Proceedings of the Second NAHWOA Workshop
Discussion report
What to do about animal welfare in organic farming?
A report on the Animal Welfare Discussion at the 2nd NAHWOA WorkshopS. M. Thamsborgı, M. Hovi² and T. Baars³
ıThe Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Gronnegaardsvej 2, 1870 Fredriksberg C, Denmark, smt@kvl.dk
²VEERU, University of Reading, PO Box 236, Reading RG6 6AT, UK, m.hovi@reading.ac.uk
³Louis Bolk Institute, Hoofdstraat 24, Driebergen. 3972 LA, NL, t.baars@louisbolk.nl
Introduction
The following questions were raised at the beginning of the session:
1) Is there a need to consider animal welfare (AW) in organic farming (OF)?
What definition of AW is suitable for OF?
- Is there a need to define AW in the context of OF?
- If there is a need to establish a definition for AW in OF, who should establish it?
- Should it be a "philosophical" or a more "practical" definition?
- Is the priority to look for a definition or to develop practical solutions in order to improve AW or guarantee good AW in organic livestock production?
2) How to measure AW?
- How to develop practical tools?
3) How to improve the communication of AW issues among organic farmers and consumers?
Item 1. Is there a need to consider AW in OF?
There was a consensus that it is valuable and relevant to consider AW in organic livestock production. The production system and associated standards do not automatically provide good animal welfare. It was suggested that, from a historical point of view, a discussion that questions an automatic association between the organic standards and AW is new. The development of OF has been soil and soil fertility orientated. Recently, issues like housing systems, health and antibiotics and transport and slaughter standards have been raised in connection with developing the EU organic livestock production standards.
The following comments were made to outline the problems:
- Organic farmers/sector bodies are complacent about AW, maintaining that OF equals good AW.
- In some countries, the organic husbandry methods were seen as sometimes being "too natural", leading to AW problems.
- Organic standards have often been developed under pressure from public or consumer concerns rather than based on animal needs.
- The aims and aspirations of OF philosophy (consumer protection/environmental considerations/social considerations) can sometimes conflict with AW requirements.
- Animal health is not always seen as an integral part of AW on organic farms.
It was pointed out that it is important that, while attempting to solve immediate and practical problems related to AW, the long-term goals of OF are not lost. The discussion about these goals should be kept alive, parallel with the problem solving.
It was suggested that the main goals of organic animal production are food quality and safety, consumer protection, animal health and welfare and sustainability. It is important to identify where these goals conflict with each other. For example, AW goals may conflict with food safety, i.e. the increased risk of zoonotic agents in outdoor production of poultry and pigs. Another conflict might arise from the consumer-orientated development of the organic standards: how can the values of organic livestock production be translated to the consumer if they are not clearly and transparently defined?
Item 2. What definition of AW is suitable for OF ?
Whilst a need for a definition of AW in organic livestock production was recognised, there was some disagreement on how the development of such a definition should be approached. Should a definition arise from the process of solving practical problems and the above-mentioned conflicts over time, or should a philosophical basis for a definition be chosen from the outset? A need for the identification of a philosophical basis was emphasised in order to add transparency to the process of solving practical problems.
The following problems in defining AW in organic livestock production were suggested/identified:
- The reputation of organic livestock farming is dependent on consumer perception of high AW standards, but consumers should not define AW.
- Whilst it is dangerous to establish a very detailed definition, it is important to know where the standards are coming from: more transparency is needed, more answers to the question "why?".
- Where is the right forum to discuss this? Veterinarians and agriculturalists are perhaps not qualified or capable of discussing the philosophical basis of AW. Expert input from philosophers is needed. Or should the organic farmers decide?
The following benefits of an "organic" AW definition were suggested:
- A philosophical definition is needed. This would be helpful in identifying research priorities and methodologies and in explaining standards. This would also increase the transparency of standards both for consumers and producers, and be helpful in defining what is different about organic livestock production in comparison to conventional.
- It is important to have a basic definition on a more philosophical level before too many detailed standards are developed. This way, any new developments can be checked against the basic principal.
- Adoption of a philosophical basis of organic AW would possibly help in solving some of the conflicts between the other objectives of organic farming (consumer protection, environmental protection).
- Adoption of a philosophical basis of organic AW would possibly help in solving some of the problems caused by the diversity of livestock production systems in Europe.
- An "organic" AW definition should emphasise the pluralism of the systems, rather than being one narrow definition: situation ethics could be a helpful tool.
The zoocentric approach (summarized as the absence of suffering and satisfaction of interests; see: H. Verhoog, pp. //// of these Proceedings) is the basis for most national AW regulations applicable to both conventional and organic farms. It does, however, not encompass ideas of animal integrity, including the animal genome, and thus ignores one of the hallmarks of OF: abstaining from the use of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Biocentric and ecocentric views on AW were both proposed as starting points for an "organic AW philosophy". The biocentric view was criticised as unsuitable for livestock production systems, as the killing of animals would be unacceptable within this approach.
It was evident from the discussions that the viewpoints were diverse, and no single approach would cover the entire spectrum of opinions. However, a need to proceed with practical solutions in the research was expressed by the majority.
Item 3. How to measure AW?
There was a strong opinion that, whilst a definition was needed for reasons of transparency and in order to solve the conflicts between the different goals of OF, the development of a "tool pack" for AW assessment and improvement on organic farms was urgently needed. By and large, there is a growing need for advice, not only on issues relating to AW, but also on those relating to animal health. The development of such a "tool pack" would need to focus on animal needs. The importance of existing ethological knowledge was emphasised in this process.
The following aspects of an AW assessment "tool pack" were discussed:
- An AW assessment tool would help in increasing farmers interest in AW.
- A tool is needed to help farmers recognise and improve AW, as complacency and "farm blindness" were considered common among organic farmers. Organic farming is seen as equating to good AW.
- A tool is needed to motivate farmers in improving AW: monitoring to show progress would be motivating.
- Monitoring to show progress/non-progress would also be important for the inspectorate.
- It was also emphasised that scoring or ranking of farms was not necessary: a guarantee of a minimum level was enough, and this is now achieved in OF through the EU directive and more detailed national standards.
- The following definitions and objectives of such a "tool pack" were given:
- All tools should be based on sound epidemiological and ethological understanding.
- Ecopathological (zoonotic) aspects also need to be considered.
- The purpose of the tools is to offer practical solutions to identified problems on the farm (i.e. should lead to action).
- The "tool pack" should be transparent (i.e. it should be clear WHY each aspect is measured).
- It should be feasible to use the "whole" pack on a single farm visit.
- The use of the tools should be feasible on a large scale (i.e. repeatable and adaptable).
- The "pack" should consist of tools that are clearly linked to each other.
Considering available tools at present, special attention was devoted to the Animal Needs Index (ANI/TGI; see: H. Bartussek). The ANI was generally accepted as a useful and versatile tool in identifying problem areas in animal housing conditions with regard to health and welfare. The ANI also seemed to be a good communication tool with farmers. It was also accepted that it contains values other than purely economic values. The ANI was seen as very useful for scoring and categorising farms, even though the overall score was seen as less relevant for the farmer than the scores in each category. Whilst it was questioned whether figures and scores are needed at all, the general experience of those who had used the index was that figures make farmers very conscious of problems. It was, however, emphasised that a more versatile assessment tool or series of assessment tools was needed.
The following additions/improvements to the ANI were proposed:
- Development and inclusion of practical and accurate animal health parameters (or links to simple health monitoring tools such as Somatic Cell Count in milk, lameness scoring etc.).
- Development and better inclusion of ways to measure stockmanship/human-animal interaction on the farm.
- Development of practical systems using body condition scoring as part of AW assessment on farm.
- Development of ways to include transportation and slaughter conditions in the index.
- Development of separate indices for production systems with minimum housing (e.g. Scottish hill farming).
Item 4: How to improve the communication of AW issues to/among organic farmers and consumers?
It was emphasized that the measurement and improvement of AW are closely linked. As mentioned in Item 3, one of the major goals of AW assessment should be an increased farmer awareness of existing/potential problems. The recognition of problems alone will, in many instances, lead to improvement.
How to communicate AW to other groups, including consumers, decision-makers and advisors, was considered. It was suggested that, while the farmers need tools, the consumers need more general information, and the message should be as simple as possible. However, the information should be precise and transparent. It was considered important that the consumers are kept aware of the ongoing welfare discussions, and that they are aware of the need to pay for improved AW.
Summary and conclusions
To make the link between organic livestock production and good AW more real/sustainable, the following were suggested:
- Policy makers (i.e. certifying bodies) need to listen to ethologists/other AW experts when developing standards.
- It is important to formulate a philosophical definition and basis for AW in OF.
- Conflict areas with other organic farming aims need to be defined and answers need to be sought to these conflicts (i.e. research targeting).
- A tool to assess and improve AW on organic farms is needed. The tool should be action-orientated, aimed at communication and improvement, rather than assessment and ranking. Whilst the Animal Needs Index (ANI/TGI) was considered a useful starting point for the development of such a tool, several improvements and additions were suggested.
- It is important to develop links between real AW and real animal health. For example, it should not be acceptable to measure AW against production parameters alone (e.g. good daily weight gain/milk yield does not equal good AW, if the animal is simultaneously suffering from chronic production disease or an infectious disease).
- Organic farmers interest and motivation to maintain good AW and to improve AW needs to be increased: consumers should not be let down in their expectations of higher AW status of organic livestock production. There is a need to communicate to farmers what the consumer wants and to emphasise that consumers are willing to pay for better AW.