Domestic animals are kept in order to produce. Livestock provide us with various products such as food, fur, leather and wool. Companion animals provide us with companionship. In addition, dogs may help us in various ways (guard dogs, guide dogs, hunting dogs, etc.), cats keep rodents away from our homes, horses help us perform some kind of sport. In all cases it is possible to breed, raise, and train animals that are capable of performing the various tasks many times better than their wild ancestors would be. Dairy cows selected for a high milk yield and fed according to their production can produce much more milk for much longer periods than nature ever intended. Sows kept in farrowing crates give birth to and raise many more piglets than wild boars. Domestic horses can run much faster over longer distances or jump higher than wild horses. Dogs are able to socialize with people easier and learn more things with less training than wolves.
High performance, however, has its cost. The incidence rate of mastitis increases in high yielding dairy cows with the result that they only last a few lactation periods. The mastitis-metritis-agalactia (MMA) syndrome is the biggest limiting factor in piglet production, and "spent sows" (i.e. sows brought to slaughter at the end of their productive period) are usually a very sad sight. Horses may develop lamenesses or respiratory problems because of inappropriate housing or locomotor pattern. And a large proportion of dogs are killed because of a behavioural problem such as separation anxiety or aggression. When morbidity or mortality rates reach a certain level, this striving for high performance raises an ethical question, namely whether it is acceptable to demand so much of domestic animals that appropriate consideration of their biological needs is severely compromised.
Although we generally know a lot about the biological needs of domestic animals, as far as nutrition, disease prevention, etc. is concerned, our understanding of their behavioural needs is insufficient. The incidence rate of behavioural problems in domestic animals clearly indicate that these needs are far from fulfilled. The rate of occurrence of stereotypic behaviour in many farm animals and horses, as well as more specific behaviour problems in the various species (e.g. aggression in fattening pigs, feather pecking in egg laying hens, anxiety problems in dogs, to name a few) are all clear indications of discrepancies between what we think is "good" for the animals and what the animals think about it.
Over the past two to three decades, research in the behaviour of domestic animals has definitely increased our understanding of their behavioural biology. We are, however, still faced with numerous unanswered questions. We still do not have proper methods with which we can diagnose various states of an animal such as chronic stress, anxiety, or frustration. The result is that it is difficult for us to pinpoint what aspects of the housing and management conditions that need improvement. Objective measures, whether behavioural or physiological, can, at best, give us a hint that something is wrong, but only if many symptoms point in the same direction do we accept them as proof. (Hence the many attempts to develop multifactorial systems to evaluate welfare.)
And if we finally manage to agree upon specific aspects (e.g. that group housing is good for social animals, that straw enables animals to show a more appropriate behaviour pattern than stereotypic behaviour, that diets with more fibre render restrictively fed animals less hungry), we are most often met with great resistance from the various "industries" to change things. Arguments such as 'straw is too expensive to use', 'bulky feed is too labour intensive', or 'group housing causes too much aggression among the animals' slow down any progress. And when legislature is brought in to move things along, loopholes are often found to circumvent specific laws. What good does it do to calf welfare to ban individual pens in Denmark, if the animals are then shipped to Holland and raised in individual pens there? Would the calves not be better off to be raised in individual pens in Denmark and thus avoid a long truck ride to Holland? Why forbid fox farming in Finland, where many attempts are made to improve the housing systems of the animals, if the result is that fur production moves to Russia? Is the welfare of the foxes improved by such a ban?
Modern intensive husbandry conditions have developed solely because they give the highest return with the least input. Any deviation away from present systems towards alternative (e.g. more animal friendly) systems means higher production costs and, consequently, less profit. Who shall pay the extra cost?
As already indicated, evaluation of the welfare of domestic animals obviously must be multifactorial, simply because so many different factors affect this complex phenomenon "welfare". And although we still have a long way to go before we have proper methods by which we can judge how the animals are feeling, some progress has been made and, undoubtedly, will continue to be made in the future. But when it comes to the institution of measures intended to improve the animals' welfare, it is necessary to realize that, also at this point of the process must we be "multifactorial". Unless changes are made in a joint effort, chances are that we will not improve the welfare of the animals, but only the welfare of somebody else.
|
