Economics of Farm Animal Welfare, The: Theory, Evidence and Policy

Foreword

Animal welfare is at the heart of the legitimate expectations of society and also concerns about the future of livestock, both in developed and developing countries, in a global context where the demand for animal protein is increasing, particularly as a result of population growth, global economic development and the globalization of consumption patterns. The concept of animal welfare encompasses not only the physical health and wellbeing of the animal but also its psychological well-being and the ability to express the behaviours of the species. It relates to the relationships between humans and animals and all the controversies that surround them. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) seized upon the subject of animal welfare in 2002, particularly because of its close links with animal health. The Organization began by defining this notion, based on the Five Freedoms (absence of hunger and thirst; physical restraint; pain, injury and disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; protection from fear and distress). Since 2005, the OIE has developed international standards, based on scientific foundations, which serve as a reference at the global level. Animal welfare is a complex subject with various dimensions: scientific, philosophical, ethical, cultural, sociological, religious, political and economic.

This book, edited by Dr Vosough Ahmadi, Professor Moran and Dr D’Eath, has a particular focus on the economic and policy aspects of animal welfare. Respect for animal welfare should not always be experienced as a constraint on animal production; it can be an asset for livestock and for sustainable development. Issues around animal welfare concern breeding conditions and production systems, transport and slaughter, but also international trade, which leads to the growing integration of animal welfare requirements in the negotiation of bilateral trade agreements. In addition to ethical considerations, under many circumstances, improvement of animal welfare can lead to improvements in production and also the quality and safety of animals and animal products, resulting in ‘win–wins’. There is a need for national, regional and global regulatory frameworks, policies and strategies. The concern to ensure the wellbeing of breeding animals is also fundamental. Veterinary services, considered a global public good, are both a key and a tool for improving animal welfare. These services must collaborate with all other services concerned, as animal welfare is closely linked to human health and wellbeing, respect for the environment and agricultural economics. In order to improve animal production alongside the rights and welfare of people, including farm workers and consumers, and the environment, the One Welfare holistic concept is developing, like that of One Health. A transdisciplinary approach is essential, with a permanent dialogue between all stakeholders. Animal welfare is fully in line with the agro-ecological transition approach and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

This book will, I am sure, be a reference in the field for actors and decision makers concerned with animal breeding and the economy of animal production. I thank and congratulate the editors for their relevant initiative and wish the audience an excellent read!

Jean-Luc Angot

January 2020

Preface

Economists are preoccupied with efficiency of scarce resource allocation across a number of competing areas. This typically requires that costs and benefits of policy change are compared. When it comes to a public good like animal welfare, this becomes complicated since monetary costs are compared with monetary and non-monetary returns. The literature on animal welfare economics is light and very little has been done to address these important issues. On the other hand, from an animal welfare science point of view, assigning numerical value to the welfare impacts of policy changes in livestock systems is very challenging. This is because welfare is multifaceted (e.g. Five Freedoms) and the type and extent of welfare challenges (or improvements), and the number of animals affected by each of them is difficult to integrate into a single value of ‘overall welfare’ (or even a direction of change) at a farm or system level. This book attempts to bridge this gap to some extent by drawing on economic theory and economic research that is relevant to animal welfare and policy development. It consists of nine chapters that each has a specific focus related to aspects of economics of farm animal welfare.

Chapter 1 provides a background to the evolution of animal welfare as a branch of animal science and how animal welfare policy has developed, mostly driven by citizen pressure and activism. Chapter 2 discusses animal welfare from an economic theory perspective and provides an insight into the public good/private good debate as well as market failure. Chapter 3 considers consumer demand for animal welfare products and uses relevant quantitative methods such as willingness to pay for animal products with animal welfare attributes. Complementary to this, Chapter 4 presents and discusses peoples’ preferences for animal welfare attributes. Chapter 5 covers the production and supply side with respect to the cost and benefits of improving animal welfare at farm level as well as in the food supply chain. It also addresses how the pursuit of economic efficiencies in production practices led to forms of cost-cutting that are at the root of much of the public unrest over animal welfare. Chapter 6 focuses on the economic impacts of welfare and trade-offs between welfare and environmental improvements by breeding and selection using an example from poultry production. Chapters 7 and 8 are devoted to regulations, policy and trade aspects of animal welfare in the EU and at the global level, respectively. Chapter 9 provides some thoughts on the expected future of animal welfare policies and discusses global objectives such as reducing environmental emissions and sustainable intensification with respect to animal welfare.

We hope that you find this collection of work an interesting and useful resource.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all those who contributed to this book and provided their valuable perspectives and results of their research. Secondly, we would like to thank our current and past employers and funders of our research for their support which allowed us to complete the book. We would also like to express our gratitude to many colleagues in various institutes who have contributed to our research in the field of economics of animal health and welfare during the last 20 years. We are especially thankful to Professor Alistair Stott for his critical review and valuable comments.

Finally, we are grateful to colleagues at CAB International, particularly Alexandra Lainsbury and Emma McCann, for their professional support during the book’s preparation and production.

Contributors

Faical Akaichi is an agricultural economist currently working at Scotland’s Rural College (Edinburgh, UK). Faical’s research aims to further the understanding of producers’ and consumers’ choices and their determining factors, and how policy can best make use of this understanding to promote more sustainable and healthier food production and consumption.

Jean-Luc Angot is a veterinarian and General Inspector of Veterinary Public Health at the French Ministry for Agriculture. After having held various positions in ministerial administration, embassy, local veterinary services, inter-ministerial service and public agency, he became, in 2001, Deputy Director General of the OIE, and in 2009 French CVO and Delegate of France to the OIE. In 2015, he joined the High Council for Food and Agriculture, chairing the Prospective, Society and International Department. He chaired the FAO/EuFMD Commission from 2015 to 2019 and has been chairing the Codex Alimentarius Committee for General Principles since 2018. He is Head of the Body of the Inspectors of Veterinary Public Health and is the elected President of the Veterinary Academy of France for 2020.

Santiago Avendaño joined Aviagen in 2003 after graduating from Edinburgh University, UK, with a PhD in Quantitative Genetics and Genome Analysis. He is currently Global Director of Genetics for the Aviagen Group with responsibility for the development, evaluation and implementation of new technologies within Aviagen’s breeding programmes. Prior to joining Aviagen, he was a researcher and technical advisor in beef cattle and sheep breeding in pasture-based production systems in Latin America.

Richard Bennett is Professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of Reading, UK. He has had a particular research and policy interest in relation to the economics and social science aspects of animal health, disease control and animal welfare over the last 35 years and has undertaken numerous research projects. He has served on a number of committees including the UK Farm Animal Welfare Committee (for 10 years) and provides economic and policy advice to government and others.

Bettina Bock is Professor of Inclusive Rural Development at Wageningen University & Research as well as Professor of Population Decline and Quality of Life at Groningen University, both in The Netherlands. Her main research focus is on rural development in times of urbanization and rural–urban relations. She is also Editor-in-Chief of Sociologia Ruralis, one of the leading academic journals in the domain of rural social studies.

Donald M. Broom is Emeritus Professor of Animal Welfare at Cambridge University, Department of Veterinary Medicine, UK. His research concerns assessing animal welfare, animal cognition, sustainable farming and the scientific bases for morality and religion. He has published around 375 refereed papers and 12 books.

Beth Clark is a social scientist with an interest in stakeholder practices and perceptions of animal health and welfare. She is currently based in the Centre for Rural Economy at Newcastle University, UK. Her research focuses on how the public, farmers and farm advisors understand and view animal health and welfare, and how knowledge is gained and shared in relation to this. Her current research explores these topics in relation to endemic livestock disease in the UK.

Rick D’Eath is Reader in Animal Behaviour and Welfare at Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), UK. As an applied ethologist working on farm animals, his main research interests involve understanding how the farmed environment can modify and sometimes frustrate an animal’s motivated behaviours, often leading to animal welfare problems. Rick primarily works on pigs and poultry, with a particular focus on questions around feeding and hunger, and interactions between animals that are negative for their welfare, including aggression, tail-biting and mounting.

David Harvey is Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Economics at Newcastle University, UK. He was President of the Agricultural Economics Society in 2004/5, is a Fellow of the Royal Agricultural Society of England and is the Editor of the Journal of Agricultural Economics (since 2005). He received an award for excellence from the Agricultural Economics Society in 2012 for ‘outstanding contribution to public policy, industry and the profession’. His research interests focus on policy analysis and policy processes.

Carmen Hubbard is Senior Lecturer in Rural Economy at Newcastle University, UK. Trained as an agricultural economist, her research interests are in the economics and policy analysis of rural areas. She has extended her expertise to other countries such as Japan, Brazil, South Korea and Vietnam. In 2015 she was appointed to the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, the expert committee that advises the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales on the welfare of farmed animals. In 2014, she was awarded a prestigious fellowship by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. She sits on the North East Farming and Rural Advisory Network steering group. She is Associate Editor of the Journal of Agricultural Economics and a member of the advisory board of EuroChoices.

Alfons Koerhuis is the Chief Technical Officer of Aviagen Group, responsible for the research and development of Aviagen chickens and turkeys. He has an MSc in Animal Breeding from Wageningen University and a PhD from Edinburgh University, UK.

Alistair Lawrence holds a chair in Animal Behaviour and Welfare at Scotland’s Rural College and the Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, UK. While his main expertise is in animal behaviour applied to animal welfare, he has always had a motivation for interdisciplinary research, which has included work involving economics and other social science approaches. His current area of interest is in positive animal welfare to which he applies both conceptual and experimental approaches with the aim of clarifying what it means for animals to live ‘good lives’.

Carolina Maciel is a Brazilian attorney who has been working as a researcher and consultant for more than 10 years on (farm) animal welfare policies, with a focus on the regulatory system of Brazil, the European Union and the recommendations and decisions of international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Organization for Animal Health (OIE). Carolina holds a PhD in International Law and Policy from the University of Wageningen, The Netherlands, and an MSc in Political Sociology from the University of Santa Catarina, Brazil.

Dominic Moran is Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Edinburgh, UK. Previously, he worked for a period of 18 years at Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), prior to which he was a government economist and in private consulting. His research focuses on applying economics to environmental management and the development of interdisciplinary approaches to resource allocation problems in agriculture and global food security. Most recently, his work has focused on the challenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and food supply chains, and the problem of antimicrobial use and resistance in agriculture. Dominic has worked in over 30 countries and has published more than 100 refereed journal papers. He has been in continuous receipt of funding from the EU, ESRC, NERC or BBSRC since 2000 for his research on climate change and agriculture and has supervised 20 PhD students.

Anne-Marie Neeteson is the Global Vice President of Welfare and Compliance at the Aviagen Group. She leads the International Poultry Council Environment and Sustainability Working Group, is a board member of the International Poultry Welfare Alliance and the US Round Table for Sustainable Poultry and Eggs and is active in various poultry working groups globally.

Jarkko K. Niemi is Research Professor of Economics of Sustainable Animal Production at the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), specializing in the economics of animal health, welfare and production. He has particular interest in socio-economic aspects related to production diseases and animal welfare in pig and poultry production. He has worked on a wide range of areas such as economics of classical swine fever, African swine fever, bluetongue and foot-and-mouth disease in Finland, as well as economic analysis and optimization of pig production covering elements such as genetics, feeding, slaughter and replacement, technology choices, price, and production risks. He has also worked extensively in developing countries including Senegal, Kenya and Uganda.

Cesar Revoredo-Giha is Reader in Food Chain Economics, Senior Economist and Team Leader of Food Marketing Research at Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, UK. His work focuses on agri-food value chains from primary producers to consumers, in developed and developing countries. In addition, he teaches topics on food security at the University of Edinburgh.

Alistair Stott retired as Head of Research at Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) in 2018. This followed nearly 40 years of research and education at the interface of agricultural science and agricultural economics. In particular, he pioneered the application of economics, systems modelling and management science to applied animal breeding, animal health and animal welfare.

Belinda Vigors is a social scientist currently working in the Animal Behaviour and Welfare Research Group at Scotland’s Rural College in Edinburgh, UK. Her research interests include the use of qualitative research methods to examine how individuals make sense of and perceive farm animal welfare. In addition, she has a particular interest in the study of human decision making and how the perspectives of human behavioural science can contribute to better understanding how human behaviour impacts farm animal welfare.

Bouda Vosough Ahmadi is veterinarian and animal health and welfare economist currently working at the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (EuFMD) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Rome. His main research focus is on agricultural policies and economics and policies of animal health and welfare. He currently leads socio-economic impact assessment studies of livestock diseases at EuFMD/FAO.

1Farm Animal Welfare: Origins, and Interplay with Economics and Policy

ALISTAIR LAWRENCE,¹,²* AND BELINDA VIGORS¹

¹Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC)

¹The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Summary

In this chapter we look at the origins of animal welfare as a societal concern and the interplay between the concept of animal welfare, economics and policy. We firstly propose adjustments to the ‘standard view’ of the development of animal welfare concerns (which we refer to as the Harrison-Brambell-FAWC (HBF) sequence). For example, we suggest that the role of science in setting animal welfare policy is a more complex process than is sometimes acknowledged. We discuss the application of economics to animal welfare including the analysis of the costs of animal welfare improvements to more recent work on trade-offs relating to animal welfare across the supply chain. Considering this range of uses of economics relating to animal welfare, we identify that the question of how to value animal welfare in economic terms remains unresolved. Lastly, we suggest that the period 1965–2008 may come to be regarded as a ‘golden era’ for the translation of animal welfare concerns into positive socio-political actions. We discuss a raft of issues which appear to have diminished the position of animal welfare in the policy ‘pecking order’. However, societal concern over animal welfare will mean that government and others will need to be cautious of breaching ‘red lines’. On a more positive note, the public profile that animal welfare enjoys will continue to provide the opportunity for policy and business innovations to improve animals’ lives.

1.1 Introduction

We consider the origins of animal welfare as a societal concern and the interplay between the concepts of animal welfare, economics and policy. Much of the material will be drawn from Europe and particularly the UK. While this may limit relevance to other geo-political areas, the UK and Europe have, arguably, the richest experience and history of animal welfare, and are therefore most suited to exploring why animal welfare concerns have arisen and how they influence, and are influenced by, wider society.

1.2 The Origins of Animal Welfare: The Standard View

The standard view for the origin of animal welfare is that it originated in the mid-1960s in the UK, directly following the publication of Ruth Harrison’s book Animal Machines (Harrison, 1964). The book illustrated that animal farming had moved significantly away from the public’s perception of a ‘rural idyll’ to what thereafter became known as ‘factory farming’. It gave rise, almost immediately, to misgivings among members of the British public about conditions in intensive farm animal production. It is rather remarkable that the book had such an immediate and profound effect, perhaps because of the public sensitivity to animal issues and perhaps because the 1960s had already seen increasing public alarm over other issues such as environmental pollution (Carson, 1962). One of the most significant and long-lasting impacts of Harrison’s book was the forming, by the UK government, of the Brambell Committee, whose purpose it was to investigate and report on welfare conditions in British livestock farming. In 1965, the Committee issued its Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems (Brambell, 1965).

The Brambell Report is often seen as another seminal point in the development of animal welfare because it introduced a broader idea of what animal welfare should encompass. Whereas previous anti-cruelty legislation had focused on preventing what was seen as pointless or, as it was said, ‘wanton’ suffering without human benefits, this new development involved protecting animals against the adverse consequences of human activities even if the activities made food production more efficient. For example, although keeping sows confined using chains or crates, or housing slaughter pigs at very high stocking densities, could be seen as integral to the most efficient production of pork, these methods were still criticized for denying animals the fulfilment of their needs. The Brambell Report understood animals’ needs as something which, if they were not met, would cause suffering. Thus the report insisted on a new and wider understanding of suffering, which went beyond persistent and significant pain to include the frustration of ‘behavioural urges’ in the form of discomfort, stress and, by inference, other negative mental states. This understanding of suffering made it possible, for example, to criticize the confinement of sows, not on the basis that confinement causes pain but rather because confinement prevents animals from engaging in behaviours that they are highly motivated to perform. Using these ideas, the Brambell Report formulated the general requirements that farm animals should be free to ‘stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs’ (Brambell, 1965, p. 13).

The report also recommended the creation of a Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (FAWAC), which was formed in 1967, to be superseded by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) in 1979. It was FAWC which distilled the so-called Five Freedoms from the Brambell Report, formalizing these in a press release shortly afterwards (FAWC, 1979). Despite potential criticisms (e.g. McCulloch, 2013) and proposed alternatives (e.g. Mellor, 2016), the Five Freedoms have become the most widely used animal welfare framework globally (e.g. OIE, 2019), taking forward the broadening of animal welfare beyond prevention of cruelty. This includes the much-discussed freedom to ‘express normal patterns of behaviour’ (e.g. Bracke and Hopster, 2006; see below).

Many of the socio-political activities relating to animal welfare can be seen to follow from the ‘Harrison-Brambell-FAWC’ (HBF) sequence. In the UK, for example, Defra (2006) put the idea of animal needs into a legislative framework (House of Commons, 2006). The needs, as expressed in the act, for: a suitable environment (place to live); a suitable diet; to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; and to be: housed with, or apart from, other animals (if applicable); and protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease, are strongly influenced by the Five Freedoms.

Science had an important role in these developments. The Brambell Committee was clearly influenced by the emerging fields of animal behaviour and neuroscience. For example, in a footnote on page 10, the report states that the Committee was impressed by recent comments by Lord Brain (a neurologist) that he saw ‘no reason for conceding mind to my fellow men and denying it to animals’. The committee also included W.H. Thorpe (then Director of the Animal Behaviour Department at the University of Cambridge) as an animal behaviour expert. Thorpe wrote an Appendix to the report entitled ‘The Assessment of Pain and Distress in Animals’, in which he developed the argument that animals are capable of suffering based on their physiology and behaviour, including those ‘expressive movements’ which are associated with deprivation and suffering. Dawkins (2016) argued that Thorpe set out an agenda for the future study of animal welfare that included the study of animals’ subjective feelings.

In fact, much of the research that was to help fulfil Thorpe’s agenda was not directly related to animal welfare but came about through developments in mainstream science. Most notable was the so-called ‘cognitive revolution’, which led to consciousness and awareness being widely accepted as suitable for scientific study across a range of disciplines and areas (e.g. Sperry, 1993). One consequence of this was for studies of animal behaviour to begin to explore animal cognition and awareness, refreshing the debate over animal mentality (e.g. Griffin, 2013). Thorpe’s agenda was, however, also served by the more bespoke scientific area that we now refer to as animal welfare science. Animal welfare science is a loose amalgam of scientific disciplines ranging from the natural to the social sciences and including philosophy that since the late 1960s has focused specifically on addressing animal welfare issues (Lawrence, 2008a). The subject matter of animal welfare science followed closely Thorpe’s agenda, particularly when scientists such as David Wood-Gush began to develop scientific approaches to study the ‘animal’s perspective’, including studies of animal emotions such as ‘frustration’ (Duncan and Wood-Gush, 1971) and ‘fear’ (Hughes and Black, 1974). This early phase culminated in the publication of Marian Dawkins’s seminal book Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare (Dawkins, 1980), in which she argued for animal preferences to be applied as a method for objectively assessing animals’ motivational priorities and, by inference, their experiences.

Animal welfare science has continued to build on these early years through other innovative approaches to the study of the animals’ experience (see Lawrence, 2016 for further details). For example, the development of judgement bias tests by Mike Mendl, Liz Paul and others is based on human psychology studies suggesting that underlying emotional states affect cognitive processing, for example with more depressed or anxious people judging ambiguous stimuli more negatively (e.g. Mathews and Mackintosh, 1998). The first application of ‘cognitive bias’ (as it is often referred to) tested rats for their response to ambiguous stimuli following exposure to different housing (Harding et al., 2004) and has been followed by many studies applying cognitive bias across a range of species and contexts. Cognitive bias testing is supported by a theoretical framework aimed at understanding and interpreting research on animal emotions (e.g. Mendl et al., 2010).

Another example of innovation in animal welfare science that builds on the HBF sequence is the development of qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA) by Françoise Wemelsfelder and colleagues, which directly fulfils Thorpe’s aim to scientifically assess those ‘expressive movements’ which are associated with animal welfare. QBA arose from Wemelsfelder’s position (part philosophical and part biological) that it can be legitimate to study animal behaviour from a qualitative perspective, and indeed that it may be essential to do so, in order to capture the subjective aspects relating to mental state that are of concern in animal welfare (Wemelsfelder, 2012). The result of this thinking led to the development of an approach to the recording of animal behaviour that focuses on the expressive quality of the behaviour as opposed to the quantitative descriptions of behaviour that are normally used in behavioural data collection (e.g. Wemelsfelder et al., 2001). Similar to cognitive bias, testing QBA is now widely used in animal welfare science across a range of species from farm animals (e.g. Rutherford et al., 2012) to elephants (Carlstead et al., 2013).

In summary the standard view sees the publishing of Animal Machines as the essential primer to a sequence of events that was to define the development of animal welfare as a concept, as a public concern and as an area for scientific study.

1.3 Adjustments and Additions to the Standard View

In this section we want to suggest additions or adjustments to the standard