Amber Itle, MS, DVM, and Susan Kerr, DVM, PhD<\/strong>[\/textblock][textblock]Regardless of where they stand on the vegan-vegetarian-omnivore-carnivore continuum, enlightened and progressive consumers care about animal welfare. Animal welfare is a complex issue that is greatly influenced by individual values and ethics. Although most people would agree that giving animals a \u201cgood\u201d life is the right thing to do, disagreements about animal welfare often occur when different measures of welfare are used by different stakeholders. While producers or veterinarians may prioritize animal health, consumers may put emphasis on the naturalness of an animal\u2019s life or be concerned about the animal\u2019s \u201chappiness.\u201d<\/p>\n Producers, veterinarians, and educators think animal welfare is important because:<\/p>\n However, many consumers associate animal welfare with the naturalness of the animal\u2019s environment or the quality of life:<\/p>\n [\/textblock][textblock]<\/p>\n Public perceptions are changing. Many non-farm consumers have an interest in animals as moral objects and companions, some with a holistic view that focuses on environmental impacts (organic production systems). In contrast, many producers tend to think of animals as resources that when \u201ctaken care of, take care us.\u201d Regardless, more and more consumers are demanding evidence that their animal-origin products come from farms that care about and enact best practices related to animal welfare:<\/p>\n Despite recent and growing interest in animal welfare, the concept is not a new one. In 1979, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC, formerly Farm Animal Welfare Council) of the United Kingdom developed a code pertaining to animal welfare and care standards in the U.K. These standards have been widely adopted by other organizations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). They are also used by some of the animal welfare certifying organizations in the U.S.<\/p>\n [\/textblock][textblock]<\/p>\n The Five Freedoms (text color codes correspond to colors used in Figure 1) are:<\/p>\n Despite these guidelines, producers and consumers often disagree about which management system is better for animals: conventional vs. organic vs. free range vs. pasture raised vs. grass fed. Producer and consumer values often dictate this conclusion making it possible for both groups to be able to rationally justify what they perceive as \u201cbetter.\u201d However, animal welfare is not as dependent on the type of system used as the management of that system\u2014animal welfare has the potential to be excellent or terrible in any system.<\/p>\n In 1997, David Fraser and his colleagues at the University of British Columbia introduced a framework complementary to the Five Freedoms to demonstrate this point. They proposed there are three major concepts of animal welfare: health and production; natural behavior; and feelings (affective states). Every type of management system has tradeoffs. While a pasture system may provide more freedom of movement (natural behavior), an indoor system may provide more freedom from parasites (health). Furthermore, a pasture system may subject an animal to the \u201cfear\u201d of predators, but an indoor system has the potential for the animal to experience \u201cboredom.\u201d Despite which management system is chosen, all three conceptions of welfare must be considered in an attempt to optimize welfare in that system.<\/p>\n [\/textblock][textblock] Figure 1.<\/strong> Animal welfare conceptual framework. Adapted from Fraser, 2008, p. 230. Affective State = an animal\u2019s experience or perception of its situation, i.e. its feelings such as pain or distress.[\/textblock][textblock]An exercise for readers: apply the animal welfare framework to indoor vs. outdoor pork production systems. Note: an advantage for one is a disadvantage for the other.[\/textblock][\/column][\/row][row layout=”halves”][column][textblock] Photo 1.<\/span><\/strong> Example of an outdoor pig production system.<\/p>\n [\/textblock][\/column][column][textblock] Photo 2. <\/span><\/strong>Example of an indoor pig production system.<\/p>\n [\/textblock][\/column][\/row][row][column][image img_src=”https:\/\/wpcdn.web.wsu.edu\/extension\/uploads\/sites\/37\/2017\/03\/fig2-crop-u36937.jpg” img_id=”701″][\/image][textblock]<\/p>\n The FAWC states animals should have \u201ca life worth living\u201d from the animal\u2019s viewpoint. Although each individual conception in the animal welfare framework can be studied scientifically, there is no scientific or value-free way to establish their relative importance to an animal. However, with careful consideration of system trade-offs at each stage of an animal\u2019s life from birth to slaughter, animals can experience \u201cgood\u201d animal welfare with \u201cgood\u201d management.<\/p>\n Regardless of how one feels about \u201canimal rights,\u201d all informed and rational individuals should be able to agree that animals under the care and responsibility of humans deserve the reasonable care defined by the Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare.<\/p>\n [\/textblock][\/column][\/row]<\/p>\n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Diagram](\"https:\/\/wpcdn.web.wsu.edu\/extension\/uploads\/sites\/37\/2017\/03\/fig.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Example](\"https:\/\/wpcdn.web.wsu.edu\/extension\/uploads\/sites\/37\/2017\/03\/picture204.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Photo](\"https:\/\/wpcdn.web.wsu.edu\/extension\/uploads\/sites\/37\/2017\/03\/picture205.jpg\")
<\/p>\nResources<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n