Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T07:39:48.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of housing research on welfare legislation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

S. A. Edwards ,
J. Robertson  and
M. Kelly
S. A. Edwards
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB21 9YA
J. Robertson
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB21 9YA
M. Kelly
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, AB21 9YA
Get access

Abstract

The design and management of housing play a major rôle in the welfare of most farm animal species and are implicated in all of the ‘five freedoms’. Housing has always been an aspect of livestock production systems which is readily amenable to legislation and the majority of current UK (and EU) welfare legislation relates generally or specifically to housing. An area of concern in current legislation is the tendency to legislate on housing systems rather than animal state, which leads to disagreements in interpretation and anomalies in implementation. Housing legislation is furthest advanced in the simple-stomached species, rather than in ruminant species which have traditionally been farmed more extensively. However, issues of housing and welfare certainly require to be addressed in other species. Whilst scientific research does underlie many of the existing housing regulations, it has not always been correctly interpreted or sensibly applied. Many dilemmas exist when overviewing the balance of scientific evidence relating to contentious housing systems in all species. In many areas, requirements of quality assurance schemes are now more rigorous and wide reaching than legislation but these are not always based on scientific evidence. However, many component-specific recommendations have been scientifically established and animal welfare could be significantly improved by their application. In the future, advances in fundamental science are needed to better establish legislative criteria. Applied scientists should continue to be used as independent advisers in consideration of future legislation and should be more proactive in information transfer outwith the normal scientific media.

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 23: Farm animal welfare — who writes the rulse? , January 1999 , pp. 65 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al Homidan, A., Robertson, J. F. and Petchey, A. M. 1998. Influence of temperature, litter type and stocking densities on ammonia and dust production and broiler performance. British Poultry Science (In press).Google Scholar
Allen, V. And Hinton, M. 1993. Factors affecting the survival and growth of Salmonellas in the environment of broiler chickens. Livestock Environment IV, pp. 124–128. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, Michigan.Google Scholar
Barber, J., Brooks, P. H. and Carpenter, J. L. 1989. The effects of water delivery rate on the voluntary food intake, water use and performance of early-weaned pigs from 3 to 6 weeks of age. In: The voluntary food intake of pigs (ed. Forbes, J. M., Varley, M. A. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), pp. 103–104. British Society of Animal Production, occasional publication no. 13.Google Scholar
Berry, E. A. 1998. Mastitis incidence in straw yards and cubicles. Veterinary Record 142: 517–518.Google Scholar
Blom, J. Y., Thysen, I., Madsen, P. S. and Petersen, E. E. 1985. Udder health in dairy cows in relation to housing system. Report 588, pp. 103–124. National Institute of Animal Production, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Boe, K. E., Simensen, E., Myren, H. J. and Fridheim, D. F. 1997. Approval of housing systems for cattle and swine according to Norwegian regulations. Proceedings of the ISAH Conference, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. M. and Clark, J. J. 1979. Models of heat production and critical temperature for growing pigs. Animal Production 28: 353–369.Google Scholar
British Standards Institute. Buildings and structures for agriculture. BS 550 2. BSI, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Commission of the European Community. 1989. Alternative improved housing systems for poultry. Report EUR 117111 EN.Google Scholar
Craig, J. V., Craib, J. A. and Vargas, J. 1986. Corticosteroids and other indicators of hens’ well-being in four laying house environments. Poultry Science 65: 856–863.Google Scholar
Dawkins, M. S. and Hardie, S. 1989. Space needs for laying hens. British Poultry Science 30: 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumelow, J. 1993. Unbedded self cleaning sloped floors as alternatives to fully slatted floors for beef cattle housing. Livestock environment IV, pp. 209–216. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, Michigan.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A. and Riley, J. E. 1986. The application of the electronic identification and computerised feed dispensing system in dry sow housing. Pig News and Information 7: 295–298.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A. 1992. Scientific perspectives on loose housing systems for dry sows. Pig Veterinary Journal 28: 40–51.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A. 1995a. Designing systems to meet behavioural needs: the ‘Family Pen’ system for pigs. In: Animal behaviour and the design of livestock and poultry systems, pp. 115–125. Northeast Region Agricultural Engineering Service, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A. 1995b. The application of behaviour to the design of new or improved animal production systems. In: Animal science research and development: moving toward a new century (ed. Ivan, M.), pp. 471–484. CFAR, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. A. and Fraser, D. 1997. Housing systems for farrowing and lactation. The Pig Journal 39: 77–89.Google Scholar
English, P. R. and Edwards, S. A. 1999. Animal welfare. In Diseases of swine, eighth edition (ed. Straw, B., S., D'Allaire, Mengeling, W. L. and Taylor, D. J.), pp. 1067–1076. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council. 1996. Report on the welfare of outdoor pigs. MAFF. PB 2608.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council. 1997a. Report on the welfare of laying hens. MAFF. PB 3221.Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council. 1997b. Report on the welfare of dairy cattle. MAFF. PB 3221.Google Scholar
Faure, J. M. 1994. Choice tests for space in groups of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 89–94.Google Scholar
Fleming, R. H., Whitehead, C. C., Alvey, D. Gregory, N. G. and Wilkin, L. J. 1994. Bone structure and breaking strength in laying hens housed in different husbandry systems. British Poultry Science 35: 651–662.Google Scholar
Grandin, T. 1980. Livestock behaviour as related to handling facilities design. International Journal for the study of Animal Problems 1: 313–337.Google Scholar
Great Britain Parliament. 1987. Welfare of battery hen regulations. Statutory instrument no. 2020. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Great Britain Parliament. 1987. Welfare of calves regulations. Statutory instrument no. 2021. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Great Britain Parliament. 1991. Welfare of pigs regulations. Statutory instrument no. 1477. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Great Britain Parliament. 1994. Welfare of livestock regulations. Statutory instrument no. 1226. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, B. and Magnusson, M. 1994. Dairy animal welfare — the case of Sweden. Proceedings of the third international dairy housing conference, pp. 605–612. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, Michigan.Google Scholar
Hughes, B. O. 1990. Welfare in alternative housing systems for laying hens. Proceedings of the eighth European poultry conference, Barcelona, pp. 199–207.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., van der Vegt, B. J., Lawrence, A. B., McLean, K. A., Calvert, S. K., Deans, L. A. and Chirnside, J. 1998. The effect of parity on the behavioural and physiological responses of parturient pigs to the farrowing environment. Proceedings of the 32nd congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Clermont-Ferrand (ed. Vassier, I. and A., Boissy), p. 129.Google Scholar
Ketelaar-de Lauwere, C. C. and Smits, A. C. 1991. Spatial requirements of individually housed veal calves of 175 to 300 kg. In New trends in veal calf production (ed. Metz, J. H. M. and Groenstein, C. M.), pp. 49–53. EAAP publication no. 52, Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Lagadic, H. and Faure, J. M. 1987. Preferences of domestic hens for cage size and floor types as measured by operant conditioning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 147–155.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. B., McLean, K. A., Jarvis, S. and Gilbert, C. L. 1997. Stress and parturition in the pig. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 32: 231–236.Google Scholar
Logue, D. N., Offer, J. E., Chaplin, S. J., Knight, C. H., Hendry, K. A. K., Leach, K. A., Kempson, S. A. and Randall, J. M. 1995. Lameness in dairy cattle. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting EAAP, Prague. Paper C4.4.Google Scholar
Mason, G. and Mendl, M. 1993. Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301–319.Google Scholar
Matthews, L. R., Temple, W., Foster, T. M. and McAdie, T. M. 1993. Quantifying the environmental requirements of layer hens by behavioural demand function. Proceedings of an international conference of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Berlin, pp. 206–209.Google Scholar
Metz, J. H. M. 1983. Food competition in cattle. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. Baxter, S. H., Baxter, M. R. and MacCormack, J. A.), pp. 164–170. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1997. Pig space requirements. Guidelines on Schedule 3 of the Welfare of livestock Regulations 1994. MAFF. PB 3225.Google Scholar
Morgernstern, R. and Lobsiger, C. 1993. Health of laying hens in alternative systems in practice. Proceedings of the fourth European symposium on poultry welfare, (ed. Savory, C. J. and Hughes, B. O.), pp. 81–86. UFAW, Potters Bar.Google Scholar
Norgaard-Nielsen, G., Vestergaard, K. and Simonsen, H. B. 1993. Effects of rearing experiences and stimulus enrichment on feather damage in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38: 345–352.Google Scholar
Perez, E., Noordhuizen, J. P. T. M., van Wuijkhuise, L. A. and Stassen, E. N. 1990. Management factors related to calf mortality and mortality rates. Livestock Production Science 25: 79–93.Google Scholar
Petherick, J. C. 1983. A biological basis for the design of space in livestock housing. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. Baxter, S. H., Baxter, M. R. and MacCormack, J. A.), pp. 103–120. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Redbo, I. 1990. Changes in duration and frequency of stereotypies and their adjoining behaviours in heifers, before, during and after the grazing period. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 57–67.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. F. 1994. Ventilation capacity of naturally ventilated buildings and ventilation requirements of beef cattle: problems associated with calf pneumonia. Proceedings of an international winter meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Atlanta. Paper 944588.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. 1998. Environment/disease interactions in pigs. In Progress in pig science (ed. Wiseman, J., Varley, M. A. and Chadwick, J. P.), pp. 543–560. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Rushen, J. 1993. Exploration in the pig may not be endogenously motivated. Animal Behaviour 45: 183–184.Google Scholar
Sherwin, C. M. 1994. Modified cages for laying hens. UFAW, Potters Bar.Google Scholar
Spoolder, H. A. M., Burbidge, J. A., Lawrence, A. B., Simmins, P. H. and Edwards, S. A. 1995. Provision of straw as a foraging substrate reduces the development of excessive chain and bar manipulation in food restricted sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 249–262 Google Scholar
Spoolder, H. A. M., Corning, S. and Edwards, S. A. 1999. The specification of stocking density in relation to the welfare of finishing pigs. In Farm animal welfare — who writes the rules? (ed. Russel, A. J. F., Morgan, C. A., Savory, C. J., Appleby, M. C. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), pp. 150–151. British Society of Animal Science, occasional publication no. 23.Google Scholar
State Veterinary Service. 1998. Audit report of the Meat Hygiene Service, June 1996 to March 1997. Veterinary Public Health Unit.Google Scholar
Stolba, A. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1984. The identification of behavioural key features and their incorporation into a housing design for pigs. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaire 15: 287–298.Google Scholar
Taylor, I. A. 1997. Opportunity awaits livestock equipment manufacturers. Livestock environment V. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Josephs, Michigan.Google Scholar
Terlouw, E. M. C., Lawrence, A. B. and Illius, A. W. 1991. Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal Behaviour 42: 981–991.Google Scholar
Turner, S. P and Edwards, S. A. 1999. Methods of assessing adequacy of drinker provision in group housed pigs. In Farm animal welfare — who writes the rules? (ed. Russel, A. J. F., Morgan, C. A., Savory, C. J., Appleby, M. C. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), pp. 152–154. British Society of Animal Science, occasional publication no. 23.Google Scholar
Vipond, J. and Hosie, B. D. 1997. Welfare aspects of sheep production systems. Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting EAAP, Prague.Google Scholar
Webb, N. and Nilsson, C. 1983. Flooring and injury — an overview. In Farm animal housing and welfare (ed. Baxter, S. H., Baxter, M. R. and MacCormack, J. A.), pp. 226–281. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Saville, C, Church, B. M., Gnanasakthy, A. and Moss, R. 1985. The effect of different rearing systems on the development of calf behaviour. British Veterinary Journal 141: 249–264.Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F. and Birke, L. I. A. 1997. Environmental challenge. In Animal welfare (ed. Appleby, M. A. and Hughes, B. O.), pp. 35–47. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Zayan, R. 1985. Social space for domestic animals. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht. Google Scholar