Dairy cattle welfare - the relative effect of legislation, industry standards and labelled niche production in five European countries.

The only common European Union (EU) legislation set up specifically to ensure the welfare of dairy cattle is for calves. As a consequence, there is wide diversity in how dairy cattle welfare is ensured in EU countries. A few countries have legal requirements for dairy cattle welfare, while in others, it is left to industry standards or niche production requirements, typically linked to various premium labels. In this paper, we compared animal welfare provisions in dairy cattle production across five countries with different combinations of legislative and other approaches: Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Firstly, we aimed to map the diversity of animal welfare initiatives. Secondly, we used the Benchmark method of expert valuations and weightings of the relative importance of individual welfare provisions. We found that Denmark and Sweden have the highest level of dairy cattle welfare provisions as measured by the Benchmark method, partly due to high legislative welfare requirements, followed by the United Kingdom, which has an extensive industry standard with very high uptake. Germany and the Netherlands, on the other hand, have lower levels of documented welfare provisions, and correspondingly a Benchmark score closer to a baseline defined by legal requirements at EU level. We also found differences in what elements of animal welfare were focussed on. Some initiatives emphasised fulfilling the social needs of cattle, while others focused more on space and freedom to move. Also, the countries with the highest Benchmark score had a relatively high level of production of organic and other specialty dairy products. We found the effect of national legislation or ambitious industry standards on dairy cattle welfare to be much larger than previous studies have found in either pigs or poultry. At a time when the EU is considering stepping up its efforts to improve animal welfare in terms of common minimum standards, the results of this study could have important policy implications. The diversity in the level of dairy cattle welfare standards found across countries may speak in favour of having shared minimum standards, both at EU level and globally. However, even among countries with a similar Benchmark score, we found a difference in the kinds of welfare provisions at work, which may make full harmonisation of standards more challenging.

Danish milk consumers are critical of advanced breeding methods in dairy production, but only 1 in 5 is unwilling to drink milk from dairy cows bred with semen derived from such methods.

Assisted reproductive technologies and genetic technologies can accelerate progress in breeding programs in dairy farming, but it is unclear how consumers will react to the use of these technologies. Using representative questionnaire data on Danish citizens (n = 2,036) this cross-sectional study examined consumer attitudes to the application of advanced technologies in dairy cattle breeding. Attitudes were examined in 2 ways. First, we prompted about general attitudes to assisted reproductive technologies and genetic technologies in dairy cow breeding. Here we found that most of the participants were critical of cow impregnation involving hormone therapy and the insertion of cloned fetuses. Second, we used a vignette experiment to study whether acceptance of and willingness to drink milk varies with the type of technique that farmers use for their breeding work, as well as the traits being bred for. We included 5 breeding methods with differing degrees of technological complexity. Participants were randomly assigned to receive tailored information about 1 of the 5 breeding methods. The information specified that dairy farmers' own use of advanced technologies is limited to using semen in artificial insemination on the farm. The potentially concerning technologies are here not applied at farm level but are represented in the semen used in artificial insemination because they were used by breeders on earlier generations of cows and bulls to develop semen with higher genetic merit. There was much less concern about this indirect use of the technologies. Only 1 in 5 participants thought the most advanced method we prompted about (use of semen from breeding methods involving genetic engineering and cloning) was unacceptable. Unwillingness to drink milk from cows produced through such a breeding method was also modest (18%) and not much higher than the unwillingness to drink milk from a cow produced by natural fertilization (10%). A likely reason for the unexpectedly low level of unwillingness to drink milk is that people regard the genetic engineering as distant from the final product. We also found that high-frequency organic milk consumers were more critical of advanced breeding methods. Thus, 28% within this group were unwilling to drink milk from cows impregnated with semen derived from earlier generations of cows and bulls bred using gene editing and cloning. Further, this share rose if the high-frequency organic consumers were very averse to the manipulation of nature. The organic sector may need to cater to this subgroup (e.g., by ensuring the traceability of the semen that organic farmers use to artificially inseminate their cows).

Neutering increases the risk of obesity in male dogs but not in bitches - A cross-sectional study of dog- and owner-related risk factors for obesity in Danish companion dogs.

Knowledge of risk factors for canine obesity is an important pre-requisite of effective preventative strategies. This study aimed to investigate risk factors for canine obesity in adult companion dogs across Zealand, Denmark. Client-owned dogs (>2 years of age and without chronic illness) were recruited and examined at eight companion animal veterinary practices in areas with varying socio-economic characteristics. The body condition score (BCS) of the dogs was examined by two investigators based on a 9-point scoring scheme. Dog owners answered a questionnaire that had prompts regarding: 1) dog characteristics, including neuter status, 2) owner characteristics, 3) feeding and exercise practices and 4) the owners' attachment to the dog. The effect of these factors on BCS and the risk of being heavy/obese (BCS scores 7-9) were analysed in two separate analyses. A total of 268 dogs were included in the analysis, of which 20.5% were found to be heavy/obese. The average BCS was 5.46. In terms of dog characteristics, neutering dramatically increased both BCS and the risk of being heavy/obese in male dogs but not in bitches. BCS and the risk of being heavy/obese increased in senior bitches and decreased in senior male dogs. The risk of being heavy/obese was higher in dogs with overweight and obese owners. Regarding feeding and exercise practices, providing only one meal per day increased BCS and risk of being heavy/obese. Treats during relaxation increased the risk of dogs being heavy/obese. It also increased the dogs' BCS, but only if the owners were overweight or obese. An increased duration of daily walking increased the risk of the dog being heavy/obese, but only if the owner was overweight or obese. Allowing the dog to run free in the garden/property decreased the risk of the dog being heavy/obese. The owners' attachment to the dog was not associated with the dogs' BCS or dogs' being heavy/obese. An important and novel finding was that neutering increased the risk of being overweight or obese for male dogs while bitches were at risk irrespective of neuter status. Furthermore, a complex interaction between owners' weight status, feeding practices and the risk of dogs being overweight or obese was found, which stresses the need to consider companion animal obesity from a One Health perspective in future prospective studies. Finally, this study was unable to confirm that canine obesity is a product of owners being too attached to their dogs.

Modeling the cost of eradicating livestock-associated methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in countries with a high proportion of positive herds.

Due to an increased incidence of human infections, livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (LA-MRSA) in pigs and its spread into the human population has been a major public and political issue in Denmark. Similar concerns are also being raised about LA-MRSA in other Western European countries. At a time when the proportion of LA-MRSA-positive pig farms was low, Norway adopted a 'trace and destroy' strategy aimed at keeping LA-MRSA out of the pig population. However, to date, no country with a high proportion of LA-MRSA-positive pig herds has chosen to use an eradication strategy. This study analyses the cost and complexities of conducting an LA-MRSA eradication program in a situation where a large proportion of herds are positive. The total cost of the eradication program was estimated based on the following components: 1) planning, 2) monitoring and testing, 3) cleaning and disinfection, 4) production gains and losses, 5) net reduction in breeding exports, and 6) loss of genetic progress, including the costs of a mitigating caesarean section strategy in breeding herds. Costs were related to the depopulation of 1 million sows, to gilt supply (as this was an important limiting factor during an eradication program in Denmark), and to aggregated losses linked to a temporary halt on breeding progress. Using conservative assumptions, the total eradication costs were estimated at €1.8 billion, broken down into: planning costs (3%), monitoring and testing (6%), cleaning and disinfection (19%), production gains and losses (33%), net loss from breeding exports (19%) and loss of genetic progress (20%). The long-term effects of an LA-MRSA eradication program for Danish pig production were uncertain and were therefore not taken into account in the analysis.

Should Europe follow the US and declare obesity a disease?: a discussion of the so-called utilitarian argument.

In 2013, the American Medical Association (AMA) decided to recognize obesity as a disease. One of the main arguments presented in favor of this was broadly 'utilitarian': the disease label would, it was claimed, provide more benefits than harms and thereby serve the general good. Several individuals and groups have argued that this reasoning is just as powerful in the European context. Drawing mainly on a review of relevant social science research, we discuss the validity of this argument. Our conclusion is that in a Western European welfare state, defining obesity as a disease will not on balance serve the general good, and that it is therefore more appropriate to continue to treat obesity as a risk factor. The main reasons presented in favor of this conclusion are: It is debatable whether a disease label would lead to better access to care and preventive measures and provide better legal protection in Europe. Medicalization and overtreatment are possible negative effects of a disease label. There is no evidence to support the claim that declaring obesity a disease would reduce discrimination or stigmatization. In fact, the contrary is more likely, since a disease label would categorically define the obese body as deviant.

Why do people buy dogs with potential welfare problems related to extreme conformation and inherited disease? A representative study of Danish owners of four small dog breeds.

A number of dog breeds suffer from welfare problems due to extreme phenotypes and high levels of inherited diseases but the popularity of such breeds is not declining. Using a survey of owners of two popular breeds with extreme physical features (French Bulldog and Chihuahua), one with a high load of inherited diseases not directly related to conformation (Cavalier King Charles Spaniel), and one representing the same size range but without extreme conformation and with the same level of disease as the overall dog population (Cairn Terrier), we investigated this seeming paradox. We examined planning and motivational factors behind acquisition of the dogs, and whether levels of experienced health and behavior problems were associated with the quality of the owner-dog relationship and the intention to re-procure a dog of the same breed. Owners of each of the four breeds (750/breed) were randomly drawn from a nationwide Danish dog registry and invited to participate. Of these, 911 responded, giving a final sample of 846. There were clear differences between owners of the four breeds with respect to degree of planning prior to purchase, with owners of Chihuahuas exhibiting less. Motivations behind choice of dog were also different. Health and other breed attributes were more important to owners of Cairn Terriers, whereas the dog's personality was reported to be more important for owners of French Bulldogs and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels but less important for Chihuahua owners. Higher levels of health and behavior problems were positively associated with a closer owner-dog relationship for owners of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels and Chihuahuas but, for owners of French Bulldogs, high levels of problems were negatively associated with an intention to procure the same breed again. In light of these findings, it appears less paradoxical that people continue to buy dogs with welfare problems.

Veterinarian's dilemma: a study of how Danish small animal practitioners handle financially limited clients.

This study examined the extent to which Danish veterinary practices encounter financially limited clients and how different factors relating to the animal, the client and the veterinarian affect decisions to provide treatment for these clients. 300 small animal practices were invited to participate in an online survey. 195 participated, giving a response rate of 65 per cent. The results show that Danish small animal veterinary practices encounter clients with limited finances regularly: 33.8 per cent of them 3-4 times, 24.6 per cent 5-10 times and 19.5 per cent 1-2 times a month. Only around 9 per cent reported having a written practice policy on handling financially limited clients. Factors affecting decisions to treat include the severity and type of the animal's condition, the medical care needed and the client's expressed emotions. The propensity to treat is significantly higher in female veterinarians and in situations involving unborn animals. The overall conclusion is that small animal veterinary practices often provide treatment to clients who are not able to pay-far beyond what is legally required. This can be considered a major economic and psychological challenge for the practising veterinarians.

Why are most EU pigs tail docked? Economic and ethical analysis of four pig housing and management scenarios in the light of EU legislation and animal welfare outcomes.

To limit tail biting incidence, most pig producers in Europe tail dock their piglets. This is despite EU Council Directive 2008/120/EC banning routine tail docking and allowing it only as a last resort. The paper aims to understand what it takes to fulfil the intentions of the Directive by examining economic results of four management and housing scenarios, and by discussing their consequences for animal welfare in the light of legal and ethical considerations. The four scenarios compared are: 'Standard Docked', a conventional housing scenario with tail docking meeting the recommendations for Danish production (0.7 m2/pig); 'Standard Undocked', which is the same as 'Standard Docked' but with no tail docking, 'Efficient Undocked' and 'Enhanced Undocked', which have increased solid floor area (0.9 and 1.0 m2/pig, respectively) provision of loose manipulable materials (100 and 200 g/straw per pig per day) and no tail docking. A decision tree model based on data from Danish and Finnish pig production suggests that Standard Docked provides the highest economic gross margin with the least tail biting. Given our assumptions, Enhanced Undocked is the least economic, although Efficient Undocked is better economically and both result in a lower incidence of tail biting than Standard Undocked but higher than Standard Docked. For a pig, being bitten is worse for welfare (repeated pain, risk of infections) than being docked, but to compare welfare consequences at a farm level means considering the number of affected pigs. Because of the high levels of biting in Standard Undocked, it has on average inferior welfare to Standard Docked, whereas the comparison of Standard Docked and Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked is more difficult. In Enhanced (or Efficient) Undocked, more pigs than in Standard Docked suffer from being tail bitten, whereas all the pigs avoid the acute pain of docking endured by the pigs in Standard Docked. We illustrate and discuss this ethical balance using numbers derived from the above-mentioned data. We discuss our results in the light of the EU Directive and its adoption and enforcement by Member States. Widespread use of tail docking seems to be accepted, mainly because the alternative steps that producers are required to take before resorting to it are not specified in detail. By tail docking, producers are acting in their own best interests. We suggest that for the practice of tail docking to be terminated in a way that benefits animal welfare, changes in the way pigs are housed and managed may first be required.

Welfare in horse breeding.

Welfare problems related to the way horses are bred, whether by coitus or by the application of artificial reproduction techniques (ARTs), have been given no discrete consideration within the academic literature. This paper reviews the existing knowledge base about welfare issues in horse breeding and identifies areas in which data is lacking. We suggest that all methods of horse breeding are associated with potential welfare problems, but also that the judicious use of ARTs can sometimes help to address those problems. We discuss how negative welfare effects could be identified and limited and how positive welfare effects associated with breeding might be maximised. Further studies are needed to establish an evidence base about how stressful or painful various breeding procedures are for the animals involved, and what the lifetime welfare implications of ARTs are for future animal generations.

In a class of their own: the Danish public considers obesity less deserving of treatment compared with smoking-related diseases.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: This study examined public support for publicly funded treatment of obesity (weight-loss surgery and medical treatment) and two pulmonary diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer) in Denmark. It also investigated whether beliefs about the causes of lifestyle-related diseases (external environment, genetic disposition and lack of willpower) and agreement that 'people lack responsibility for their life and welfare' influenced support. SUBJECTS/METHODS: This was a questionnaire study in which a sample of 1003 Danes (age 18-65 years) drawn from an Internet database were surveyed. RESULTS: Approximately one in three supported publicly funded weight-loss surgery (30%) and medical treatment of obesity (34.4%). A large majority supported treatment for lung cancer (86.1%), and a clear majority also supported treatment for COPD, whether it was framed as 'smoker's lung' (61.9%) or COPD (71.2%). The belief that lifestyle-related diseases are caused by the external environment or genetic disposition did not systematically influence support. Agreement that 'people lack responsibility for their life and welfare' reduced support significantly for all treatment types. However, in contrast with pulmonary diseases, support for publicly funded obesity treatments decreased considerably when beliefs about individual failure (that is that people lack 'willpower' and 'individual responsibility') were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Support for publicly funded COPD and lung cancer treatment is considerably higher than that for obesity treatment. This could encourage institutional discrimination through policies that involve charging patients for the treatment of obesity but not for the treatment of other lifestyle-related diseases.

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare and economic problem in pig production. Tail docking, which reduces but does not eliminate tail biting, remains widespread. However, in the EU tail docking may not be used routinely, and some 'alternative' forms of pig production and certain countries do not allow tail docking at all. Against this background, using a novel approach focusing on research where tail injuries were quantified, we review the measures that can be used to control tail biting in pigs without tail docking. Using this strict criterion, there was good evidence that manipulable substrates and feeder space affect damaging tail biting. Only epidemiological evidence was available for effects of temperature and season, and the effect of stocking density was unclear. Studies suggest that group size has little effect, and the effects of nutrition, disease and breed require further investigation. The review identifies a number of knowledge gaps and promising avenues for future research into prevention and mitigation. We illustrate the diversity of hypotheses concerning how different proposed risk factors might increase tail biting through their effect on each other or on the proposed underlying processes of tail biting. A quantitative comparison of the efficacy of different methods of provision of manipulable materials, and a review of current practices in countries and assurance schemes where tail docking is banned, both suggest that daily provision of small quantities of destructible, manipulable natural materials can be of considerable benefit. Further comparative research is needed into materials, such as ropes, which are compatible with slatted floors. Also, materials which double as fuel for anaerobic digesters could be utilised. As well as optimising housing and management to reduce risk, it is important to detect and treat tail biting as soon as it occurs. Early warning signs before the first bloody tails appear, such as pigs holding their tails tucked under, could in future be automatically detected using precision livestock farming methods enabling earlier reaction and prevention of tail damage. However, there is a lack of scientific studies on how best to respond to outbreaks: the effectiveness of, for example, removing biters and/or bitten pigs, increasing enrichment, or applying substances to tails should be investigated. Finally, some breeding companies are exploring options for reducing the genetic propensity to tail bite. If these various approaches to reduce tail biting are implemented we propose that the need for tail docking will be reduced.

Balancing the needs and preferences of humans against concerns for fishes: how to handle the emerging ethical discussions regarding capture fisheries?

How can stakeholders within the fisheries community engage in constructive ethical discussions? Drawing on experiences from previous debates surrounding the human use of animals, this paper presents a proactive approach whereby stakeholders can create a framework for ethical discussion of capture fisheries.

Lay and expert perceptions of zoonotic risks: understanding conflicting perspectives in the light of moral theory.

As in many other areas, there is a divide between lay and expert perceptions of risk within the food sector, and this can lead to disagreement over priorities in food risk management. The risk perception literature tends to stress that the parties involved in this disagreement have different concepts of risk and hence are bound more or less to talk at cross-purposes. This paper suggests an alternative analysis: In the light of moral theory, the conflicting perspectives can be understood as a genuine moral conflict. When this conflict is conceptualised, a rational dialogue becomes possible. The paper reports a series of qualitative interviews with lay people and experts on zoonotic food risks. The interviews are used to reconstruct the values underlying some of the dominant perspectives. The conflict between these stylised perspectives is then analysed with the help of moral theory. Finally, some consequences for risk communication are made clear.

Bioethics: limits to the interference with life.

The paper presents a review of various ethical considerations to which the application of modern biotechnology in breeding of domestic animals gives rise. The review is based on an automated literature search, covering papers and reports within agricultural bioethics published since 1992. The aim is to present the different points of view in a clear, unbiased manner. First the various concerns and viewpoints are presented. The concerns are divided into three main categories: animal welfare concerns, concerns about animal integrity and concerns relating to human health and environmental issues. Then follows a discussion of how to weigh potentially conflicting concerns against each other. The paper concludes with suggestions about how ethical issues should be handled in practice.

Staying good while playing god--the ethics of breeding farm animals.

Modern genetics has given us some very efficient tools with which to alter the characteristics of animals. To date, farm animal breeders have mainly used these tools to increase productivity. Thus, each new generation of farm animals matures faster, yields more milk, or produces more meat or eggs, than the previous one. Despite these apparent benefits, modern farm animal breeding has had severe negative consequences, including effects on the quality of the animals' lives and biodiversity. The aim of this paper is to discuss the goals and consequences of farm animal breeding within an ethical context. First, a description of what has happened to broilers and dairy cattle as breeders have pursued the goal of ever more efficient production is given. Second, the ethical values that ought to underlie future breeding schemes are discussed. It is suggested that there are in fact two very different ethical approaches: the 'quality of life-based' approach and the 'preservationist' approach. A view combining elements from both approaches is advanced. Finally, an example is given of how it is possible, in practice, to pursue an ethically defensible breeding goal without compromising production efficiency.

Quality of life--three competing views.

The aim of the present paper is to describe three different attempts, which have been made by philosophers, to define what quality of life is; and to spell out some of the difficulties that faces each definition. One, Perfectionism, focuses on the capacities that human beings possess: capacities for friendship, knowledge and creative activity, for instance. It says that the good life consists in the development and use of these capacities. Another account, the Preference Theory, urges that satisfying one's preferences, or desires, is what improves one's quality of life. And a third account, Hedonism, sees life-quality as consisting in the enjoyment of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The paper describes and evaluates objections to each of these views, thereby displaying their weaknesses and strengths. Since no view comes out as the right one there is a choice to be made. At the end of the paper it is being discussed how well each of the views cohere with different methodologies used in quality of life research. Also it is suggested that consideration about what the research is to be used for are relevant.