Proceedings of the Second NAHWOA Workshop

[Previous]    [Index]


Discussion report

What to do about animal welfare in organic farming?
A report on the Animal Welfare Discussion at the 2nd NAHWOA Workshop

S. 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?

2)    How to measure AW?

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:

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 following benefits of an "organic" AW definition were suggested:

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:

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:

 

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:

 

[Previous]    [Index]