Abstract
AbstractThere are many decision contexts in which we require accurate information on animal welfare, in ethics, management, and policy. Unfortunately, many of the methods currently used for estimating animal welfare in these contexts are subjective and unreliable, and thus unlikely to be accurate. In this paper, I look at how we might apply principled methods from animal welfare science to arrive at more accurate scores, which will then help us in making the best decisions for animals. I construct and apply a framework of desiderata for welfare measures, to assess the best of the currently available methods and argue that a combined use of both a whole-animal measure and a combination measurement framework for assessing welfare will give us the most accurate answers to guide our action.
Funder
H2020 European Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,Philosophy
Reference89 articles.
1. Aerts S, Lips D, Spencer S, Decuypere E, De Tavernier J (2006) A new framework for the assessment of animal welfare: Integrating existing knowledge from a practical ethics perspective. J Agric Environ Ethics 19(1):67–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-4376-y
2. Alonso WJ, Schuck-Paim C (2021) The comparative measurement of animal welfare: Cumulative time in pain as a universal metric with biological meaning. In Quantifying Pain in Laying Hens: A Blueprint for the Comparative Analysis of Welfare in Animals (p. 34). https://tinyurl.com/bookhens
3. Andreasen SN, Sandøe P, Forkman B (2014) Can animal-based welfare assessment be simplified? A comparison of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle and the simpler and less time-consuming protocol developed by the Danish Cattle Federation. Anim Welf 23(1):81–94. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.081
4. Andreasen SN, Wemelsfelder F, Sandøe P, Forkman B (2013) The correlation of Qualitative Behavior Assessments with Welfare Quality® protocol outcomes in on-farm welfare assessment of dairy cattle. Appl Anim Behav Sci 143(1):9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.11.013
5. Balcombe J (2020) Intuition and the invertebrate dogma. Anim Sentience 5(29). https://doi.org/10.51291/2377-7478.1591
Cited by
21 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献