Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:24:44.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal Welfare: Evolution and Erosion of a Moral Concept

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

F R Stafleu ,
F J Grommers  and
J Vorstenbosch
F R Stafleu*
Affiliation:
Centre for Biο-ethics and Health Law, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
F J Grommers
Affiliation:
Section for Veterinary Science and Society, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 7, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands
J Vorstenbosch
Affiliation:
Centre for Biο-ethics and Health Law, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

There are many definitions of animal welfare. These do not only differ in their meaning, but also in their function for making a broad concept accessible for scientific research. Lexical [dictionary] definitions establish what the common meaning is of the concept to be studied, and help to find some concrete phenomena which are related to the often vague and general descriptive terms. Explanatory definitions provide an elementary theoretical background for studying the phenomena. Operational definitions contain the parameters used in concrete measurements. In each step we reduce the concept to more measurable elements but lose other elements of the concept. In the case of animal welfare this results in an evolution of definitions which makes animal welfare more objectively assessable. But it also results in an erosion: development of a confusing diversity in parameters and a loss of the moral aspect of the concept of animal welfare. This erosion has a negative influence on political decisionmaking. It is important to recognize the possibilities and limitations of problem solving, based on ‘animal welfare science’.

Keywords

animal welfaredefinitionsethicspolicy
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , August 1996 , pp. 225 - 234
Copyright
© 1996 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Baerends, G P 1978 Welzijn vanuit de ethologie gezien. In: Baerens, G P, Groen, J J and De Groot, A D (eds) Over welzijn, criterium, onderzoeksobject, beleidsdoel pp 83–110. Lochtum Straterus: Deventer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J L and Hemsworth, P H 1990 The validity of physiological and behavioural measures of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U 1986 Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, pp 228. Reclam: Frankfurt a.M, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Brambell, F W R 1965 Report of the Technical Committee to Inquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1991 Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtis, S E 1985 What constitutes animal well-being? In: Moberg G P (ed) Animal Stress pp 1–14. American Physiological Society: Bethesda, USAGoogle Scholar
Curtis, S E 1987 Animal well-being and animal care. Veterinary Clinics of North America, Food Animal Practice 3: 369–382CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, I J H and Dawkins, M S 1983 The problem of assessing “well-being” and “suffering” in farm animals. In: Smidt, D (ed) Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare pp 13–24. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Petherick, J C 1989 Cognition: the implications for animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H, Rushen, J and Lawrence, A B 1993 Conclusions and implications for animal welfare. In: Lawrence, A B and Rushen, J (eds) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour pp 193–207. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Care Trust/Universities Federation for Animal Welfare 1988 Behavioural needs of farm animals (Proceedings of a workshop). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 339–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values, and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare 4: 103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A F and Broom, D M 1990 Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Baillière Tindall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Grommers, F J 1988 The animal welfare movement - European perspective. Animal & Human Health 1: 5–10Google Scholar
Harrison, R 1964 Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry. Stuart: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C G 1973 Filosofie van natuurwetenschappen. Het Spectrum: Utrecht, The Netherlands/Antwerpen, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Hughes B 0 1976 Behaviour as an index of welfare. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Poultry Conference pp 1005–1014. World Poultry Association: MaltaGoogle Scholar
Hurnik, J F 1988 Welfare of farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koolhaas, J M, Baumans, V, Blom, H J M, von Holst, D, Timmermans, P J A and Wiepkema, P R 1993 Behaviour, stress and well-being. In: van, ZutphenLFM, Baumans, V and Beynen, A C (eds) Principles of Laboratory Animal Science pp 75–99. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Lorz, A 1973 Tierschutzgesetz, Kommentar von A. Lorz. Verlag C Beck: München, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Mason, G 1993 Forms of stereotypic behaviour. In: Lawrence, A B and Rushen, J (eds) Stereotypic Animal Behaviour pp 7–40. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Mason, G and Mendl, M 1993 Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P and Simonsen, H B 1992 Assessing animal welfare: where does science end and philosophy begin? Animal Welfare 1: 257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonsen, H B 1982 The role of applied ethology in international work on farm animal welfare. Veterinary Record 111: 341–342CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smidt, D (ed) 1983 Indicators Relevant to Animal Welfare. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafleu, F R, Rivas, E, Rivas, T, Vorstenbosch, J, Heeger, F R and Beynen, A C 1992 The use of analogous reasoning for assessing discomfort in laboratory animals. Animal Welfare 1: 77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, J 1991 Ethics and animal welfare: the inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 198: 1360–1376Google ScholarPubMed
Verhoog, H, Linskens, M and Achterberg, W 1990 Het maakbare dier. NOTA: Den Haag, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F 1993 Animal Boredom. Towards an Empirical Approach of Animal Subjectivity. PhD Thesis, Leiden University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, P R 1980 Gedrag en welzijn. Inaugurele rede, Landbouw Universiteit Wageningen: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
YousefMK 1988 Animal stress and strain: definitions and measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 339–386Google Scholar