Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:53:13.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare by Design: The Natural Selection of Welfare Criteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C J Barnard  and
J L Hurst
C J Barnard*
Affiliation:
Behaviour and Ecology Research Group, Department of Life Science, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
J L Hurst
Affiliation:
Behaviour and Ecology Research Group, Department of Life Science, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
*
† 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.

The scientific study of animal welfare has generated a welter of complex, equivocal and often contradictory results. Consequently, there is little agreement about how impairment of welfare should be measured. While some solutions to this have been suggested, these have usually relied on more sophisticated versions of, or more control over, existing measures. However, we argue that the difficulties arise because of questionable assumptions in the definition and measurement of welfare, in particular the measurement of suffering and the assumed importance of individual well-being. We contend that welfare can be interpreted only in terms of what natural selection has designed an organism to do and how circumstances impinge on its functional design. Organisms are designed for self-expenditure and the relative importance of self-preservation and survival, and the concomitant investment of time and resources in different activities, varies with life history strategy. The traditional notions of coping and stress are anthropomorphisms based on homeostatic mechanisms of self-preservation in a long-lived species. Suffering-like states are viewed as generalized subjective states that are geared to avoiding deleterious circumstances with which the organism does not have specific adaptive mechanisms to deal. Attempts to measure suffering-like states directly are likely to remain inconclusive, at least for the foreseeable future, because such states are private and subjective, may take many forms fundamentally different from our own and are likely to depend on the operation of phenotype-limited priorities and decision rules. However, measuring the impact of circumstances on functional design via the organism ‘s decision rules provides a practicable means of giving benefit of the doubt by indicating when suffering, or an analogous subjective state, is likely.

Keywords

animal welfareanthropomorphismcopingdecision rulesfitnesslife historymeasurementstresssuffering
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , November 1996 , pp. 405 - 433
Copyright
© 1996 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Barnard, C J 1984 Snap decisions for survival. New Scientist 102: 24–27Google Scholar
Barnard, C J, Behnke, J M and Sewell, J 1993 Social behaviour, stress and susceptibility to infection in house mice (Mus musculus): effects of duration of grouping and aggressive behaviour prior to infection on susceptibility to Babesia microti. Parasitology 107: 183–192Google ScholarPubMed
Barnard, C J, Behnke, J M and Sewell, J 1994 Social behaviour and susceptibility to infection in house mice (Mus musculus)·. effects of group size, aggressive behaviour and status-related hormonal responses prior to infection on resistance to Babesia microti. Parasitology 108: 487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J L and Hemsworth, P H 1990 The validity of physiological and behavioural measures of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, P P G 1979 How do sensitive periods arise and what are they for? Animal Behaviour 27: 470–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, P P G 1986 When to experiment on animals. New Scientist 109 (1496)·. 30–32Google Scholar
Bateson, P P G 1991 Assessment of pain in animals. Animal Behaviour 42: 827–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M 1983 Ethology in environmental design for animal production. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M J and Chevins, P F D 1988 Territory formation by mice under laboratory conditions: welfare considerations. In: Laboratory Animal Welfare Research: Rodents pp 25–48. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Brain, P F 1989 Social stress in laboratory house mouse colonies. In: Laboratory Animal Welfare Research: Rodents pp 49–61. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1986 Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142: 524–526CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, D M 1991 Assessing welfare and suffering. Behavioural Processes 25·. 117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M and Johnson, K 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, R W and Whiten, A 1988 Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes and Humans. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Caraco, T 1979a Time budgeting and group size: a theory. Ecology 60: 611–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caraco, T 1979b Time budgeting and group size: a test of theory. Ecology 60: 618–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carthy, J D 1966 The Study of Animal Behaviour. Edward Arnold: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Chamove, A S 1989 Assessing the welfare of captive primates: a critique. In: Laboratory Animal Welfare Research: Primates pp 39–49. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Charnov, E L 1984 Behavioural ecology of plants. In: J R Krebs and N B Davies (eds) Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 2nd edition pp 362–379. Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Colborn, D R, Thompson, D L, Roth, T L, Capehart, J S and White, K L 1991 Responses of Cortisol and prolactin to sexual excitement and stress in stallions and geldings. Journal of Animal Science 69: 2556–2562CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornwell, J 1984 Hard Earned Lives: Accounts of Health and Illness from East London. Tavistock: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1980 Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1986 Unravelling Animal Behaviour. Longman: Harlow, UKGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1988 Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 200–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1993 Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness. W H Freeman: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R 1982 The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection. W H Freeman: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D 1991 Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Desowitz, R S 1987 New Guinea Tapeworms and Jewish Grandmothering: Tales of Parasites and People. Norton: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1993 Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6: 8–14Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Petherick, J C 1991 The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 69: 5017–5022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D 1993 Assessing animal well-being: common sense, uncommon science. In: Food Animal Well-Being pp 37–54. Purdue University Office of Agricultural Research Programs: West Lafayette, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare 4: 103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonyou, H W 1993 Animal welfare: definitions and assessment. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, Supplement 2: 37–43Google Scholar
Gray, S and Hurst, J L 1995 The effects of cage cleaning on aggression within groups of male laboratory mice. Animal Behaviour 49: 821–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gresshoff, P M (ed) 1993 Plant Responses to the Environment. CRC Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Griffin, D R 1981 The Question of Animal Awareness. Rockefeller University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Harper, J L 1977 Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R 1988 Special address. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbers, J M 1981 Time resources and laziness in animals. Oecologia 49: 252–262CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hess, E H 1973 Imprinting. Van Nostrand: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Houston, A I and McFarland, D J 1980 Behavioural resilience and its relation to demand functions. In: J E R Staddon (ed) Limits to Action pp 177–203. Academic Press: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, A I and McNamara, J 1988 A framework for the functional analysis of behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11: 117–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurnik, J F 1988 Welfare of farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hursh, S R 1984 Behavioral economics. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior 42: 435–452CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurst, J L 1993 The priming effects of urine substrate marks on interactions between male house mice, Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz and Schwarz. Animal Behaviour 45: 55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, J L, Fang, J and Barnard, C J 1993 The role of substrate odour cues in maintaining social tolerance between male house mice (Mus musculus domesticus). Animal Behaviour 45: 997–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, J L, Barnard, C J, Hare, R, Wheeldon, E B and West, C D In press. Housing and welfare in laboratory rats: status-dependent time-budgeting and pathophysiology in single sex groups maintained in open rooms. Animal BehaviourGoogle Scholar
Inglis, I R, Forkman, B and Lazarus, J In press. Why do animals work for food in the presence of free food?: a review, fuzzy model and functional explanation of contrafreeloading. Animal BehaviourGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J S 1992 The New Anthropomorphism. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, T B L 1993 The disposable soma theory - evidence and implications. The Netherlands Journal of Zoology 43: 359–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkin, S and McFarland, D J 1978 The cost of changing from one activity to another. Animal Behaviour 26: 1237–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, SEG 1978 The psychology and economics of demand. Psychology Bulletin 85: 441–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, S G and Roper, T J 1977 Demand for food on fixed-ratio schedules as a function of the quality of concurrently available reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour 27: 371–380CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loliger, H C 1985 Poultry health as a criterion of welfare. In: R M Wegner (ed) 2nd European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 56–62. German Branch of the World’s Poultry Science Association: Celle, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Mace, R 1995 Why do we do what we do? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 4–5Google Scholar
Manser, C E 1992 The Assessment of Stress in Laboratory Animals. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, H 1982 Behavioral Enrichment in the Zoo. Van Nostrand: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Martin, G 1975 Uber Verhaltensstörungen von Legehennen im Käfig: Ein Beitrag zur Klarung des Problemes tierschutzgerechter Huhnhaltung. Angerwandte Ornothologie 4: 145–176Google Scholar
Martin, P and Caro, T M 1985 On the functions of play and its role in behavioural development. Advances in the Study of Behaviour 15: 59–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G and Mendl, M 1993 Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarland, D J 1989 Problems of Animal Behaviour. Longman: Harlow, UKGoogle Scholar
McFarland, D J and Houston, AI 1981 Quantitative Ethology. Pitman: London, UKGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D J and Houston, A I 1986 The common currency for behavioral decisions. The American Naturalist 127: 358–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarland, J J 1993 What is animal welfare? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, Supplement 2: 26–36Google Scholar
McGregor, P K and Ayling, S 1990 Varied cages result in more aggression in male CFLP mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, P K, Barnard, C J and Hurst, J L 1991 Reply to Jones. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 297–299Google Scholar
Mendl, M 1991 Some problems with the concept of a cut-off point for determining when an animal’s welfare is at risk. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midgely, M 1983 Animals and Why They Matter. Penguin Books: Harmonds worth, UKGoogle Scholar
Moberg, G P 1993 Using risk assessment to define animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, Supplement 2: 1–7Google Scholar
Morton, D B and Griffiths, P H M 1985 Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and hypothesis for assessment. The Veterinary Record 116: 431–436CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, G S 1972 Human behaviour in the transmission of parasitic diseases. In: E U Canning and C A Wright (eds) Behavioural Aspects of Parasite Transmission pp 109–122. Academic Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Nesse, R M and Williams, G C 1994 Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine. Random House: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Partridge, L and Harvey, P H 1988 The ecological context of life history evolution. Science 241: 1449–1455CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piatigorsky, J, O’Brien, W E, Norman, B L, Kalumuck, K, Wistow, G J, Borras, T, Nickerson, J M and Wawrousek, E F 1988 Gene sharing by ∂ crystallin and argininosuccinate lyase. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 85: 3347–3483CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pomerai, D I de, Ip, W K, McLaughlin, M and Perry, K C 1991 Expression in non-lens tissues of an enzyme activity related to the ‘lens-specific’ protein θ crystallin. Development 111: 181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, T B and Morgan, H D R 1973 Differences in aggressive behaviour between male mice (Mus musculus L.) in colonies of different sizes. Animal Behaviour 21: 788–795CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pyke, G H 1979 The economics of territory size and time budget in the golden-winged sunbird. The American Naturalist 114: 131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, T 1984 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press: Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1981 Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus: Buffalo, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1989 The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1993 Animal welfare, science and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, Supplement 2: 44–50Google Scholar
Rupniak, N M J and Iverson, S D 1989 Psychological welfare behaviour and housing conditions for laboratory primates: a discussion. In: Laboratory Animal Welfare Research: Primates pp 31–38. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1986 Some problems with the physiological concept of stress. Australian Veterinary Journal 63: 359–361CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J 1991 Problems associated with the interpretation of physiological data in the assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J and de Passille, A M B 1992 The scientific assessment of the impact of housing on animal welfare: a critical review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 721–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selye, H E 1950 The Physiology and Pathology of Stress. Acta: Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Selye, H E 1976 The Stress of Life, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Shaffery J P, Ball N J and Amlaner C J Jr 1985 Manipulating daytime sleep in herring gulls (Larus argentatus). Animal Behaviour 33: 566–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Showalter, E 1987 The Female Malady. Virago: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Stephens, D W and Krebs, J R 1986 Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press: Princeton, USAGoogle Scholar
Szechtman, H, Lambrou, P J, Caggiula, A R and Redgatc, E S 1974 Plasma corticosterone levels during sexual behaviour in male rats. Hormones and Behavior 5: 191–200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorpe, W H 1965 The assessment of pain and distress of animals in intensive livestock husbandry systems. In: Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. Command Paper 2836 pp 71–79. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
van Rooijcn, J 1981 Are feelings adaptations? The basis of modern applied ethology. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, R E (ed) 1994 Plant-Environment Interactions. Marcel Dekker: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Wolfensohn, S and Lloyd, M 1994 Handbook of Laboratory Animal Management and Welfare. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar