Assessing animal welfare: different philosophies, different scientific approaches
Tóm tắt
Attempts to improve animal welfare have commonly centered around three broad objectives: (1) to ensure good physical health and functioning of animals, (2) to minimize unpleasant “affective states” (pain, fear, etc.) and to allow animals normal pleasures, and (3) to allow animals to develop and live in ways that are natural for the species. Each of these objectives has given rise to scientific approaches for assessing animal welfare. An emphasis on health and functioning has led to assessment methods based on rates of disease, injury, mortality, and reproductive success. An emphasis on affective states has led to assessment methods based on indicators of pain, fear, distress, frustration and similar experiences. An emphasis on natural living has led to research on the natural behavior of animals and on the strength of animals' motivation to perform different elements of their behavior. All three approaches have yielded practical ways to improve animal welfare, and the three objectives are often correlated. However, under captive conditions, where the evolved adaptations of animals may not match the challenges of their current circumstances, the single‐minded pursuit of any one criterion may lead to poor welfare as judged by the others. Furthermore, the three objectives arise from different philosophical views about what constitutes a good life—an area of disagreement that is deeply embedded in Western culture and that is not resolved by scientific research. If efforts to improve animal welfare are to achieve widespread acceptance, they need to strike a balance among the different animal welfare objectives. Zoo Biol 28:507–518, 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Anonymous, 1989, How Astrid Lindgren achieved enactment of the 1988 law protecting farm animals in Sweden
Brambell FWR, 1965, Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems
Dahrendorf R, 1987, Max Weber and his contemporaries, 574
Edwards SA, 1995, Animal behavior and the design of livestock and poultry systems, 115
Ekesbo I, 1966, Disease incidence in tied and loose housed dairy cattle and causes, Acta Agric Scand, 15, 1
Fraser D, 1998, Pleasures, pains and animal welfare: toward a natural history of affect, Anim Welf, 7, 383, 10.1017/S0962728600020935
Harrison R, 1964, Animal machines
Markowitz H, 1982, Behavioral enrichment in the zoo
Newman MA, 1993, The history of the Vancouver Aquarium
Rollin BE, 1993, Animal welfare, science, and value, J Agric Environ Ethics, 6, 44
Sainsbury D, 1986, Farm animal welfare: cattle, pigs and poultry
Shepherdson DJ, 1998, Second nature: environmental enrichment for captive animals
Singer P, 1990, Animal liberation
Stolba A, 1984, The identification of behavioural key features and their incorporation into a housing design for pigs, Ann Rech Vet, 15, 287
UEP, 2008, United egg producers animal husbandry guidelines for U.S. egg laying flocks