13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Animal Welfare: Freedoms, Dominions and “A Life Worth Living”

      other
      Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI
      MDPI
      animal welfare, quality of life, quality assurance

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This opinion paper considers the relative validity and utility of three concepts: the Five Freedoms (FF), Five Domains (FD) and Quality of Life (QoL) as tools for the analysis of animal welfare. The aims of FF and FD are different but complementary. FD seeks to assess the impact of the physical and social environment on the mental (affective) state of a sentient animal, FF is an outcome-based approach to identify and evaluate the efficacy of specific actions necessary to promote well-being. Both have utility. The concept of QoL is presented mainly as a motivational framework. The FD approach provides an effective foundation for research and evidence-based conclusions as to the impact of the things we do on the mental state of the animals in our care. Moreover, it is one that can evolve with time. The FF are much simpler. They do not attempt to achieve an overall picture of mental state and welfare status, but the principles upon which they are based are timeless. Their aim is to be no more than a memorable set of signposts to right action. Since, so far as the animals are concerned, it is not what we think but what we do that counts, I suggest that they are likely to have a more general impact.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Animal-Based Measures for the Assessment of Welfare State of Dairy Cattle, Pigs and Laying Hens: Consensus of Expert Opinion

          A Delphi technique was used to gather the opinions of animal welfare experts on the most appropriate measures for welfare assessment of farm animals. The experts were asked to consider measures that were directed towards the animal (animal-based), rather than measurement of their environment. This systematic approach was designed to achieve a degree of consensus of opinion between a large number of experts. Two rounds of postal questionnaires were targeted at people with expertise in one or more of the species of interest. The respondents suggested measures based upon observations of health status, behaviour, and examination of records. These measures reflect the animal's welfare state — in other words, how the animal is coping within the environment and husbandry system in which it lives. The measures for cattle, pigs and laying hens were categorised into 22, 23 and 28 aspects, respectively, with the highest ranking of importance being given to observation of lameness in dairy cattle and pigs and to observation of feather condition in laying hens. This Delphi study was the basis for the development of a series of protocols to assess the welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food Scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle.

            To evaluate the effect of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Freedom Food (FF) scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle in England, 28 FF and 25 non-FF farms were assessed during the winter of 2000 to 2001. The assessments were based on a protocol which included the examination of the farms' records, the farmers' estimates of the incidence of disease, and independent observations of the behaviour and physical condition of the cows. The data were analysed to identify which measures of welfare were affected by FF membership and to assess the number of farms on which intervention would be required, as defined by a panel of 50 experts. The FF farms had better results for 12 of the welfare indicators, including those for mastitis, non-hock injuries, cow cleanliness and body condition, and poorer welfare indicators for eight of the measures, including hock injuries, lameness and restrictions in rising behaviour. Except for the prevalence of dull coats (which was lower on the FF farms) there were no significant differences in the proportions of FF and non-FF farms on which intervention was required according to the experts' assessment.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future

              (2009)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Animals (Basel)
                Animals (Basel)
                animals
                Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI
                MDPI
                2076-2615
                24 May 2016
                June 2016
                : 6
                : 6
                : 35
                Affiliations
                Old Sock Cottage, Mudford Sock, Yeovil BA22 8EA, UK; john.webster@ 123456bris.ac.uk ; Tel.: +44-117-928-9459
                Article
                animals-06-00035
                10.3390/ani6060035
                4929415
                27231943
                4208fd1e-d8ae-4741-b068-111304553933
                © 2016 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

                This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 14 April 2016
                : 20 May 2016
                Categories
                Opinion

                animal welfare,quality of life,quality assurance
                animal welfare, quality of life, quality assurance

                Comments

                Comment on this article