in, for example, nutrition also improved both welfare and productivity.

However ‘B’ represents a turning point where pursuit of productivity comes at some cost to the animals. Most conventional farming systems operate in the area below ‘B’ where established husbandry practices curtail some of the freedoms for the animals. The extremes of modern intensive livestock practice are represented at the further end of the curve represented around point ‘C’ beyond which the system becomes biologically unsustainable and collapses - what Ruth Harrison described as ‘factory farming’3. The objective of legislation is to stop people exploiting animals so far round the curve that it is judged to be ‘cruel’, and the objective of welfare codes is to place some generally accepted limit to the welfare cost we impose on animals whilst still recognising that we farm them for our benefit.

Perhaps unfortunately for them, animals continue to be productive while their welfare conditions decline. Chickens continue to lay eggs in bleak battery cage conditions and pigs continue to breed and produce pork and bacon within a barren and restricted environment. But it is not just chickens and pigs which are ‘factory’ farmed. Today’s dairy cow produces four times as much milk as her predecessor, is likely to see little pasture in many production systems, and has a very high likelihood of lameness, mastitis and a range of metabolic diseases. As the recent Pew Commission on                                                             

2

McInerney, J P (1991). 'Economic aspects of the animal welfare issue'. Proceedings of the Society of Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, London, pp 83-91.  3 Harrison, R. (1964). Animal Machines - the new factory farming industry. Ballantine Books, New York. 

Industrialized Farm Animal Production (IFAP) concluded, good animal welfare can no longer be assumed based only on productivity or the absence of disease4. In addition, disease control in intensive systems can be a significant challenge. We have discovered drugs, including anti-bacterials, anti-parasitics and vaccines, but we also know that many diseases are stress related; a consequence of taking animals to the extremes of their ability to cope – to the margins of biological sustainability. We now recognise that the drive to yet greater productivity has often been accompanied by a failure to focus on welfare. Indeed, it has seemed at times that the two were incompatible. The push for continual increases in productivity without consideration for minimal levels of welfare is likely to become unsustainable in time, just as the push for yet greater welfare standards, without consideration for their impact on productivity and producer profitability, is equally likely to become unsustainable.

Making sustainable improvements in animal welfare is thus dependent on three key factors: the consequences of changes for producers and their profitability; the awareness of consumers and their influence on markets; and the relationship between welfare and the environment in modern production systems.

The role of producers Welfare-driven improvements which change a production system in a dramatic way often give inadequate consideration to the full economic impact and viability of the changed system. This results in accusations that the imposition of welfare improvements will damage the competitiveness of the domestic industry and simply lead to exporting welfare problems overseas. Banning veal crates in the UK in the early 1990’s is an example which lead to demise of the UK veal industry and the export of newborn calves for rearing in veal crates overseas.

The more recent attempt to ban live calf exports has, however, been accompanied by a more considered response. The UK Beyond Calf Exports Stakeholders Forum, announced earlier this year, brings together a group of unlikely allies to improve the economic and welfare problems associated with the UK’s male dairy calves. Made up of retailers, producers, industry bodies, veterinarians, government and animal welfare groups, the Forum has been described as “a major milestone” in finding alternative outlets for excess male calves as well as improving breeding to reduce the number of                                                              4

Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (2008). Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. www.ncifap.org/ (accessed 4th October 2008) 

male calves born. Until recently, almost half a million male calves per year born to the UK dairy herd were either killed at birth or shipped overseas into veal rearing markets where welfare standards fall below UK standards. This forum is an example of the livestock industry and animal welfare groups working together to ensure that welfare improvements are based upon continued viability of the industry. The opinion of consumers, often expressed through retailers, plays a large part in this success. More recently, the American Veal Association has declared that it will phase out veal crates in the USA by 2017. In 1959, Russell and Burch5 proposed the concept of the Three Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) as a basis for improving the welfare of animals involved in research. Almost fifty years later, this concept is having an increasingly significant impact on decisions being made in biomedical laboratories and political lobbies throughout the world. Within agricultural production, it may be inevitable that attempts to satisfy the appetite of an ever-growing global human population with animal-based protein will flounder. Replacement of at least some of our global animal consumption with alternative nutritious sources may be unavoidable. And whilst global production is currently on a steep rise with, for example, chicken and pork production in China and the Far East increasing exponentially, this trend may have to be halted or reversed (Reduction) if we are to avoid catastrophic pollution. But it is in Refinement where I believe the greatest improvements in animal welfare can be achieved. Refinement implies welfare improvements which go steadily in a desired direction, based upon emerging scientific evidence, and which offer a commercially viable approach to improving our animal production systems whilst garnering public support. In other words, these improvements may be called ‘sustainable’ according to my earlier definition.

An example of such an approach is illustrated in the recent UK Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) report on tail-docking and castration in lambs6, both topics of deep interest to this Australian audience I am sure. FAWC considered the evidence of pain, stress and physical trauma associated with different methods of castration and taildocking. It balanced this against the possible benefits in terms of preventing indiscriminate breeding, undesirable meat characteristics and fight related injuries                                                              5

Russell, WMS & Burch, RL (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. http://altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/humane_exp/het-toc.htm (accessed 4th October 2008)  6 FAWC (2008). Report on the implications of castration and tail-docking for the welfare of lambs. http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/report-080630.pdf (accessed 4th October 2008) 

which are associated with not castrating, and the possible welfare problems associated with increased incidence of fly strike in animals which have not been tail-docked. Thus FAWC took a truly utilitarian approach in balancing the costs to the animals in terms of potential suffering against the benefits which may accrue if the procedures were to be performed.

FAWC concluded that there is limited scientific evidence to indicate that meat quality is affected by castration, and that the procedure is often used as the easy option rather than considering if it is really necessary. Tail docking is often performed out of tradition rather than necessity and, at best, may only be partially effective in reducing fly strike. Of course these findings relate to fly problems in the UK as opposed to Australia or elsewhere where the problems may be somewhat different. FAWC recommended that pain relief should be used whenever possible but pointed out that lambs probably experience pain long after any local anaesthetic has ceased to be effective. FAWC has clearly laid out the desired direction but has avoided mandating a solution which would dramatically change current practices. Surely this is a wake-up call for the industry to respond. Likewise when we consider the pain associated with dehorning in dairy calves we can see evidence of significant pain which is only partially alleviated by the administration of local analgesia7 but is more effectively managed using non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs.8 The need for dehorning arises from our wish to house animals in closer confinement than traditionally in the past. Avoidance of such mutilation is clearly the best solution where possible, but appropriate management of the pain and distress is an expectation of producers as part of our modern interpretation of the ancient contract.

In these examples, we see the role for advisory bodies is to consult widely and set direction, for scientists is to generate the evidence base for such advice, for producers is to implement the suggested incremental improvements, and for governments is to encourage such improvements and to monitor progress through effective surveillance. This becomes a virtuous cycle of progress based upon partnership and dialogue. In North America, the Pew Commission on Industrialized Farm Animal production                                                             

7

Petrie, N. J., Mellor, D.J., Stafford, K.J., Bruce, R.A., Ward, R.N., (1996). Cortisol responses of calves to two methods of disbudding used with and without local anaesthetic. N.Z. Vet. J. 44: 914.

 

8

Faulkner, P., Weary, D.M., (2000). Reducing pain after dehorning in dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 83: 2037-2041. 

recommended a monitoring programme which would follow food animals from birth to consumption including movement, illness, breeding and slaughter, and which would offer rapid track back in a fully integrated and robust database. The role of the veterinary profession in such a monitoring programme is critical, both for welfare and disease surveillance, and would allow reliable assessments to be performed of the impact of welfare improvements, thus helping producers and governments to better understand the sustainability of refined production systems.

But surveillance statistics can also be difficult to interpret reliably and must be viewed with caution. The new UK Animal Welfare Act came into force in April 2007 but statistics for the year showed increases in convictions for cruelty to dogs of 34% and to cats of 15%; an increase in the number of farm animals rescued, from 139 in 2006 to 737 in 2007; and an 18.7 per cent rise in the number of farm birds rescued.9 So do these figures indicate that acts of cruelty are increasing despite the new legislation? On the contrary, many would argue that the Act has made it easier to secure a conviction by allowing welfare inspectors to take effective action before serious neglect has occurred. Over time it will be important to discern which interpretation is the most valid.

The examples I have described of partnerships are part of a current trend, particularly in developed countries, for governments to seek cost sharing arrangements with producers. Can producers afford to contribute to national biocontainment and disease control strategies which impact welfare and which may previously have been heavily subsidised? Can they, at the same time, afford to take responsibility for developing a culture of care?

An example in the UK of this policy being put into practice has been the vaccination of cattle against bluetongue disease. FAWC provided advice on the welfare implications of this disease becoming established including concerns associated with the clinical disease itself, with the housing of livestock which would normally be at pasture, with the consequences of movement restrictions, and with emergency slaughter if eradication were attempted.10 It also noted that there would be adverse consequences of an epidemic for the welfare of farmers and stockmen. As a result of this and other                                                              9

RSPCA (2008). Annual Report 2007. http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=NewsFeatur e&articleId=1216830795971 (accessed 4th October 2008)  10 FAWC (2008) Annual Report 2007/8. www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/annualreview07-08.pdf (accessed 5th October 2008) 

reviews, a bluetongue vaccination policy was adopted following extensive discussions between government, producers and the veterinary profession.

The co-operation so developed ensured that government was able to manage the roll out of a vaccination policy and to pressurise vaccine producers to deliver in a timely manner. Producers were meanwhile prepared to fund the cost of vaccination to protect their stock and the veterinary profession was ready to oversee the phased delivery of vaccines. Whilst there remains concern on the part of producers about what the full implications of cost-sharing may be, this example has demonstrated that, through effective dialogue, there can be benefits for all concerned. In another example of partnership, the Pew Commission has proposed the phase out of systems that restrict natural movement and normal behaviours, and has recommended targeted assistance for producers, in a cost-sharing model with the US Government, to facilitate their conversion from intensive confinement systems.

The standard critique of intensification has been to consider it as a process whereby corporations have replaced family farms, where corporate profit-seeking has replaced animal care values, and where the industrial methods of the corporate world have replaced traditional farming methods, all apparently with terrible consequences for animal welfare. However, David Fraser points out that the reality is that much of the increase in farm size has happened as a consequence of owner-operated units becoming progressively larger. And producers’ attitudes range from the callous to the caring as has always been the case – though he accepts that the ability to act on those care values may be more constrained in the modern intensive world.11 This therefore raises the concept that the impact of industrialisation on animal welfare is probably as much associated with loss of effective stockmanship as with anything else. What may be most important in any animal production system is how well it is operated, whether this means good stockmanship or well maintained equipment or a combination of both. Each year, the number of people engaged in animal husbandry in both the developing and developed world grows smaller. We increasingly see the breakdown of the tradition of passing animal care skills from generation to generation12. The consequential loss of experienced stockpersons has been dramatic leaving once thriving farming communities withering. This is further exemplified in the widespread                                                             

11

Fraser, D (2005) Animal welfare and the intensification of animal production. An alternative interpretation. FAO; Rome, Italy.  12 FAWC (2007) Report on Stockmanship and Farm Animal Welfare. http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/stockmanship-report0607.pdf (accessed 5th October 2008) 

loss of a traditional veterinary presence in many rural areas due to economic pressure on both veterinary practices and on their clients. This must clearly have an impact on the welfare of production animals. A further development in the UK may be seen in a future revision of the Veterinary Surgeons Act which is predicted to provide for a greater role for paraprofessionals, possibly working independently of, and even in competition with, veterinary surgeons.13 The impact of such a change on producers has yet to be evaluated.

The role of consumers Consumers are increasingly concerned about the provenance of the food on their plates. Considering the “welfare standards of the food we eat” provides a tangible connection for increasingly urbanised consumer populations with the source of their food. This connection is critically important in driving the choice to purchase animals which have been raised according to improved welfare standards. As Figure 2 shows, the estimated effects on food prices of policy changes that would have a welfare impact on farm animals is relatively insignificant since, in the case of most livestock-based food products, the cost of the farm production element is only a small proportion of the total cost of the retail food product.14 Furthermore, using data from the UK National Food Survey, it is possible to estimate the impact of each of these proposed welfare changes in terms of cost per person and the consequential impact on the average weekly food budget. Whilst the prices used in these calculations are now somewhat out of date, the message is clear that the cost to consumers of animal welfare improvements is very low. Such improvements may thus be perfectly feasible as long as the increased cost is passed to the producer by the retailer. A more comprehensive review of the economics of animal welfare in livestock production and its implications can be found at McInerney (2004) 15 From this evidence we conclude that improvements in animal welfare appear to be economically sustainable provided that consumers understand the provenance of their food and are sufficiently informed to be able to demand welfare friendly products in preference to others should they so choose. Because the cost to consumers of making such demands is not great, we are now seeing a drive to understand the welfare                                                              13

House of Commons Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2008). Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 200708. http://www.parliament.the-stationeryoffice.co.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvfru/1011/1011.pdf (accessed 5th October 2008).  14 McInerney, J P (1995). 'The cost of welfare - the food consumer's viewpoint'. Proceedings of the Society of Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, London, pp 147-154.  15 McInerney, JP. (2004). Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy. https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/animalwelfare.pdf (accessed 5th October 2008) 

standards of the food we eat, an initiative started by FAWC and now involving popular figures such as TV celebrity-chef, Jamie Oliver. It is also clear that consumer demand can drive change faster and more effectively than legislation. Returning to Figure 1, we can remind ourselves that the valid role for legislation is to ensure that welfare standards remain above point ‘C’ which represents a threshold level below which society would judge the outcome to be cruel or inhumane. Welfare guidelines are generally set above this threshold at a level of welfare which society broadly feels to be the ‘right thing to do’. By expressing preferences for ‘higher welfare’ products, consumers can create a market in which producers can be rewarded for adhering to welfare standards which are at higher levels than these minima.

Farm Assurance Schemes play an important part in this consumer action provided there is promotion and recognition of the welfare provenance of products.16 The welfare standards under which animals are produced are actually an intrinsic quality characteristic of the resulting food product and should be recognised as such. Since welfare origin is a so-called ‘credence characteristic’ - that is it is not self-evident to the consumer and has to be taken on trust - it can only form the basis of choice if labelling in some form is used. A European survey17 has shown that 74% of consumers believe they can improve animal welfare through their purchasing choices, and over half of consumers said that they would be willing to pay more for animal welfare friendly food products. However the survey also found that consumers had difficulty identifying such products which has lead the European Union Action Plan on the protection and welfare of animals (adopted by the European Commission on January 2006) to include recommendations for an EU-wide animal welfare label18.

A problem with labelling schemes however is that they need to be both simple and informative.19 One proposal for welfare labeling, being developed by FAWC, is illustrated in Figure 3 which considers the quality of life which an animal experiences.                                                             

16

Main, DCJ. (2008). Providing assurance on welfare. In The Future of animal farming; renewing the ancient contract. Eds Marian Stamp Dawkins & Roland Bonney. 129-136. Blackwell; Oxford.  17 European Commission (2005) Special Eurobarometer: Attitudes of Consumers towards the Welfare of Farmed Animals. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en.pdf (accessed 5th October 2008)  18 European Commission (2006). Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/com_action_plan230106_en.pdf (accessed 5th October 2008)  19 FAWC (2006). Report on Welfare Labelling. http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/welfarelabel0606.pdf (accessed 5th October 2008) 

A minimum acceptable standard of welfare might be termed a “life worth living” in which the animal’s positive experiences outweigh the negative although some pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm may occur20. In this model, this standard might be indicated by an amber label. The higher standard of a “good life” might be where positive experiences heavily outweigh the negative beyond any reasonable doubt and certain husbandry practices are proscribed or forbidden. This might be indicated by the green label. For each species and production system it should be possible to define the husbandry practices which fall into each category though it is accepted that there is a continuum across the spectrum of welfare. Whilst this may not be a perfect model, it forms a good starter and a basis for further discussion and refinement.

An example of the power of public opinion in influencing societal decisions can be seen in the new UK legislation to control stem cell research in animals and particularly the creation of human-animal inter-species embryos. Ten years ago, at a time when public rejection of genetically manipulated crops was at its peak, it would have been inconceivable that the UK Parliament, on a free vote, would allow the creation of embryos containing both human and animal material for use in medical research. However opinion polls conducted earlier this year showed quite the opposite – voters of both genders and every social class, age group and political affiliation approved research using such inter-species embryos by a margin of at least ten percentage points.21 What has changed is that scientists have become much more open in their efforts to explain their work and the potential benefits. This would imply that public support can be significantly influenced by information which is communicated honestly and transparently.

Welfare and the environment There is increasing concern about the impact which animal production systems are having on the environment. Livestock production takes up 30% of the land on our planet for growing animal food and for grazing. It is responsible for 37% of global methane production, 65% of nitrous oxide, and 64% of ammonia as well as a staggering 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions measured as CO2 equivalents. Not only does this represent major pollution, but is accompanied by destruction of biodiversity to clear space for pasture which is also significantly damaging to our environment. Projections for the future predict not only human population growth but also increasing affluence with the consequential increase in demand for meat. The UN                                                              20 21

Wathes, CM. (2008). Personal communication.  Times/Populus poll, April 10, 2008 

Food and Agriculture Organisation’s prediction is that global meat production is set to double to over 465 million tonnes by 2050. This means we need to halve our current environmental impact per tonne to simply keep overall environmental damage to its present level.22

Historically, the trend has been to respond to population growth by increasing global meat production, focusing on the intensively farmed species – pigs and poultry – which tend to cause lower levels of pollution per tonne of meat produced than the ruminant species. With this prediction of increased demand, it will be easy for animal welfare to get lost in the drive to feed the world. The choices appear to be stark. Can we increase meat production whilst decreasing environmental pollution? Should we seek alternative non-animal based sources of protein? As sufficiency of the food supply for the world comes under increasing pressure, will we be able to maintain current animal welfare standards and at the same time feed the world?

Perhaps one of the calamities of the latter half of the twentieth century has been to decrease the price of animal based protein, through increasingly technological methods, to a level where extreme levels of meat consumption have become the norm in many sectors of Western society. This approach has not helped us to feed the starving of the world, but merely to change the diet of the West to comprise meat, meat and more meat. But as we can appreciate from the projected figures for population growth, this approach may not be sustainable in the long term. Perhaps now we have an opportunity to correct that imbalance and, at the same time, to stem the increase in the polluting effect of livestock production on the environment. This concept may align well with the Pew Commission recommendation to phase out intensive confinement in North America, one of the largest meat consuming societies in the world.

But while we are concerned about the impact our production systems are having on the environment, we also need to consider the impact of environmental changes on the sustainability of our production systems. Global warming is no longer in doubt23 and the upward trend in surface temperature is having an impact on patterns of disease emergence. We are now experiencing climate change as a major factor in the                                                             

22

Food and Agriculture Organisation, (2006). In Steinfeld, H. (ed). Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome. www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf   23

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) 4th Assessment Report. http://www.ipcc.ch. (accessed 6th October 2008) 

development and potential spread of vector borne diseases such as bluetongue, Lyme disease and malaria.

The impact will potentially be huge in terms of animal and

human welfare and mortality for these are also difficult diseases to control owing to the complex three-way relationship between pathogen, vector and host. Many of these infections are transmissible between species and it is estimated that some 75% of new emerging human diseases are zoonotic.24 As we consider the sustainability of welfare improvements, we would do well to also consider the sustainability of the very production systems on which we currently depend for our food.

Conclusion In contemplating the sustainability of animal welfare improvements, it is important to define the basis for sustainability – whether economic, biological or socio-political or a combination of these – and to consider the impact of any suggested changes upon producers and consumers. At the same time, global population growth and climate change determine environmental impacts of food production and may increase pressure for more industrialised systems. Perhaps the most important interest in the food chain is the consumer. It is consumers who will determine the desired quality of the food which they choose to eat, and it is consumers who will ultimately determine how we will deal with the environmental impacts of livestock production through informed market choices. Producers only exist to serve consumers. However, from a functional perspective, consumers are not only individual food-buying households but, more significantly, are major food retailers and caterers who have their own commercial strategies. The engagement of producers in a powerful dialogue with all these consumers is absolutely essential. Consumers no longer need to make the blunt decision between eating or not eating animals. Instead they can make more subtle choices for welfare friendly production systems – and these choices must be based upon dialogue and information. The analogy has been drawn with the situation in research laboratories where we no longer are making the stark choice between using animals in research or prohibiting that use. Today, effective discussion occurs between humane scientists and scientifically literate welfarists who share the aim of encouraging good welfare alongside good science which benefits both humans and animals.25 The acceptance                                                              24

Bennett, M (2008). Effect of climate change on the spread and emergence of diseases. Veterinary Record 163 (5), 132-133.  25 Midgley, M. (2008) Why farm animals matter? In: The future of animal farming. Eds Dawkins and Bonney. Blackwell; Oxford. 

by the British public of stem cell research and inter-species embryos is an example of this more nuanced debate.26 A similar debate must engage humane livestock farmers with farming-literate welfarists to explore refinements of livestock production in a manner which is sustainable economically, biologically and socio-politically. The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy provides an important foundation and mechanism by which such a dialogue can take place constructively and productively.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor John P. McInerney for his advice in the preparation of this manuscript.

                                                             26

Festing, S. (2008). Animal experimentation: the need for deliberation and challenge. ATLA 36, 1-4. 

Figure 1: A theoretical relationship between perceived animal welfare and livestock productivity.27

. B

level of perceived animal welfare A

.

. .

welfare code standards

C

‘cruelty’

livestock productivity

                                                             27

McInerney, J P (1991). 'Economic aspects of the animal welfare issue'. Proceedings of the Society of Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, London, pp 83-91. 

Figure 2. Estimated effects on food prices of policy changes with a welfare impact.28

Welfare

Estimated

Change

Commodity

Price

Cost per

% of total

effect on

change at

person per

food

livestock

retail (%)

week (p)

budget

Liquid milk

-2.56

-2.27

-0.17

Cheese

-1.92

+0.27

+0.02

+4

Beef

+1.44

-0.57

-0.04

+3

All carcase

+1.14

-0.47

-0.04

Pork

+1.9

-0.43

-0.03

tethers and

Bacon and

+1.3

+0.06

0

crates

ham

production costs (%) Introduce

-8

BST Ban hormones Limit transport

meat

times to 8 hours Ban sow

Ban broiler

+5

+30

Poultry meat

+13.2

+3.6

+0.27

+28

Eggs

+17.9

+2.87

+0.22

systems Ban battery cages

                                                             28

McInerney, J P (1995). 'The cost of welfare - the food consumer's viewpoint'. Proceedings of the Society of Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, London, pp 147-154. 

Figure 3. FAWC’s proposal for a simple EU welfare labelling system for livestock products.29

Welfare standards and labels

Good Welfare Protected label “A good life”

Quality of Life

A good life

“Higher welfare” “Ethical label”

A life worth living

A life not worth living

Poor Welfare

                                                             29

Wathes, CM. (2008). Personal communication. 

Legal minimum CE mark: “Conforms to EU standards”