MZOE-002

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND

Indira Gandhi ANIMAL WELFARE ETHICS
National Open University
School of Sciences

Block

4
ANIMAL WELFARE-II
UNIT 16
Improving Animal Welfare through Social Conditions 111
UNIT 17
Improving Animal Welfare through Human Contact 125
UNIT 18
Improving Animal Welfare through Genetic Selection 144
UNIT 19
Animal Ethics and Sentience 159
UNIT 20
Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-I 177
UNIT 21
Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-II 191
COURSE NAME: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND ANIMAL COURSE CODE: MZOE-002
WELFARE ETHICS

Course Design Committee

Dr. Arun Verma Dr. Manilal Valliyate Prof. B.K. Pattanaik
Assistant Director General (Retd.) CEO, People for the Ethical SOEDS, IGNOU, New Delhi
ICAR, New Delhi Treatment of Animals (India)
New Delhi Prof. Nehal A. Farooquee
Dr. K.V.H. Sastry SOEDS, IGNOU, New Delhi
Principal Scientist Mr. N.G. Jayasimha
ICAR-NIANP, Bangalore Director (India) Dr. Pradeep Kumar
Humane Society International SOEDS, IGNOU, New Delhi
Dr. V.K. Arora Hyderabad
Joint Commissioner (AH)
Ministry of Fisheries Dr. Nisha Varghese
Ms. Khushboo Gupta SOEDS, IGNOU, New Delhi
Animal Husbandry and Dairying Project Manager
New Delhi World Animal Proetection Dr. Grace Don Nemching
Col, (Dr.) Narbir Singh New Delhi SOEDS, IGNOU, New Delhi
The Remount and Veterinary Dr. P. Vijaykumar
Corps, New Delhi Associate Professor Prof. P.V.K. Sasidhar
SOA, IGNOU, New Delhi SOEDS, IGNOU, New Delhi
Dr. SB. Prasanna (Programme Coordinator)
Associate Professor (LPM) Dr. Mita Sinha Mahapatra
College of Veterinary Sciences Associate Professor, SOA
Bangalore IGNOU, New Delhi

Block Preparation Team

Dr. Simon Turner Prof. Cathy Dwyer School of Sciences
SRUC, Edinburgh, UK JMICAWE, University of
Prof. P.V.K. Sasidhar
(Unit 16 and 18) Edinburgh, UK
SOEDS, IGNOU, New Delhi
(Unit 19, 20 and 21)
Dr. Irene Camerlink (Units 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21)
SRUC, Edinburgh, UK (Unit 17)
Prof. Neera Kapoor
SOS, IGNOU, New Delhi-110068
(Units 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21)

Programme Coordinators : Prof. Neera Kapoor and Dr. Siya Ram

Course Coordinator : Prof. Neera Kapoor

Course Editor : Prof. Cathy Dwyer
Director, The Jeanne Marchig International Centre for
Animal Welfare Education, University of Edinburgh, UK

Production : Mr. Hemant Kumar

SO(P), MPDD, IGNOU
Acknowledgement:
• Prof. Neera Kapoor and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Suggestions for figures and Cover Design.
• Mr. Vikas Kumar, JAT for word processing and CRC preparation.

April, 2024
Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2024
ISBN: ..................................
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other
means, without permission in writing from Indira Gandhi National Open University.
Further information on Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained from the
University’s office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or IGNOU website www.ignou.ac.in.
Printed and published on behalf of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by the Registrar,
MPDD, IGNOU.
Printed at:
 BLOCK 4: ANIMAL WELFARE-II
In the previous block we have discussed about concept of animal welfare and its scientific
understanding. The five freedoms and their advantages and disadvantages were also
discussed. You were also apprised about the application of animal welfare knowledge in the
form of animal welfare assessment and audit schemes. Then the question is how to improve
the welfare of animals based on the results of welfare assessment or audit? The purpose of
this block is to answer this question with discussion on improving animal welfare through
social conditions, human contact and genetic selection. In this block we will address why
animal welfare is considered to be important from ethical and moral perspectives and
different areas of ethical thinking concerning the use of animals. After completing this block
you should have a better theoretical grasp of animal welfare ethics and how these can be
applied to decision-making for animal treatment, understand the scientific evidence for the
presence of sentience in different types of animals and appreciate the role of veterinarians in
ethical treatment of animals and their welfare.
UNIT 16, Improving Animal Welfare Through Social Conditions delineates the complexity
of social relationships, costs and benefits of social living, dominance relationships, social
environment and its relation to welfare improvement and solving socially induced welfare
problems.
UNIT 17, Improving Animal Welfare Through Human Contact focuses on influence of
human contact on animal welfare, the effects of negative and positive contacts and neglect,
opportunities and methods to improve human-animal relationships, animal signals and
human-animal conflict.

UNIT 18, Improving Animal Welfare Through Genetic Selection describes the power of
animal breeding, genetic vs. non-genetic determination, undesirable effects for welfare of
past breeding strategies and using breeding to improve welfare.
UNIT 19, Animal Ethics and Sentience delineates different types of ethics, ethical views of
animals, ethical decision making, animal sentience and scientific evidence for animal
sentience.
UNIT 20, Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-I focuses on consequentialism, contractarian
utilitarian and respect for nature ethical approaches with case studies and ethical dilemmas
for animal welfare.

UNIT 21, Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-II describes the deontological, animal rights and
virtue ethics, ethical approaches with case studies and practical ethical decision-making

Objectives
After studying this block, you should be able to:

• describe the methods / principles for improving the animal welfare through human
contact, genetic selection and social conditions,

• explain the animal welfare ethical theories,

• discuss the different types of animal ethics, and

• describe the scientific evidence for animal sentience.

109
110
 UNIT 16
IMPROVING ANIMAL WELFARE
THROUGH SOCIAL
CONDITIONS

Structure
16.1 Introduction 16.4 Solving Socially Induced
Objectives Welfare Problems

16.2 Complexity of Social Preventing Social Stress:

Relationships Designing Husbandry
Systems with Reference to
Costs and Benefits of Social
Wild Behaviour
Living
Preventing Social Stress:
Dominance Relationships
Genetic Selection for More
16.3 The Social Environment Positive Behaviour
and its Relation to Welfare
Treating Social Stress
Improvement
16.5 Let Us Sum Up
Captivity and Abnormal
Social Environments 16.6 Keywords

Consequences of Abnormal 16.7 Bibliography and Further

Social Environments Reading

Social Stress from 16.8 Self Assessment

Redirected Behaviour Exercises

Why do we Manage Animals 16.9 Answers/Hints to Check

in Abnormal Social Your Progress
Environments?

16.1 INTRODUCTION
In previous Units we have discussed how, in recent decades, the use of
animals has grown:

• More than 70 thousand million farm animals (birds and mammals) are
reared worldwide each year, and

• A similar number of fish, as well as millions of laboratory, working and

pet animals.
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
There is great variation both in their welfare and in how concerned people are
about animal welfare, but concern has generally increased, if unevenly over
this period. A key principle in our interactions with all these animals is mutual
benefit: many improvements to animal welfare are also beneficial for people.
However, although the interests of humans and animals overlap, they do not
overlap completely. Furthermore, there have been developments both in how
animals are treated (such as industrialisation of livestock farming) and in social
circumstances (such as increasing affluence of some people) that affect
attitudes to welfare. So some people have introduced ways of safeguarding or
improving welfare, either for animals with which they are directly involved (for
example, those supplying them with food) or for all animals of a certain kind in
an area or a country or even worldwide. Those ways include legislation, and
other programmes of animal welfare standards. In the previous Units we have
discussed how and why we might want to assess animal welfare, and how
schemes to allow these to be assessed might be developed. In this Unit we
will look at what types of schemes are available and how these are being
applied in different contexts, using some specific examples in different types of
animal use, to impact on animal welfare.

Objectives
a) Knowledge and Understanding: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

 explain the meaning and importance of social conditions in

improving animal welfare.

 list ways in which the social environment provided in captivity

differs from that in the wild.

b) Practical and Professional Skills: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

 describe the complexity in social strategies found in captive

animals.

 illustrate why abnormal captive environments are used.

 discuss how abnormal social environments affect welfare and

ways in which negative effects on welfare can be minimised.

16.2.1 Complexity of Social Relationships

The complexity of the social environment varies between:

• Species

• Size of the group, and

• Composition of the social group.

Social groups span a continuum of size and social complexity under wild
conditions. The tendency to adopt similar social strategies persists under
captive conditions. Social groups can be transient in nature and formed to
112 achieve a specific purpose.
Unit 16 Improving Animal Welfare through Social Conditions
Example: Migratory herds or flocks, and schools of fish.

The membership of these groups may be very fluid and the identity of the
individual members matters little to the others in the group. The effect of one
animal on another may be limited to one animal copying the direction of
movement of another, such as communal movement in a fish school in the
presence of a predator. Communication may therefore be limited to changes in
visual stimuli and the identity of the conspecifics is unknown and of little
relevance. At the opposite end of the spectrum lie complex societies, which
may persist indefinitely, whose membership is fairly stable over time and in
which the identity of individual members is of great importance.

Members of social groups in many species compete for access to limited

resources and adopt a system that assigns prioritisation of access to those
resources in some way (discussed below). Complex societies formed of
animals of different competitive abilities, dominance status or kin relationships
require the capacity to establish relationships between individual pairs of
animals in the group. By extension, this requires the ability to reliably
differentiate between group members, recall the outcome of past interactions
with specific individuals and to predict the likely consequences of future
interactions. This places considerable demands on recognition and cognitive
abilities and sets limits on the optimum size of groups in any given
circumstance. Between the extremes of these two groups, lie all manner of
different social grouping strategies. It is worth noting that more than one level
of complexity may exist simultaneously where, for example, pre-existing
individual relationships may persist when smaller groups coalesce into larger
aggregations. Most captive species adopt a degree of social complexity that
demands an ability to recognise individuals and remember the outcome of
past interactions, at least for part of their life cycle. In the wild, clear
differences can exist in gregariousness of males and females and at different
ages or different times of the year. A particularly common pattern is for
females to form social groups of often related members together with
juveniles, whilst males disperse as they approach puberty and either form all-
male groups with little genetic relatedness or live in isolation.

16.2.2 Costs and Benefits of Social Living

Gregariousness offers many advantages compared to living alone (Table

16.1). Although not the most obvious examples of these benefits, the potential
for social learning and social support remain relevant in captive environments.
Practical examples exist of how these benefits persist even in environments
highly modified from the wild. Social learning is of great benefit in the
acquisition of new skills, such as when recently weaned animals need to learn
how to use new artificial feeding and drinking systems. Here the opportunity to
watch animals that have successfully learnt how to eat and drink can speed
the adoption of new skills by the observers. Social support provided by the
presence of other conspecifics can reduce anxiety associated with stressful or
aversive events. For example separation anxiety in dogs is usually reduced
when two rather than one dog is left alone without the owner. 113
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
Table 16.1: Advantages of Living in a Social Group

Benefit Explanation

Social learning The acquisition of new skills is facilitated by copying

experienced group members.

Social support The physical or emotional support received due to the

action of group members or simply the proximity of
conspecifics.

Efficient predator detection Surveillance for predators requires less individual effort
and is more effective when in a group.

Mutual predator defence Where an individual may fail to repel a predator, a group
may succeed.

Prey saturation This works in two ways. At its simplest, a single predator
can only attack one animal and the likelihood of being
the target is reduced when many other potential targets
are present. Prey saturation also occurs when females
synchronise oestrus and young are born during a short
window of time and the local predator population is
unable to attack all.

Efficient food acquisition For predators, the capture of prey is easier with help.
For all animals, locating a food resource is easier when
animals search together.

Energy conservation Body heat is preserved by the close proximity of

conspecifics (as in huddling pigs and penguins). Energy
use can be reduced during flight by flying in a group.

Group living brings with it challenges that are not faced by an independent
individual. Principal amongst these challenges is the need to divide limited
resources between group members. Societal rules are adopted which
minimise conflict as much as possible. These include the protection and
respect of an individual’s personal space (that space around it which cannot
be entered without causing withdrawal or defence) and the formation and
respect of dominance relationships.

16.2.3 Dominance Relationships

A dominance hierarchy can be defined as a social ranking system within a
group of the same species in which certain forms of status and privilege are
held by those ranking at the top, usually the stronger or more aggressive
members. Dominance hierarchies are an emergent property of a group that
results from the composition of pairwise dominance relationships between its
group members. They differ in form between species and their form and rigour
of enforcement is also dependent upon the scarcity of resources and therefore
the benefits of gaining preferential access to them. A very large number of
captive species adopt some form of dominance hierarchy structure within one
114 or both sexes. Dominance is conferred by the ability to obtain and defend a
Unit 16 Improving Animal Welfare through Social Conditions
resource, termed resource holding potential (RHP). The attributes that
determine RHP are varied, but can be physical (e.g. body size and strength),
determined by knowledge level (and therefore often related to age) or
symbolic through the display of ‘status symbols’. The latter are attributes which
themselves do not confer a direct ability to overcome a competitor, but are
only shown by animals in peak fitness and are an indirect show of healthiness
and past ability to access resources.

Example: Size and colour of the comb on the head of chickens.

Experiments have shown that birds move up in a dominance hierarchy when

their comb is artificially enlarged and reddened in colour. This is because the
growth of such a comb can only be achieved by birds that have been
successful in obtaining resources in the past. In this particular example, this
status symbol shows that the bird has managed to survive despite the
enlarged comb making the bird more obvious to predators. As we will discuss
below, efficiently establishing and maintaining dominance relationships
reduces conflict but is dependent upon animals having the ability to assess
respective RHP easily. Captive conditions which make this more difficult are
responsible for prolonged and excessive conflict in social groups.

SAQ 1
i) What are the advantages of living in a social group?

ii) What is the principal challenge that group living brings that is not faced
by an independent individual?

iii) Define dominance hierarchy.

iv) Write the meaning of resource holding potential (RHP).

v) Name the attributes that determine RHP.

16.3 THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND ITS

RELATION TO WELFARE IMPROVEMENT
16.3.1 Captivity and Abnormal Social Environments
Captive social conditions rarely conform to those that occur in the wild and to
which the species has evolved. Wild social groups most often contain
individuals of different sex, size or age. The most common deviation from this
is the grouping together of captive animals of similar RHP and the formation of
groups with abnormal demographic structure (e.g. an unnatural proportion of
males versus females and young versus old animals). Zoo exhibits for
instance often contain groups where the composition of males and females
has no resemblance to the wild and where dispersal of young sub-adults is
prevented. In farm environments, animals of similar RHP are usually
deliberately grouped together as this makes the feeding and marketing of
animals easier. The integration of new group members is usually a gradual
process in the wild but occurs suddenly in most captive groups. Group sizes 115
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
frequently deviate from those adopted in the wild. The best example of this is
the formation of flocks of many thousands of broiler (meat) chickens and
turkeys (Fig. 16.1) when the natural flock size is usually a dominant male, less
than 10 adult hens and young birds that are yet to disperse.

Fig. 16.1: Commercial flock of turkeys with several thousand group size

Unnatural demographics, similarity in competitive ability, sudden forced

introduction and inability to disperse result in the violation of societal rules. We
can illustrate this by describing how pigs are routinely managed on
commercial farms compared to their wild behavioural ecology. Free-living wild
boar exists as solitary adult males and social groups of related females with
their sub-adult offspring. The female groups occupy a territory but usually
avoid confrontation with neighbouring groups. Integration of new animals into
a group usually begins after the first week of life and occurs slowly.
Aggression is rare except between adult males during the breeding season.
Under commercial production, groups are formed by the immediate
introduction of unfamiliar and frequently unrelated animals that are often of the
same sex. These animals are grouped together due to their similarity in
weight, which is the key determinant of RHP in pigs. Variation in RHP is
therefore minimised. The grouping occurs in a confined pen where avoidance
of conflict is difficult and signalling of defeat by dispersal is impossible. As a
result, aggression when a group is first formed is intense as dominance
relationships cannot easily be established without resort to the use of
damaging aggression to determine relative RHP (Fig. 16.2). Few captive
species are stimulated to fight so readily and with such intensity as pigs and
hence it is regarded as a significant welfare problem in this species.
Aggressive encounters are also prolonged as the defeated animal remains in
proximity to the winner, which may continue to attack in the absence of
obvious retreat by the loser. After the establishment of dominance
relationships between individuals and a dominance hierarchy within the pen,
the maintenance of these relationships also involves more conflict than
reported in the wild. This is probably due to the tendency of animals of only
marginally lower RHP to challenge the status of those that are more dominant.
It is noteworthy that creating a more diverse range of RHP within the group
tends to reduce the occurrence of aggression in commercial pigs. It has also
been shown that domestic pigs will immediately revert to the wild grouping
strategy when released into the wild. This is evidence that several thousand
years of domestication and recent intensive breeding has done nothing to
116 eliminate the natural grouping strategy imparted by millennia of evolution.
Unit 16 Improving Animal Welfare through Social Conditions

Fig. 16.2: Aggression between pigs of similar RHP (photo credit M. Farish,
SRUC)

16.3.3 Social Stress from Redirected Behaviour

We know that motivated behaviours may find an outlet in the redirection of the
behaviour towards a group member when the usual target of the behaviour is
missing. These behaviours included tail and ear biting in pigs, feather pecking
and cannibalism in laying hens and fin chewing in farmed fish. These
redirected behaviours or ‘social vices’ do not primarily result from housing
animals in abnormal social environments but are usually a consequence of an
unstimulating physical environment. They do however cause significant social
stress in the recipients of the behaviour and can be worsened by social stress
in the actors themselves. Social stress can be thought of as a secondary
contributor to the occurrence of redirected behaviour and can compound the
effects of an unstimulating physical environment (Fig. 16.3).

Lack of substrate to
direct foraging
behaviour towards

Social stress from

inadequate floor
space Social stress in
Tail biting
behaviour group members

Social stress from

competition for food

Non-social causes
(e.g. dietary
imbalance, poor
climate, infection

Fig. 16.3: Diagram illustrating how chronic social stress from competition for
limited resources can lead to abnormal behaviour (tail-biting) and
social stress 117
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
Competition for food and space are known to increase the risk of these
behaviours occurring. Furthermore, a disproportionate number of smaller, less
competitive individuals tend to perform redirected behaviour since they are
more likely to experience social stress and to be unable to cope with the
combination of a challenging physical and social environment.

16.3.4 Why do we Manage Animals in Abnormal

Social Environments?

Given the negative outcomes of an abnormal social environment, it is

reasonable to question why we create zoo exhibits with an abnormal group
structure, suddenly regroup pigs of similar RHP and house broiler chickens in
flocks of many thousand birds. We may also ask why laboratory and
companion animals are housed in isolation when most would naturally be
gregarious.

In the case of laboratory animals, experimental replication may demand the

use of isolated individuals and cultural norms (amongst other factors) play a
role in determining that most people do not own large numbers of companion
animals. In the case of zoo and farm animals, economic and management
constraints have encouraged the use of group structures that are easiest to
manage, practically and financially. This is most clearly seen on farms as
illustrated in Table 16.2.

Table 16.2: Constraints that prevent the use of naturalistic social group
structures in commercial farming.

Constraint Outcome

Buildings are expensive Building space must be used with maximum

efficiency meaning that the best economic outcome
is often achieved by maximising the number of
animals housed even if each animal does not
perform optimally due to social stress from
inadequate space.

Labour is expensive Management changes that require greater time input

per animal will not be adopted, such as housing
animals in many small social groups rather than a
smaller number of larger groups.

Mechanical equipment is best The use of machinery for feeding and cleaning is
suited to large groups more compatible with unnaturally large groups.

Market demand for uniformity Consumers and abattoirs determine product

specification (e.g. the size of a joint of meat).
Deviations from this specification (e.g. a joint from a
larger or smaller animal) are penalised. This
encourages farmers to create groups of animals of
uniform size and weight during the production
process, which are also similar in RHP
118
Unit 16 Improving Animal Welfare through Social Conditions
Before we proceed, please complete activity 1.

Activity 1 (Visit): Visit a nearby Zoo and choose an animal species with which
you are quite familiar. Study the social environments (like composition of
group, demographics, similarity in competitive ability, sudden forced
introduction and inability to disperse etc). Write your observations on normal or
abnormal social environments.

SAQ 2
i) Differentiate the characteristics of wild social groups and captive groups.

ii) What are abnormal social environments?

iii) Why do we manage animals in abnormal social environments?

iv) List the constraints that prevent the use of naturalistic social group
structures in commercial farming.

16.4 SOLVING SOCIALLY INDUCED WELFARE

PROBLEMS
16.4.1 Preventing Social Stress: Designing Husbandry
Systems with Reference to Wild Behaviour

The tendency of captive animals to revert to the social strategies of their wild
counterparts is strong. Consequently, reference can be made to the wild
behavioural ecology of a species to predict the conditions most likely to lead to
social harmony. In progressive zoos, effort is made to create groups with an
appropriate demographic mix of ages and sexes. On farms this is problematic
as it counteracts the benefits of housing animals together of similar size and
age. This has not stopped research that seeks to find a practical way to
introduce wild grouping strategies onto commercial farms. In pigs, family pen
systems that allow adult females and their litters to freely integrate shortly after
birth mean that grouping litters together when older and when aggression is
more damaging is no longer essential. This also mimics the wild strategy of
integrating nonlittermates at a very young age when aggression is less
damaging. To date, this family pen system has not been widely adopted by
commercial pig producers due to the increased space needed and more
variable weaning weight. The evidence would indicate that social stress can
be minimised on farms by housing livestock in groups that approximate those
of their wild counterparts, but there is some way to go before practical and
economic constraints that limit their uptake can be overcome.

Providing young animals with the opportunity to gain social skills early in life is
worth exploring (Box 16.1). 119
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
Box 16.1: Opportunity to Gain Social Skills Early in Life to Young
Animals

Appropriate and rich early life experiences are instrumental in many species
achieving mature forms of adult behaviour. Establishment of social
relationships is a cognitively demanding task and likely to benefit in many
species from the opportunity to engage in social contact with new animals
when young and practice social skills in a non-damaging context. This may
be one of the key benefits of play fighting and why this behaviour is seen
commonly in the young of some species. In pigs where damaging aggression
in older animals is particularly routine, early life social contact may be
particularly valuable as a way to minimise later aggression. Here the
opportunity to freely meet unfamiliar piglets from an adjacent litter around two
weeks of age eases the establishment of dominance relationships when they
are next grouped with unfamiliar pigs after weaning. It is likely that the
opportunity to engage in play and especially play fighting may speed the
acquisition of the skills needed to assess RHP.

Respecting dominance relationships requires that defeated subordinates are

able to signal defeat by withdrawing from a contest and thereafter avoiding the
dominant animal. This is greatly facilitated by the provision of adequate space.
In particular, there appears to be a threshold effect whereby restrictions in
space allowance below a certain level result in a major escalation in
aggression. Environmental complexity is likely to be just as important as the
amount of space. Visual barriers that allow separation of winner and loser will
reduce aggression by two means:

• Firstly they provide the loser with the chance to avoid the winner, and

• Secondly they probably encourage the winner to believe that it has

successfully evicted the loser from the group.

The establishment of dominance relationships occurs even if resources such

as food and shelter are freely and abundantly available when the group is first
formed. Supply of these resources therefore has little impact on the process of
establishing dominance relationships. Thereafter, the vigour with which
established dominance relationships are enforced depends greatly on the
availability of resources. In situations where resources are limited, dominant
animals are likely to enforce their preferential access over subordinates.
Where resources are adequate, competition is reduced and dominance
relationships may be very difficult for an observer to discern. Inadequate
access to resources leading to social stress from aggression and the need to
avoid dominant animals therefore result when resources are in short supply.
This social stress is felt disproportionately by subordinate animals, but more
dominant animals are not immune. When resource access reaches a critical
level, the resources become so valuable that makes it worthwhile for
subordinates to challenge more dominant animals for access. The stability of
dominance hierarchies is reduced and dominance status fluctuates over time
when competition is high. Understanding what resources a species needs and
values and ensuring these are adequately provided greatly reduces social
stress. This will also be facilitated by distributing resources around the
environment such that a small number of dominant individuals find it
120 impossible to defend all locations simultaneously.
Unit 16 Improving Animal Welfare through Social Conditions
Example: If food provision is restricted, competition can be reduced by
providing the food in many locations rather than one.

16.4.2 Preventing Social Stress: Genetic Selection

for More Positive Behaviour
Unit 18 in this Block considers the contribution of genetics to animal welfare in
detail. So this subject will be dealt briefly here for your comprehension.

Behaviour is the manifestation of the animal’s:

• Genotype, and
• Past and current environment.

The genotype can therefore affect the social behaviour shown by an individual,
which has direct consequences for others in the group. Over past decades
evidence has grown that many captive environments cause social stress but
management change has not been adopted due to economic or practical
constraints. Where progress is lacking, it ought to be technically feasible to
reduce the expression of harmful social behavioural traits through selective
breeding, as those traits examined to date are under some degree of genetic
control. (Unit 18 will discuss in more detail the evidence for this genetic
determination, the likely consequences of breeding for behavioural change,
the practical manner in which it could be applied and the ethical considerations
of doing so).

16.4.3 Treating Social Stress

Treating the outcome of social stress has proven difficult in practice and
prevention of stress through the methods described above is more effective.
Animals that need to form dominance relationships cannot be prevented from
doing so, but they can be helped to achieve this at the least cost to their
welfare through the provision of adequate space, places to hide and
naturalistic group structures. Most strategies to control regrouping aggression
that have a small economic cost are not effective and include making the
animals smell the same, regrouping them in the dark and using tranquilisers.
These methods aim to make unfamiliar animals appear to be familiar but in
practice tend to simply delay the onset of aggression and the formation of
dominance relationships. Similarly, stopping an outbreak of an abnormal social
behaviour (such as tail biting or feather pecking) once it has begun is difficult
as the behaviour itself becomes rewarding. Again, prevention is better than
treatment. Foremost amongst the interventions must be the provision of a
stimulating physical environment that allows an appropriate outlet for the
foraging behaviour. This should be complemented by a social environment
that reduces stress to all, including the weaker members of the group and
should focus on adequate provision of space, a comfortably warm place to rest
and easy access to food and water.

16.5 SUMMARY
Let us summarise whatever you learnt so far:

• An understanding of social behaviour and social conditions is

increasingly essential as more animals are housed in groups rather than
in individual stalls or pens. There may be economic or welfare reasons
for such housing. 121
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
• Keeping the above in view, we discussed how to improve animal welfare
through social conditions. The focus of the discussion was on social
environment and its relation to welfare improvement and designing
husbandry systems as per social conditions / organization of species.

• Social groups vary in complexity from transient egalitarian aggregations

to dynamic and highly complex societies. The latter rely upon individual
recognition of group members and the ability to remember the outcome
of past encounters.
• Captive animals retain the tendency to adopt the same grouping strategy
as their wild counterparts. Reference to this behavioural ecology can
help us to identify what group characteristics (composition of sexes,
ages and competitive abilities) can help to minimise social stress.
Captive social environments however usually deviate markedly from
those in the wild.

• Dominance relationships allow prioritisation of access to limited

resources by animals of highest resource holding potential.

• Housing animals together of similar RHP in environments that prevent

the full display of submission compromises the ability to form and
maintain stable dominance relationships.
• Avoiding social stress is easier than treating the symptoms of it.
Avoidance can be achieved by ensuring valuable resources are
adequately provided and that the captive social group composition
matches that of the wild as much as possible.

16.6 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. Give examples of the variation in social grouping strategy observed in
the wild.
2. Describe some of the ways in which social groups differ in form in
captivity compared to the wild.

3. What is meant by the term ‘resource holding potential’ (RHP) and list
some common attributes that affect RHP.

4. What is meant by the term ‘dominance hierarchy’ and how do captive

social environments interfere with the formation and maintenance of
dominance relationships?
5. Describe how social stress can contribute to the occurrence of
redirected behaviour.

16.7 ANSWERS
Self-Assessment Questions
1. i) The advantages of living in a social group includes: social learning;
social support; efficient predator detection; mutual predator
defence; prey saturation; efficient food acquisition, and energy
conservation.
ii) Principal amongst these challenges is the need to divide limited
122 resources between group members.
Unit 16 Improving Animal Welfare through Social Conditions
iii) Dominance hierarchy can be defined as a social ranking system
within a group of the same species in which certain forms of status
and privilege are held by those ranking at the top, usually the
stronger or more aggressive members.

iv) Dominance is conferred by the ability to obtain and defend a

resource, termed resource holding potential (RHP).

v) The attributes that determine RHP are varied, but can be physical
(e.g. body size and strength), determined by knowledge level (and
therefore often related to age) or symbolic through the display of
‘status symbols’.

2. i) The wild social groups most often contain individuals of different

sex, size or age. The most common deviation from this is the
grouping together of captive animals of similar RHP and the
formation of groups with abnormal demographic structure (e.g. an
unnatural proportion of males versus females and young versus
old animals).

ii) Unnatural demographics, similarity in competitive ability, sudden

forced introduction and inability to disperse result in the violation of
societal rules, which are abnormal social environments.

iii) In the case of laboratory animals experimental replication may

demand the use of isolated individuals and cultural norms
(amongst other factors) play a role in determining that most people
do not own large numbers of companion animals. In the case of
zoo and farm animals, economic and management constraints
have encouraged the use of group structures that are easiest to
practically and financially manage.

iv) The constraints includes: buildings are expensive; labour is

expensive; mechanical equipment is best suited to large groups;
and market demand for uniformity.

3. i) The methods for prevention of social stress in captive animals

includes: designing husbandry systems by reference to wild
behaviour; providing opportunities to gain social skills early in life
to young animals; genetic selection for more positive behaviour;
treating social stress through the provision of adequate space,
places to hide and naturalistic group structures.

ii) The family pen system has not been widely adopted by
commercial pig producers due to the increased space needed and
more variable weaning weight, besides practical and economic
constraints.

iii) Establishment of social relationships is a cognitively demanding

task and likely to benefit in many species from the opportunity to
engage in social contact with new animals when young and
practice social skills in a nondamaging context. This may be one of
the key benefits of play fighting and why this behaviour is seen
commonly in the young of some species. In pigs where damaging
aggression in older animals is particularly routine, early life social
contact may be particularly valuable as a way to minimise later
aggression. 123
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
iv) Respecting dominance relationships requires that defeated
subordinates are able to signal defeat by withdrawing from a
contest and thereafter avoiding the dominant animal. This is
greatly facilitated by the provision of adequate space. In particular,
there appears to be a threshold effect whereby restrictions in
space allowance below a certain level result in a major escalation
in aggression.

v) The vigour with which established dominance relationships are

enforced depends greatly on the availability of resources. In
situations where resources are limited, dominant animals are likely
to enforce their preferential access over subordinates. Inadequate
access to resources leading to social stress from aggression and
the need to avoid dominant animals therefore result when
resources are in short supply. This social stress is felt
disproportionately by subordinate animals, but more dominant
animals are not immune. When resource access reaches a critical
level, the resources become so valuable that makes it worthwhile
for subordinates to challenge more dominant animals for access.
Therefore understanding what resources a species needs and
ensuring these are adequately provided greatly reduces social
stress.
vi) Behaviour is the manifestation of the animal’s genotype, and past
and current environment. The genotype can therefore affect the
social behaviour shown by an individual, which has direct
consequences for others in the group.

Terminal Questions
1. Refer to Subsections 16.2.1 and 16.2.2.
2. Refer to Subsections 16.3.1 and 16.3.2.
3. Refer to Subsections 16.2.3 and 16.3.1.
4. Refer to Subsection 16.2.3.

5. Refer to Section 16.4.

SUGGESTED READING
1. Broom, D.M. and Fraser, A.F. (2015). Domestic Animal Behaviour and
Welfare. CABI International (This book gives some excellent examples
of how captive environments lead to behavioural changes that can harm
welfare. It also gives a good summary of many of the basic concepts in
the field of social behaviour).
2. Keeling, J.L. Social Behaviour in Farm Animals (2001). CAB
International (This book summarises the costs and benefits of group
living and how social behaviour has evolved and responded to
domestication. It then gives a detailed description of the social behaviour
of several of the major farm species including fish and horses).

124
 UNIT 17
IMPROVING ANIMAL WELFARE
THROUGH HUMAN CONTAC
CONTACT

Structure
17.1 Introduction Farm Management
Objectives Animal Research
17.2 Influence of Human Contact 17.6 Methods for Improving
on Animal Welfare Human Animal
Predictability Relationships

Controllability Predictability and

Controllability
17.3 The Effect of Negative
Contact and Neglect Physical and Non-physical
Contact
Development of Difficult
Behaviour Taking into Account the
Sensory Capacities of the
Development of Fear
Species
Development of Agonistic
17.7 Animal Signals
Behaviour
Prey vs Predator Species
Reduced Productivity in Farm
Animals Predator Species

17.4 The Effect of Positive 17.8 Human-Animal Conflict

Contact Attacks
Play Behaviour Workers Safety
Social Support and Bonding Cultural Human-animal
Increased Productivity in Farm Conflict
Animals 17.9 Summary
17.5 Opportunities to Improve 17.10 Terminal Questions
Human Animal 17.11 Answers
Relationships
Veterinary Practice

17.1 INTRODUCTION
Any animal under human care depends for their survival, health and welfare
on the quantity and quality of the care given by the owner or other involved
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
persons. Feed, water, shelter and veterinary care are essential elements that
should be provided by the owner for any animal in captivity. However, even if
these needs are met, the quality of the interaction between the human and
animal can hugely impact the welfare of the animal under care.

Example: Unpredictable negative handling by humans can result in

fearfulness in the animal. This can be from physical contact, such as physical
abuse, as well as from non-physical contact through negative verbal and body
language or neglect. Note that the word ‘animal’ here refers to non-human
animals (Box 17.1).

Box 17.1: Human vs. Animal

Humans are part of the animal kingdom as much as other animals. However,
note that the word ‘animal’ here refers to non-human animals.

This unit is designed to provide insight into how human-animal relationships

affect the health and welfare of the animal. We will not discuss how human
animal relationships can affect human well-being as this has been dealt with
earlier. This unit will cover the theoretical and practical aspects of human-
animal interactions with a focus on practical solutions to improve these
relationships. In this Unit, we also discuss how the quality of the human-animal
interaction can impact on the welfare of animals, as well as productivity in the
case of farm animals. We will look at practical solutions to reduce negative
interactions and increase positive interactions, in particularly in veterinary
clinics, farms and animal research facilities. We will also discuss the role of
animal signals to better understand the way in which animals communicate,
and human-animal conflict. Under each concept, an activity is enlisted which
you are encouraged to carry out in order to enhance your understanding of the
theory.

Objectives
a) Knowledge and Understanding: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

• describe the meaning and importance of human contact in

improving animal welfare.

• give account of species specific animal signals in interactions with

animals.

• explain the origin of human-animal conflict.

b) Practical and Professional Skills: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

• evaluate the impact of human behaviour on animal health and

welfare.

• apply techniques to improve animal welfare through positive

126 human contact.
Unit 17 Improving Animal Welfare through Human Contact

17.2 INFLUENCE OF HUMAN CONTACT ON

ANIMAL WELFARE
Captive animals are dependent on human care for their:

• Survival

• Health and

• Welfare

For captive animals the owner or other involved persons (care takers) have
the capacity to determine the animals’ trust, including their day-to-day welfare.
The animals’ welfare will thus strongly depend on the actions of the involved
persons, and the effect of their negative and positive actions is discussed in
detail in the following sections. Here, we first discuss the basis of what makes
an action positive or negative.

One reason for why humans may treat animals badly is because they do not
perceive their actions as negative or harmful for the animal or they are
unaware of what it is that causes a negative response in the animal. Animals’
(including human) behavioural and physiological responses are strongly
influenced by the extent to which they have predictability and controllability. A
lack of predictability and controllability, even in positive situations, can
increase behavioural and physiological stress up to a pathological state.

17.2.1 Predictability
Predictability, or ‘the ability to predict’ what is going to happen, allows the
individual to prepare or anticipate on what is going to come.

Example: If the owner of a dog is always nice when he comes home and
greets the dog, the animal will run towards the door and show a positive
behavioural response to the human. If the owner is always angry when arriving
home and he kicks the dog badly, then the animal will run away and hide as
soon as he hears the owner. However, if the owner sometimes behaves nicely
upon returning home but sometimes unexpectedly kicks the dog then the
animal will not know when to approach or when to hide. As a consequence,
the animal is likely to experience more stress than a dog which is always
kicked.

Research experiments in rats showed that rats that are given electric shocks
at irregular times developed severe gastric ulcers. However, when the rat
could predict the occurrence of the electric shock, by seeing a light flashing up
just before receiving the shock, they had fewer ulcers. When the action of the
human is predictable, the receiver of the behaviour (the animal) can prepare in
the best manner to sustain its health and welfare. This preparation may
include safeguarding itself (e.g. hiding) from receiving harmful behaviour or
relaxation when having the certainty of knowing that feed will be given every
day. This preparation not only affects behaviour and welfare but also closely
relates to physiology and thus health. If an individual knows when it will be
able to eat and drink, the metabolism adjusts to these timings to optimize
digestion, resulting in a better uptake of nutrients. 127
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
17.2.2 Controllability
In the above mentioned example of the rat the least amount of ulcers
developed when the rats where given the opportunity to control the duration of
the electric shocks. These rats would see, as in the above scenario, a light
flashing up when an electrical shock was about to come but they could then
stop the electric shock sooner by operating a lever. Rats that received the
same amount and duration of electric shocks, but that could not control the
shock themselves, showed severe gastric ulcers whereas the animals that
could control the shock even outperformed the control animals that received
no shocks at all. The receipt of electric shocks, as was done in this 1970s
research experiment, is quite severe. Let’s look at some relevant examples of
a lack of controllability in which no direct physical harm is done to the animals.
Caged pets and zoo animals have often no control over when humans, or
other animals, will interact with them. They cannot physically escape the
physical contact, gaze (eye contact) or presence of humans. This may result in
profound stress even though the animal may be physically well cared for.

Example: A well-cared for rabbit that is kept in a cage that is located in a room
with a cat right next to the cage may experience constant stress due to the
constant exposure to a natural predator.

Zoo animals often cannot hide from the constant presence of humans. When
given the opportunity to hide (through proper housing facilities), the animals
often make frequent use of these hiding places, to the disadvantage of the zoo
as visitors are unable to see the animal during parts or the majority of the day

Before we proceed, please complete activity 2.

Activity 2 (Visit): If possible, visit a zoo and observe the animals’ behaviour
to the presence of humans. Do they have the possibility to hide from contact
if they wanted to? Write your observations with implications to welfare.

SAQ 1
i) How can unpredictable negative handling by humans result in
fearfulness in the animal?

ii) How do predictable human actions influence health and welfare of

animals?

17.3 THE EFFECT OF NEGATIVE CONTACT AND

NEGLECT
In this section we discuss the different responses to negative contact and
neglect as well as the negative effects that suboptimal human-animal
interactions can have despite good intentions under the following headings:

a) Development of difficult behaviour

128 b) Development of fear

Unit 17 Improving Animal Welfare through Human Contact
c) Development of agonistic behaviour

d) Reduced productivity in farm animals

It is important to realize that not all animals that are showing difficult
behaviour, fear or aggression are being treated badly. Note that behaviours
may also arise from other factors, such as genetics or previous experiences.
Also, animals that are not showing any of these behaviours but that are
treated badly are not necessarily treated that way on purpose. As discussed in
Unit 4, humans may treat animals in a similar way as they have been treated,
whereby they may perceive some actions (such as beating) as normal.
Therefore do not make uninformed judgments based on human-animal
interactions that you may see and be cautious if you want to address a
situation in which you see an animal being maltreated.

17.3.1 Development of Difficult Behaviour

A first sign that the human-animal relationship is not functioning optimally is
the development of difficult behaviour in the animal. Even when well cared for,
the owner may not understand the needs of the animal or is unable to read its
signals (Animal signals are explained in more detail in section 17.8). Briefly, if
the human does not understand the animal’s signals, or is unaware of them
being shown, or the human communicates in an unclear way to the animals,
than the animal may gradually start to show stronger behavioural signals. This
can lead to what is called ‘difficult behaviour’, resistance or disobedient
behaviour. In reality, the animal may be confused by contradictory or unclear
commands or may be unheard in its needs. Difficult behaviour can also arise
from negative experiences, which may be unrelated to the human-animal
relationship. A good human-animal relationship, with mutual understanding
and trust, can reduce or eliminate such behaviour.

17.3.2 Development of Fear

Fearfulness in animals relates amongst others to the:

• Species

• Breed

• Genetics

• Personality type, and

• Life history.

There are three ways in which fear may develop as a consequence of the
human animal relationship (or the lack thereof):

a) Active negative handling (e.g. abuse)

b) Passive negative handling (lack of appropriate care)

c) Neglect (no care).

a) Active Negative Handling: The most apparent way in which fear can
develop is through active negative handling. 129
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
Example: Physical abuse (e.g. beating, kicking).

As discussed earlier, negative behaviour may have a strong component

of unpredictability and uncontrollability for the receiver. A high
unpredictability and uncontrollability are likely to result in fear behaviour,
even in the absence of direct negative behaviour from the human.

Example: Unpredictable food provision and having no control over when

to eat may challenge the animal’s stress physiology.

b) Passive Negative Handling: This often arises from situations in which

the owner is:

• No longer able to care for the animal

• Unaware of the species’ needs for care

• Unaware of the importance of the required care.

c) Neglect: Neglect, or ‘the state of being uncared for’, does not provide
the animal with the opportunity to fight for better care. Instead, it can
only wait for help or try to find alternative solutions to obtain food or
attention.

17.3.3 Development of Agonistic Behaviour

If the animal has the possibility to respond to negative handling then it may
start to show agonistic behaviour, depending on the species, genetics,
personality and circumstances. Agonistic behaviours are all the behaviours
related to aggression, ranging from threat display to the withdrawal after a
conflict. Aggression relates only to the behaviour in which the animal shows
damaging behaviour, such as biting, scratching or kicking. Most individuals will
aim to avoid using aggression, either within their own species or with humans,
as aggression is costly and can result in injury or even death. Therefore,
animals have, throughout evolution, developed an extensive agonistic display
to signal their intent.

Examples: Facial expressions that signal anger, such as raising the upper lip,
showing teeth and tightening the eyes, and sound such as growling.

If such signals are being ignored, or are being responded to in an impropriate

manner (e.g. approaching the animal), then the animal may become
aggressive and attack. If threat signals are repeatedly and consistently ignored
then the animal may become more direct in its aggression and may attack
after showing minimal threat signals.

17.3.4 Reduced Productivity in Farm Animals

In farm animals, the effect of negative handling has been studied in relation to
the productivity of the animals. In cattle and pigs it has been shown that
negative handling can increase fear and reduce productivity. Fear and stress
cost energy and will therefore lead to a less optimal feed conversion (more
feed is consumed to obtain the same amount of growth). Fearful dairy cows
may show a reduced milk production. In the case of chronic fear due to daily
130 exposure to negative contact with humans, even if this is not physical contact,
Unit 17 Improving Animal Welfare through Human Contact
the effects on production can add up. Negative handling, such as rough
handling, kicking, beating or using an electric pod to move animals can in
addition impact carcass quality. For the farmer there are therefore financial
reasons to take good care of the animals and to treat them in a way that does
not cause fear.

Before we proceed, please complete activity 3.

Activity 3 (Review): List for yourself what you consider negative handling.
Are there in the above examples situations that you would not consider as
negative? Write your observations with implications to welfare.

SAQ 2
i) What are the negative effects that suboptimal human-animal interactions
can have despite good intentions?

ii) What do you understand by the term ‘difficult behaviour’?

iii) How to avoid / reduce ‘difficult behaviour’?

iv) What are the factors influencing fearfulness in animals?

v) Write the three ways in which fear may develop as a consequence of the
human-animal relationship?

vi) What do you understand by active negative handling?

vii) Name the situations in which passive negative handling arise.

viii) What is Agonistic behaviour?

17.4 THE EFFECT OF POSITIVE CONTACT

Most of the domesticated species are gregarious animals, which in nature
would live in groups. Group living animals are sensitive to social cues and
have a behavioural repertoire that support group living, such as affiliative
behaviour.

Example: Mutual grooming in primates.

Whereas solitary species would move away from contact, group living species
strongly respond to social interaction and have a need for social attention.
Although positive contact is beneficial for any species, social species are more
affected by it. As discussed previously about neglect, healthy animals may
suffer mentally and physically if their social needs are neglected. Positive
contact therefore directly contributes to the welfare of the majority of the
domesticated social species through the following ways:

a) Play behaviour

b) Social support and bonding

c) Increased productivity in farm animals 131

Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
17.4.1 Play Behaviour
Play behaviour is often regarded as a sign of good welfare. Humans can
contribute to eliciting play and other positive behaviours in animals by
providing them with material or toys to play with, providing play partners or
companions of the same species, or being themselves the play partner or
companion for the animal. Play has a positive effect on the emotional state
and through the release of hormones has a positive effect on immune function
and growth. Play supports the social and motoric development of young and
should therefore always be encouraged. Withholding play in young animals or
not providing a suitable environment to play (as is the case for many farm
animals in intensive husbandry systems) may affect the welfare but also the
long-term development and social behaviour of the animal.

17.4.2 Social Support and Bonding

Some social species have a primary need to be kept together with other
conspecifics or at least in company of another animal. This primary need
arises from the fact that some species depend for their safety on the presence
of a group or herd. Being without the presence of others (not being in a herd)
means that they are vulnerable to predators. This innate sense of being
unsafe outside the group means that they are more likely to survive in the wild,
but also that they may become extremely stressed when kept in isolation.
Sheep are an example of this, as they may refuse to eat, become withdrawn
and even die when kept isolated from their herd (depending on their life
history). Hand-reared animals (including sheep) or more domesticated species
may regard companions of other species that they have been reared with, or
humans, as their ‘clan’ or social group (as for example can be the case in
dogs). Through good human-animal relationships these animals may receive
social support from contact with humans and they may form an affectionate
bond. Social bonds can reduce or eliminate the effects of negative
experiences. For example, traumatized animals adopted from animal shelters
may revert back to normal and positive behaviour when a trusting bond is
established with the new owner.

17.4.3 Increased Productivity in Farm Animals

A positive human-animal relationship can increase productivity in farm
animals. A positive relationship is not merely the absence of negative
interactions but an active contribution to a positive relationship. In animal
husbandry, this can be established through (individual) attention for the
animals, calm and predictable behaviour, positive physical contact and a
gentle and patient approach with handling the animals. Animal caretakers can
also make use of positive sound cues or calm (classical) music to direct the
animals or to calm them. Good handling and a positive contact can reduce
stress, increase growth and increase milk production (See also the suggested
further readings).

Before we proceed, please complete activity 4.

Activity 4 (Practice): Approach an animal (pet or livestock) in a positive way

and watch the animal’s response to your contact (If it is someone else’s pet
than always ask first if you may touch the animal and ensure that the animal
is vaccinated). Write your observations
132
Unit 17 Improving Animal Welfare through Human Contact

SAQ 3
i) Positive contact contributes to the welfare of domesticated social
species. Comment.

ii) How can social bonds reduce or eliminate the effects of negative
experiences?

iii) What are the benefits of good handling of farm animals?

17.5 OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE HUMAN

ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP
Human-animal relationships can be improved in every scenario, whether you
are a pet owner or a veterinary practitioner. We here discuss some
opportunities to improve the contact in situations where animals are frequently
in contact with humans, often in an aversive situation under the following
headings:

a) Veterinary practice
b) Farm management
c) Animal research

17.5.1 Veterinary Practice

Animals entering the veterinary practice are likely to be in pain or are ill, or will
experience pain during, for example for vaccinations, and after the visit in case
of a surgery. Most animals will therefore have a negative association with the
veterinary clinic, even if this is not present on their first exposure to a clinic.

Animals have an excellent memory of places with negative associations and

may respond with fear, disobedience or aggression when they realize where
they are going to or where they are. This may extend to the vet who has
treated them previously and afterwards people with similar clothes or smell as
the vet may provoke a negative response. Vets and veterinary assistants
should be aware of this and should be cautious but confident when handling
the animal. Pairing treatments and visits with positive rewards (such as treats
if appropriate) can help to reduce the negative associations animals can form
with the veterinary clinic. Physical restraint or rough handling will increase the
difficulty for future visits and should be avoided for the health and welfare of
the animal as well as for the humans’ safety. The relationship between the vet
and the animal can be improved by making the intervention as fast and
painless as possible and by comforting the animal with the species appropriate
contact. Letting the owner stay with the animal may reduce the animal’s fear in
case of a good relationship.

17.5.2 Farm Management

Animal husbandry is often characterized by a large number of animals being
kept by only a few people. This means that there is often little direct attention 133
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
for the individual, as management occurs at the level of the group. Since the
automation of farming systems the attention per animal has decreased even
further. Animals are typically inspected briefly twice a day by visual inspection
at the group level. Other moments of contact may occur when animals are
handled for interventions, which are often painful for the animal (e.g.
castration, injections), and moving them into different facilities or onto the
truck.

Despite this limited contact, the few moments of contact can greatly impact on
the behaviour of the animals. If the stock workers approach the animals
unexpectedly, roughly and loudly, and if handling is rough and related to stress
and pain, then the animals can become fearful of humans and more fearful in
general. A ‘Human-Approach Test’ is a standardized test to scientifically
assess the fearfulness of animals to human presence, and can be carried out
in farm facilities. Fearful animals are more difficult to handle, which may lead
to injuries or bruises for both handler and animal. Stockmanship can be
improved by acting calmly and in line with the species perception of the
environment.

17.5.3 Animal Research

In animal research, the animals are under close supervision, including that of
veterinary inspectors. The animals’ health and welfare must be monitored
under any condition to ensure that welfare is in line with the ethical guidelines
for the research on animals. Research animals are often exposed to frequent
handling and novel situations in which the animal may have to actively
participate. A good human-animal relationship will therefore make a
substantial difference to the ease of handling and testing. As well as being
better for the animals’ welfare and the time management of the people
involved, it will also contribute to better and more reliable test outcomes.
Animals that are stressed, anxious or have been restrained may show different
physiological parameters and behaviour. The human-animal interaction can be
improved by, in addition to the earlier mentioned points, skillful handling and
habituating the animal to test situations to reduce fear, and if the research
allows petting the animal or regular positive physical contact. In animal
research there are often multiple animal caretakers involved.

Having a main caretaker increases the opportunity for the animals to form a
trusting bond with the caretaker.

Before we proceed, please complete activity 5.

Activity 5 (Visit): Visit an animal facility (veterinary clinic, zoo, farm,
research facility) and, based on what you see, think of at least three methods
to improve the human-animal interactions in that facility (Tip: think for
example of staff attitude, expertise of animal care takers, equipment,
individual attention for animal, etc.). Write your remarks

SAQ 4
i) How can the relationship between the vet and the animal be improved?

ii) What is a Human-Approach Test?

134
Unit 17 Improving Animal Welfare through Human Contact

17.6 METHODS FOR IMPROVING HUMAN

ANIMAL RELATIONSHIPS
We here provide three practical science-based methods for improving human
animal relationship. Note that these are not exhaustive and you may think of
other methods to improve the interaction.

a) Predictability and controllability

b) Physical and non-physical contact

c) Taking into account the sensory capacities of the species

17.6.1 Predictability and Controllability

As mentioned at the start of this Unit, predictability and controllability are key
factors for good welfare and thus contribute to a good relationship.
Predictability can be increased by giving structure to the day, with set meal
times and care. Being predictable in your behaviour towards the animal can
reduce stress and can increase the bond. Providing the animal with a certain
degree of controllability can make it easier for the animal to fulfill its needs.
Note that some animals should not be given full control as this may be harmful
for the animal itself or for the surroundings. For example, when some pets are
given the freedom to eat as much as they want, they consistently overeat and
may suffer profound health issues. An example of controllability in farming
systems is the use of electronic feeders that allow the animal to feed when it
wants (but with a predetermined portion). This eliminates the anticipation for
the feeding moment, which can be very stressful in feed restricted animals.
When animals are calmer and more satisfied they can more easily form a
good relationship with humans.

17.6.2 Physical and Non-physical Contact

a) Physical Contact: Gentle physical contact may result in the release of
oxytocin, which is a neurotransmitter and hormone related with affection
(but in some cases also with aggression). Oxytocin contributes to
bonding and can give a positive feeling for both the receiver of touch and
the one who touches. In addition, oxytocin also enhances immune
function and growth and through this pathway may explain how a better
productivity is realized in farm animals that are cared for in a positive
way. Patting an animal in a gentle manner can therefore feel good to the
human as well as the animal. However, take into account the species
specific needs as signals. Not all species are keen on touch and some
will avoid physical contact (for example reptiles). In species that do enjoy
patting and scratching there may be areas on the body which are
sensitive or that they instinctively protect. Prey animals, for example, are
vulnerable in their flanks and this is where a predator would be likely to
attack them. Naturally, their instinct is to protect this area and they may
respond aversively when this area is suddenly approached.

b) Non-physical Contact: Non-physical contact may be even more

important than physical contact, as it is a continuous signal. Animals are
very capable of reading (human) body language, including facial 135
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
expression, and recognizing voice as well as giving meaning to the
emotion expressed by the tone of the voice. Having a positive attitude
towards the animal will be recognized through your body language and
tone of voice, whereas shouting and threat will be picked up as negative
signal. Giving double signals, for example by shouting angrily while not
truly being angry, may confuse the animal and challenge the
communication.

17.6.3 Taking into Account the Sensory Capacities

of the Species
Different species have different sensory modalities that they use for perceiving
the world around them. Humans only use a limited part of the full spectrum of
what can be perceived through vision, hearing, smell and taste. For example,
dogs can hear sound frequencies that humans are unable to hear, many
domestic species (dogs, pigs, rodents) can smell many times better than
humans, and bats and whales use echolocation, a modality that humans do
not possess. In contrast, humans perceive more colours than many animals
do and our visual sight may be better than that of the animals that we interact
with. However, some animals, such as many bird species, can see in visual
spectra, such as ultraviolet, where we cannot and thus a plain white bird or
wall to us, may look different to a bird seeing ultraviolet markings. Assuming
that the animal perceives the world as humans do may limit the
communication and our understanding of the animal’s behaviour. The human-
animal relationship can be improved by taking into account these species-
specific sensory capacities in the interaction with the animal.

Before we proceed, please complete activity 6.

Activity 6 (Observations): Watch people interacting with animals (for

example on the street, in a veterinary clinic, farm or in a horse riding school)
and take the above tips for improving contact into account. Write down for
each interaction what you think they can do to improve the contact or what you
have learnt from watching the interaction.

SAQ 5
i) Write three practical science-based methods for improving human-
animal relationship.

ii) How does predictability and controllability help in improving human-

animal relationships?

iii) How can gentle physical contacts improve human animal relationships?

17.7 ANIMAL SIGNALS

Animals predominantly use body language, including facial expression, to
communicate, but they can also use sound and scent cues. Reading and
136 understanding animal signals is essential for good human-animal
Unit 17 Improving Animal Welfare through Human Contact
relationships. If natural signals are not recognized and consistently ignored
than the animal may start to show increasingly stronger signals. In case of
threat behaviour, which may start with a facial expression, this can continue
into more direct agonistic behaviour or an attack. In most cases animals will
show mild signals first before launching an attack. However, if threat signals
are consistently ignored than the animal may develop a behavioural pattern of
spontaneous aggression.

17.7.1 Prey vs Predator Species

Many of the domesticated animals are prey species (for example rabbits,
cows, sheep). Their instinct is to run away, hide or protect themselves
whenever they are approached by a natural predator. Predators (carnivores)
typically have their eyes facing forward to focus on their prey during the hunt
and they leave scent, which is different from omnivores. In contrast, prey
animals have their eyes to the side of their head so that they have a wider
view on the surrounding area and can better detect approaching predators.
Prey species will recognize predators as such even if the species is not their
natural predator. Note that humans are biologically predators as well, with both
our eyes facing forward. Animals may thus perceive humans as predators and
may respond accordingly if not accustomed to humans. There are various
behavioural signals that can be perceived by prey animal as threat and should
therefore be avoided:

a) Staring an animal straight in the eyes is perceived as threat or signal for

attack

b) Suddenly approaching the animal at a vulnerable part where predators

would commonly attack (such as the flank or neck)

c) Suddenly approaching the animal from the back, may scare the animal.

17.7.2 Predator Species

Predator species are not only the wild animals kept in zoos, like tigers and
lions, but many of our domesticated species are in fact predators. For example
dogs, cats, and mink. A predator’s response to threat may be to fight rather
than to flee. As above, staring a predator species straight in the eyes can be
perceived as a threat but can also challenge the animal to attack. One of the
agonistic signals in predators can be to show the teeth, either as threat or as
mixed signal upon withdrawal. Showing your teeth, for example in a smile,
may therefore have a different meaning for the animal you are interacting with.
Animals use during their agonistic behaviour several cues which can signal
dominance.

Example: Making yourself look larger is a cue for showing that you are
stronger or dominant.

In contrast, making yourself small by crouching is a sign of submission. Such

bodily signals can be used in the communication. Predators are more often
solitary animals (not in the case of dogs for example), in contrast to prey
species which group together to protected themselves against predators. The
interaction with solitary predator species will therefore be different from
interacting with a more social group living species. 137
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
Before we proceed, please complete activity 7.

Activity 7 (Observation): Watch people interacting with animals (for

example on the street, in a veterinary clinic, farm or in a horse riding school)
and take the above tips for improving contact into account. Write down for
each interaction what you think they can do to improve the contact or what
you have learnt from watching the interaction.

SAQ 6
i) Give examples for prey species.

ii) Write the behavioural signals that can be perceived by prey animal as
threat and should therefore be avoided.

iii) Give examples for wild and domesticated predator species.

17.8 HUMAN-ANIMAL CONFLICT

A negative human-animal relationship can result in human-animal conflict with
either harmful consequence for the animal or for the human.

17.8.1 Attacks
Animals that feel threatened may defend themselves or their offspring by
attacking. As discussed earlier, animals usually signal their intent in various
ways such as facial expression, body posture and sound. If these signals are
ignored then the animal may attack. Humans, including children, unaware of
the threat signals of animals will have a greater chance of being involved in an
attack. In particularly children, keen to approach and touch animals, may be
vulnerable to being injured when the animal tries to defend itself. Teaching
children about the signals that animals make is a more effective way of dealing
with this than keeping them away from animals (e.g. see the ladder of
aggression for dog behaviour). Attacks of wild or captive wild animals can
happen for the same reason, when initial threat signals are ignored. However,
wild animals may also attack humans if the human violates the animal’s
territory or forms a threat to the animal or its offspring. Wild animals usually try
to avoid aggression towards humans, this is generally the last resort of animal
that feels threatened or under attack. Trying to avoid surprising a wild animal
(for example by making noises if walking in forests where wild animals live)
and withdrawing or allowing the animal an escape route if unexpectedly
encountering a wild animal can help to reduce human-wild animal conflicts.
Another less frequent form of attack is seen where wild animals kill humans as
prey, which might occur if the wild animal is injured and less able to hunt other
prey species. Captive wild animals, and to some exten domestic animals, may
also attack out of fear and panic when being handled.

17.8.2 Workers Safety

People working directly with animals on a daily basis often know the animals
138 or at least species well. Still, injuries and death of stock workers due to
Unit 17 Improving Animal Welfare through Human Contact
handling animals occur frequently. Animals may attack for various reasons, as
described above, but they can also injure or crush the person when moving.
This can happen either unintentionally in narrow spaces or when the animal is
in panic. The aim is to keep a calm and good relationship with the animal, with
the human being aware of the common behaviour of the animal and the
animal paying attention to the human. Extra caution should be taken when
handling non-castrated male animals, mainly when kept for breeding
purposes. Males have more testosterone, which makes them more likely to be
aggressive, dominant and defensive of their territory or resources. Even male
animals smaller in size than humans can kill when distressed.

17.8.3 Cultural Human-Animal Conflict

There are worldwide various cultural and religious festivals, traditions and
ceremonies in which animals are ritually scarified or injured.

Examples: Bull fights in Spain, Cock fights in South India, Taji dolphin drive
hunt in Japan.

Before we proceed, please complete activity 8.

Activity 8 (Identification): Identify and list any cultural events in the region
where you live (country or state) in which animals are being maltreated,
injured or killed as a ritual or tradition. Write your opinion about such events.

SAQ 7
i) What are the usual signals given by animals before attacking?

ii) Why might wild / captive wild animals attack humans?

iii) Give examples for cultural human-animal conflict.

17.9 SUMMARY
Let us summarise what you have learnt so far:

• In this chapter we discussed how the human-animal relationship can

affect the animal in a positive or negative manner.

• First, we discussed that predictability and controllability are important

factors for reducing stress and increasing welfare.

• Negative contact and neglect can result in difficult behaviour,

disobedience, fear or agonistic behaviour. Negative contact or neglect is
not always intentional and it is important that people owning or working
with animals have a proper understanding about what is harmful.

• In farm practices negative contact can reduce the productivity and

product quality and farmers can therefore have financial benefit when
taking good care of their animals. 139
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
• In turn, positive contact can increase productivity. Positive contact can
stimulate play behaviour and affection and can contribute to a bond
between animal and human in which they can mutually support each
other through their behaviour.

• The human-animal relationship can in particular be improved in

establishments where there are many animals and they are frequently
handled, such as veterinary clinics, farms, and animal research facilities.
Handling animals calmly and skillfully, while taking into account the
species specific behaviour, can improve the human-animal relationship.

• Animals will show various signals through their body language, facial
expression and sound. Paying attention to these signals will improve the
mutual communication.

• Prey species will show different signals and give a different response to
situations than predator species.

• Knowing the differences, and why animals respond the way they do,
help us in understanding their behaviour and enables to handle them in
a manner then will increase trust. Human-animal conflicts may arise if
animal signals are not understood or are ignored, in which case the
animal may attack.

• Attacks can occur out of defense, panic or when being challenged to

fight.

• Animals may also injure or kill humans unintentionally when they are in
panic or when kept in a confined space.

• Human-animal conflict may also be injurious or fatal for the animal, for
example in traditional cultural events.

In the next Unit, we will discuss how to improve animal welfare through genetic
selection.

17.10 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. Give an example of how predictability and controllability can affect
health.

2. Explain the basic physiological pathway of how gentle positive touch can
result in better growth.

3. Give four ways in which human-animal interaction can be improved.

4. Write three important signals that dogs give as a threat before they
attack.

5. Name three differences between prey and predator species.

6. Describe how you would approach a fearful (domesticated) prey animal.

7. Describe how you would approach a (domesticated) predator animal that

140 shows threat signals.
Unit 17 Improving Animal Welfare through Human Contact

17.11 ANSWERS
Self-Assessment Questions
1. i) Unpredictable negative handling by humans can result in
fearfulness in the animal from physical contact, such as physical
abuse, as well as from nonphysical contact through negative
verbal and body language or neglect.

ii) When the action of the human is predictable, the receiver of the
behaviour (the animal) can prepare in the best manner to sustain
its health and welfare. This preparation may include safeguarding
itself (e.g. hiding) from receiving harmful behaviour or relaxation
when having the certainty of knowing that feed will be given every
day. This preparation not only affects behaviour and welfare but
also closely relates to physiology and thus health.

2. i) The negative effects of suboptimal human-animal interactions

includes: development of difficult behaviour; development of fear;
development of agonistic behaviour, and; reduced productivity in
farm animals.

ii) If the human does not understand the animal’s signals, or is

unaware of them being shown, or the human communicates in an
unclear way to the animals, then the animal may gradually start to
show stronger behavioural signals. This can lead to what is called
‘difficult behaviour’, resistance or disobedient behaviour.

iii) A good human-animal relationship, with mutual understanding and

trust, can reduce or eliminate ‘difficult behaviour’.

iv) The factors influencing fearfulness in animals includes: species,

breed, genetics, personality type, and life history.

v) The three ways in which fear may develop as a consequence of

the humananimal relationship are: active negative handling (e.g.
abuse); passive negative handling (lack of appropriate care), and;
neglect (no care).

vi) The most apparent way in which fear can develop is through active
negative handling (Physical abuse like beating, kicking). Negative
behaviour may have a strong component of unpredictability and
uncontrollability for the receiver. A high unpredictability and
uncontrollability are likely to result in fear behaviour, even in the
absence of direct negative behaviour from the human.

vii) Passive negative handling arises from situations in which the

owner is: no longer able to care for the animal; is unaware of the
species’ needs for care, and; is unaware of the importance of the
required care.

viii) Agonistic behaviour is all behaviour related to aggression, ranging

from threat display to the withdrawal after a conflict.

3. i) Group living animals are sensitive to social cues and have a

behavioural repertoire that support group living, such as affiliative 141
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
behaviour (For example, mutual grooming in primates). Whereas
solitary species would move away from contact, group living
species strongly respond to social interaction and have a need for
social attention. Although positive contact is beneficial for any
species, social species are more affected by it.

ii) Social bonds can reduce or eliminate the effects of negative

experiences. Through good human-animal relationships animals
receive social support from contact with humans and they may
form an affectionate bond. Social bonds can reduce or eliminate
the effects of negative experiences. For example, traumatized
animals adopted from animal shelters may revert back to normal
and positive behaviour when a trusting bond is established with the
new owner.

iii) A positive human-animal relationship can increase productivity in

farm animals. Good handling and a positive contact can reduce
stress, increase growth and increase milk production.

4. i) The relationship between the vet and the animal can be improved
by making the intervention as fast and painless as possible and by
comforting the animal with – to the species appropriate – contact.
Letting the owner stay with the animal may reduce the animal’s
fear in case of a good relationship.

ii) Human-Approach Test is a standardized test to scientifically

assess the fearfulness of animals to human presence, and can be
carried out in farm facilities.

5. i) The three practical science-based methods for improving human-

animal relationship are: Predictability and controllability; Physical
and non-physical contact, and; Taking into account the sensory
capacities of the species.

ii) Predictability and controllability are key factors for good welfare
and thus contribute to a good relationship. Predictability can be
increased by giving structure to the day, with set meal times and
care. Being predictable in your behaviour towards the animal can
Providing the animal with a certain degree of controllability can
make it easier for the animal to fulfill its needs. reduce stress and
can increase the bond.

iii) Gentle physical contact may result in the release of oxytocin,

which is a hormone related with affection. Oxytocin contributes to
bonding and can give a positive feeling for both the receiver of
touch and the one who touches. In addition, oxytocin also
enhances immune function and growth and through this pathway
may explain how a better productivity is realized in farm animals
that are cared for in a positive way.

6. i) Many of the domesticated animals are prey species. Example:

Rabbits, cows, sheep.

ii) The behavioural signals that can be perceived by prey animal as

142 threat includes: staring an animal straight in the eyes is perceived
Unit 17 Improving Animal Welfare through Human Contact
as threat or signal for attack; suddenly approaching the animal at a
vulnerable part where predators would commonly attack (such as
the flank or neck), and; suddenly approaching the animal from the
back, may scare the animal.

iii) Examples for wild predator species are tigers, lions and
domesticated predator species dogs, cats, and mink.

7. i) Animals usually signal their intent in various ways such as facial

expression, body posture and sound.

ii) The reasons include: Children, keen to approach and touch

animals, may be vulnerable to being injured when the animal tries
to defend itself; Ignorance of initial threat signals; Violation of
animal’s territory or forms a threat to the animal or its offspring;
Wild animals kill humans as prey, and; Captive wild animals, and
to some extent domestic animals, may also attack out of panic
when being handled.

iii) There are worldwide various cultural and religious festivals,

traditions and ceremonies in which animals are ritually scarified or
injured resulting in conflict. Examples: Bull fights in Spain,
Jallikattu (Bull fight) and Cock fights in India, Taji dolphin drive
hunt in Japan etc.

Terminal Questions
1. Refer to Section 17.2.

2. Refer to Subsection 17.6.2.

3. Refer to Section 17.5.

4. Refer to Section 17.7.

5. Refer to Subsection 17.7.1.

6. Refer to Sections 17.6, 17.7 and 17.8.

7. Refer to Sections 17.6, 17.7 and 17.8.

SUGGESTED READING
1) Grandin, T., and Johnson, C. (2005). Animals in translation: Using the
mysteries of autism to decode animal behaviour. New York: Scribner.

2) Hemsworth, P. H., and Coleman, G. J. (2010). Human-livestock

interactions: The stockperson and the productivity of intensively farmed
animals. CABI.

3) Websites:

4) https://www.bsavalibrary.com/content/cil/canine-and-feline-behaviour/
ladder_of_aggression

143
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II

UNIT 18
IMPROVING ANIMAL WELFARE
THROUGH GENETIC SELECTION

Structure
18.1 Introduction Examples of Undesirable
Effects of Breeding
Objectives
Reversing Undesirable Effects
18.2 The Power of Animal
of Breeding
Breeding
18.5 Using Breeding to Improve
Selective Breeding
Welfare
The Structure of the Animal
Barriers to Selection: Ethical
Breeding Industry
Considerations
18.3 Genetic Versus Non-
Barriers to Selection: Practical
Genetic Determination
Considerations
18.4 Undesirable Effects for
18.7 Summary
Welfare of Past Breeding
Strategies 18.8 Terminal Questions
Causes of Undesirable Effects 18.9 Answers
on Welfare

18.1 INTRODUCTION
Domestication has shaped the characteristics of species for thousands of
years and more recent selective breeding has dramatically increased the rate
of change from the ancestral state. Those features which are the target of
improvement through genetic selection, such as growth rate, are referred to as
‘traits’. Through the process of domestication, the focus of informal breeding
was on reducing the fearfulness and aggressiveness of species towards
humans. More recent structured breeding programmes focus on improving
traits of economic importance (in livestock), convey an aesthetic quality (e.g. in
dog breeding) or allow scientific discovery (e.g. in strains of mice developed as
models of human disease).

In this Unit we discuss:

144 • How past breeding strategies have affected welfare, and

Unit 18 Improving Animal Welfare through Genetic Selection
• How welfare can itself be improved through the use of breeding
technology

The discussion is relevant to all captive species where humans influence the
transmission of genetic information but many of the examples will be from
animal husbandry and agriculture due to the very large number of animals
involved and the scale of the breeding industry that supports their genetic
improvement.

Objectives
a) Knowledge and Understanding: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

• explain the concept of genetic selection in improving animal

welfare,

• appreciate how effective animal breeding can be,

• have insight into how breeding techniques are applied,

• give examples of welfare problems that could be improved by

breeding.

b) Practical and Professional Skills: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

• discuss how past breeding strategies have affected welfare,

• describe how breeding can have benefits for welfare but also the
barriers that need to be overcome to achieve this.

18.2 THE POWER OF ANIMAL BREEDING

18.2.1 Selective Breeding
Selective breeding is unique in that it leads to permanent and cumulative
change that builds from one generation to the next. This means that small
improvements in a trait made in each generation can have very major
implications when summed over many generations (Box 18.1)

Box 18.1: Selective Breeding in Broiler Chicken and Pigs

Broiler Chicken: One of the best examples of the power of selective breeding
is the change in growth rate of broiler (i.e. meat) chickens. Selection over the
past 50 years has been extremely successful, increasing growth rate from 25
to 100 g per day, meaning that birds currently reach slaughter weight in
around 6 weeks.

Pig Breeding: The global pig breeding industry has also had major success in
improving growth rate. Here, the annual improvement in growth rate is around
5 g/pig/day which may seem unimpressive given that a pig may grow in
excess of 1kg per day. However, summed over many generations of selection,
the change means that pigs now grow several times faster than they did a few 145
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
decades ago. Even over shorter time spans, the improvement can be large.
For example, the UK has seen a 21% improvement in the weight of meat
produced from each sow per year over only a 5 year period.

Dairy Cows: Vast increases have also been achieved in milk production from
dairy cows where the highest genetic merit cows now produce in excess of
12,000 litres of milk per year. Over longer time periods, changes can be truly
profound and such changes need to be supported by improvements in
nutrition and management (e.g. a high genetic merit cow can only achieve
high yields of milk if fed appropriately).

18.2.2 The Structure of the Animal Breeding Industry

The conventional approach to quantitative breeding makes use of information

about the relatedness of individuals and their respective performance in the
traits of interest. By this approach, it becomes apparent that certain fathers or
mothers produce offspring that excel in certain traits (e.g. milk yield). This
approach requires the testing of trait performance in the selection candidates
themselves and/or their offspring, siblings, half-siblings and so on. More
recently, selection decisions may also make use of molecular genetic
information.

Example: Genomic selection makes use of knowledge of how each point in

the genome affects the traits of interest.

It is then possible to screen animals for their genetic makeup (their ‘genotype’)
at each of these points to find those whose genome most positively influences
a trait. As costs fall of determining the base-pair sequence of DNA, animal
breeding is also likely to make use of actual sequence data for particularly
important genes.

The domestic species however differ substantially in which traits are selected
upon, to what degree and the methods by which this is achieved.
Consequently, the amount of genetic progress in ‘improving’ a species from its
ancestral state is much greater in some species than in others. In the pig and
poultry industries, large, multinational breeding organizations supply elite
genetic material to farmers and the performance of their offspring in each trait
of interest is measured and compared on dedicated ‘nucleus’ farms. These
industries are also at the cutting edge of developing and using new breeding
technologies to increase the accuracy and speed of response to selection. The
dairy industry is not far behind these others in embracing new technology.
These industries contrast with the sheep sector where breed societies manage
the registration of elite animals but the elite animals themselves and their
offspring are managed on normal farms. To date, the use of molecular genetic
information has been slow in this industry. Even here, however, the uptake of
modern genetic selection methods such as genomic selection is increasing.
Companion animal breeding shows most similarity with sheep breeding in that
breeding occurs mostly at a local level but elite animals are registered by a
146 breed society.
Unit 18 Improving Animal Welfare through Genetic Selection

The species has a short

generation interval

The trait is under strong

The trait can be genetic (rather than
accurately recorded environmental) control
(‘phenotyped’

Fast rate of
genetic
improvement

A large amount of The trait is not undesirably

selection pressure is correlated with another
placed on the trait trait that is also under
selection

Fig. 18.1: Factors determining how quickly a trait responds to selective breeding

To achieve rapid change in one of these, it must not be adversely associated

with any of the others (i.e. improving one trait must not lead to a correlated
deterioration in another).

Some traits respond to breeding more rapidly than others. Within any species,
this speed of progress is determined principally by four factors (Fig. 18.1), plus
the generation interval of the species (how quickly a new-born animal itself
becomes a parent):

a) Firstly, to make rapid progress in a trait, it must be possible to record it

accurately so that an accurate reflection can be given of how ‘good’ or
‘bad’ an individual is compared to its peers. This process of recording
performance in a trait is called ‘phenotyping’.

b) Secondly, the recorded trait must be under a large amount of genetic

determination rather than simply affected by non-genetic environmental
conditions.

c) Thirdly, rapid progress can be achieved when much selection pressure

is placed on a trait. This means that the trait is a priority and the
improvement of other traits is a secondary objective.

d) Lastly, several traits are usually simultaneously the target of selection.

Before we proceed, please complete activity 1. 147

Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
Activity 1 (Visit): If possible, visit a nearby poultry / pig research facility and
discuss with breeders on traits for which they are doing selective breeding.
Write your observations.

SAQ 1
i) What is meant by traits?

ii) What is the focus of recent structured breeding programmes?

iii) Why is selective breeding unique?

iv) How is sheep breeding different from pig / poultry breeding?

v) What is Phenotyping?

18.3 GENETIC VERSUS NON-GENETIC

DETERMINATION
Most traits are influenced by a combination of the animal’s underlying
genotype (i.e. its specific and unique genetic makeup) and the past and
current environment. Therefore, when a trait varies in its expression within
a population, we can quantify how much of this variation is due to
genetic and how much is due to non-genetic differences between
animals. The strength of the genetic contribution is termed as the
‘heritability’ of the trait. Heritability is measured on a scale of 0 to 1 and
expresses the proportion of the total variation seen in a trait that is due
to additive genetic effects. In this definition ‘additive’ simply means genetic
differences between animals that are passed on to the offspring to make it
clear that epigenetic modifications (i.e. changes to the expression of genes
that don`t influence the genetic code itself) do not count towards a heritability
figure. A heritability of zero means that there is no visible genetic explanation
for why a trait differs in expression between animals. A heritability of one
means that all of the variation between animals can be explained by
differences in their genotypes and that the environment does not alter
expression (e.g. eye colour). The expression of most, if not all, traits of welfare
significance vary between animals as a result of a complex mix of genetic and
environmental causes. As such, welfare relevant traits have a significant
heritability, although the genotype usually contributes less than the
environment to variation in trait expression. Welfare traits are usually
genetically complex and influenced by the small contribution of many, and
often hundreds, of genes. The heritability of a number of health, neonatal
survival and behavioural traits has been estimated in livestock, companion and
laboratory species. In most cases, moderate heritabilities have been reported,
usually in the range of 0.1 to 0.5. Based on this genetic variation, it has been
possible to set up selection experiments where a population is made to
diverge into two lines that contrast in their expression of a welfare trait. For
example, populations exist that show a high or low genetic tendency to
perform feather pecking (see Unit 16, section 16.3.3 for a description of this
behaviour) as a result of mating high feather pecking birds together or low
feather pecking birds together. Large differences in the expression of this
148 behaviour are seen in these birds after only a few generations of selection.
Unit 18 Improving Animal Welfare through Genetic Selection

SAQ 2
i) What is meant by genotype?

ii) Write the meaning of the heritability of a trait.

18.4 UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS FOR WELFARE

OF PAST BREEDING STRATEGIES
18.4.1 Causes of Undesirable Effects on Welfare
Genes often have pleiotropic effects, meaning that one gene can
influence the expression of several traits at the same time even if the
traits appear to be unrelated. Two genes with different effects (e.g. one
affecting a production trait and one affecting a welfare trait) can also be
inherited together if located in close proximity on the chromosome. This
means that breeding for an economic or aesthetic trait has the potential to lead
to desirable or undesirable genetic change in other traits of welfare
significance.

18.4.2 Examples of Undesirable Effects of Breeding

Much evidence has now gathered of how targeting selection on production
traits in livestock or conformational and aesthetic traits in companion animals
has led to undesirable correlated changes in welfare traits. In the case of
livestock, extensively managed breeds that have traditionally been under less
intense selection pressure are not immune to undesirable effects. For
example, increasing the number of lambs born by each female is likely to have
contributed to a reduction in lamb survival and increasing the muscularity of
beef calves has contributed to problems at parturition (‘dystocia’).
Nevertheless, breeding-related welfare challenges are most commonly
associated with the highly selected poultry, dairy and pig sectors. Several
examples exist in each species and include cardiovascular problems and
lameness in fast growing broiler chickens, skeletal weakness in high egg
producing hens, poor neonatal survival in large litters of pigs and increased
lameness and mastitis in high milk yielding dairy cows.

Selection of dog breeds, and more recently cat breeds, for particular aesthetic
characteristics, such as short noses relative to the skull length, small size,
shorter limbs and long backs, have also resulted in undesirable welfare-related
traits. For example short-nosed or ‘flat-faced’ breeds of dog are prone to
respiratory and thermoregulatory distress, long backed dogs experience spinal
weakness and paralysis and dogs bred for short limbs can experience arthritis
and other joint problems.

Laboratory species are often deliberately bred to show genetic susceptibility to

specific diseases such that these can be studied to aid understanding of
human disease. Small populations also risk in-breeding where animals of
close genetic relatedness are mated and the offspring suffer from health
problems as a result of inheriting multiple copies of an allele that confers
susceptibility to a disease. Such inbreeding can reduce health in zoo
populations and rare breeds where members of the breed are mated together
to maintain the breed’s distinctive identity. 149
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
18.4.3 Reversing Undesirable Effects of Breeding
Since the early 1980s, awareness of these welfare issues and research to
address them has grown. The increasing use made of molecular genetic
information in breeding decisions, such as exploiting genomic selection, is
expected to greatly increase the rate of genetic change achieved by breeding.
This rate of change may in some cases double. Modern breeding technology
therefore has the potential accelerate undesirable changes in traits of welfare
significance and, conversely, may improve our ability to use breeding as a tool
to directly improve welfare (the subject of section 18.6.).

Progress has been made in reversing or controlling undesirable welfare

consequences whilst still allowing genetic improvement in economically
important traits. In some cases addressing a problem has been simplified by
the role of one or a small number of genes in the expression of the trait. The
genetic cause of sudden death syndrome in pigs triggered by periods of stress
was found and then controlled by careful breeding. Homozygosity (the
expression of two copies of an allele at a specific point in the genome) was the
cause of this syndrome but this homozygosity had been encouraged by
breeding since it confers an advantage in growth rate. Most other traits are
under the control of many genes, but progress in improving them can still be
made. The dairy breeding industry can illustrate how breeding priorities have
changed in recent years to tackle complex traits. Traditionally, dairy breeding
targeted an improvement in milk yield and the proportion of protein and fat in
the milk. This led to very large improvements in milk yield and quality but
deteriorations in lameness and mastitis resistance and in fertility and lifespan.
These deteriorations have become so significant in all countries that most
national dairy breeding strategies now place at least some focus on welfare or
functional traits in addition to production traits. In the UK, the Profitable
Lifetime Index now places more pressure on these non-production traits
(lameness and mastitis resistance, lifespan, calving ease and fertility) than
conventional production traits (Fig. 18.2).

Udder Lifespan
7% 14% Production
32%
Mastitis
9%

Fertility
20%
Feet and legs
6%

Calving ease Maintenance

2% 10%

Fig.18.2: Relative weight placed on traits within the Profitable Lifetime Index
used to breed dairy cows

(Source: AHDB Dairy;https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technicalinformation /breeding-

150 genetics/%C2%A3pli/)
Unit 18 Improving Animal Welfare through Genetic Selection
Whilst this broadening of the breeding strategy to include health traits has
reduced the rate at which milk related traits can be improved, the overall
profitability for the farmer has been increased. This is because veterinary
costs have been reduced, periods of low milk yield or where milk must be
discarded have been reduced and the cows have a longer lifespan.

SAQ 3
i) Write the causes of undesirable genetic effects on welfare.

ii) Give examples of undesirable effects of breeding.

18.5 USING BREEDING TO IMPROVE WELFARE

Some complex welfare problems have proven remarkably resistant to
improvement through management change alone. This is true of redirected
social behaviour such as tail and ear biting in pigs and feather pecking and
cannibalism in hens. The prevention of these behaviours can be achieved by
the provision of resources that allow an appropriately targeted outlet for the
foraging motivation. Providing these resources comes with a large economic
cost, which is unsustainable for most intensive farmers. Extensive farming
systems also have welfare problems that are difficult to improve through
management change. Preventing neonatal mortality in sheep that give birth
outdoors in unpredictable weather is challenging. Similarly, control of
lameness in sheep and cattle that live in wet conditions on pasture
contaminated by pathogens is difficult. For these reasons, some welfare
problems have persisted for decades and are likely to remain a routine and
tolerated aspect of modern production. Continued effort is required to find
affordable management solutions to these problems, but research effort in
recent years has also explored the genetic basis to these traits and the
potential to improve them through selective breeding. Deliberate changes in
breeding strategy have also been made in order to reverse the welfare
consequences of previous selection focussed only on a narrow range of traits.
This has been seen in dairy breeding (see above), but also to control tibial
dyschondroplasia in broilers (inadequate development of the cartilage leading
to pathologies in the growth plate), to prevent sudden death syndrome in pigs,
to reduce health problems from in-breeding in a range of species and to some
extent to control pathologies in dog breeds.

Breeding therefore has the potential to greatly improve welfare as well as to

reduce it. From this, it should be clear that animal breeding is not in itself a
technique that inevitably reduces welfare. It is simply a tool but it is the manner
in which it is used that determines the impact on welfare. The use of breeding
to combat welfare problems has a very major advantage that traits can be
improved without the requirement for expensive structural or management
changes by the animal owner. Therefore, it offers a very efficient, permanent
and inexpensive way to improve welfare problems. Since genetics usually
contributes less than 50% to the variation in expression of a trait in a
population, approaches where we adapt the animals by genetic selection
should be complemented by continued efforts to optimize the environment for 151
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
the animals. Two case study examples are given of how breeding may help to
alleviate significant welfare problems that have existed for many decades
(Boxes 18.2 and 18.3).

Box 18.2: Case Study - Neonatal Survival in Piglets

Piglet mortality is close to 20%, including still-births, and has remained at this
high level without improvement for a long time. Past selection strategies have
focussed on breeding sows to produce the maximum number of piglets born.
Piglet birth weight fell as a consequence of this which increased the mortality
rate of piglets during the first one or two days of life. Adjusting selection criteria
to include neonatal survival, in addition to number born, is a more sustainable
strategy and one that has allowed litter size to be increased without increasing
the proportion of piglets that die.

The Danish pig industry has pioneered this approach and now has extremely
large litters (Fig. 18.3). It has achieved an increase of 2.3 pigs weaned/ litter in
the last 10 years. To actually reduce the proportion of piglets that die would
require greater selection pressure to be placed on survival (i.e. making it a
higher priority relative to other traits under selection). Different strategies could
also be taken, such as reducing the variation in birth weight within a litter.
Currently large differences exist between the smallest and largest piglets
within a litter and the smallest often die as they fail to compete for access to
milk. Canalised selection programmes aim to reduce variation in a trait and
could improve survival by removing from the population particularly small and
large piglets. Selecting for improved placental efficiency might also improve
birth weight and help to reduce the proportion of piglets that die. A major
cause of piglet mortality is crushing by the mother as she lies down. A minority
of mothers are responsible for the majority of crushing deaths with some killing
31% of their piglets. Breeding for improved maternal behaviour therefore could
have a major role to play in improving piglet survival.

Fig. 18.3: Selective breeding for large litter size in pigs has been highly
successful but tends to create a large number of small and weak
piglets

Breeding also has great potential to improve survival of neonatal lambs.

152 Worldwide pre-weaning lamb mortality averages 15-20% and, like piglet
Unit 18 Improving Animal Welfare through Genetic Selection
mortality, has not improved in recent decades. Death is likely to be prolonged
and involve considerable suffering through starvation and hypothermia.
Importantly, management options to protect or treat neonatal lambs are
usually lacking in extensive outdoor production systems. Neonatal lamb vigour
is a major determinant of survival. Lamb vigour is easy to record and has a
moderately heritability. For example, a reduced ability to suck milk from the
mother has a heritability of 0.32 which is higher than some other traits
currently under selection (e.g. litter size only has a heritability of 0.16). Simple
scores for lamb vigour and sucking ability have been developed and are
starting to be adopted by the most progressive farmers.

Recent changes in breeding strategy have allowed litter size to be increased

without increasing the proportion of piglets that die.

Box 18.3: Case Study – Footrot

Lameness of sheep and cattle caused by the virulent anaerobic bacterium

Dichelobacter nodosus is called ‘footrot’ and is a painful hoof infection. It is
endemic in countries with wet climates where footrot hoof lesions have a
prevalence of up to 23%. Infection can be prevented and controlled by careful
hygiene but this is time consuming and requires continuous vigilance and
action by the farmer (e.g. by use of foot-bathing with bactericidal chemicals
and separation of infected from uninfected animals). Most farmers find it
difficult to follow such strict hygiene and biosecurity precautions and efficient
management can be problematic even on well-managed farms. Footrot
resistance is heritable in sheep (heritability 0.15-0.25). Simple 5-point scoring
methods exist for recording the severity of lesions and are being used in the
breeding programmes of some countries to reduce footrot prevalence.

18.5.1 Barriers to Selection: Ethical Considerations

From a technical perspective, breeding has great potential to minimise the
expression of welfare traits. However, deliberate selection to improve welfare,
particularly where this involves modifying behaviour, may be unwelcome by
some. There are various reasons for this:

a) Any change, especially a behavioural one, may be seen to reduce the

‘naturalness’ of the animal. A counter argument could be made that
selection to improve welfare may actually reverse the effects of past
selection and make the animals more representative of their ancestral or
wild state.

Example: Redirected behaviours that cause injury to group members

have never been observed in the wild, so their reduction would make the
behaviour of livestock more natural, not less.

b) Economic and practical barriers should not be allowed to prevent the

adoption of interventions that are already well known to reduce a welfare
problem and that breeding should not be relied upon as an alternative
solution. An alternative view may be that consumer pressure and
legislation has failed in the past to motivate the uptake of costly 153
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
management interventions and is unlikely to do so in the near future.
Therefore, an argument could be made that on-going and routine
welfare problems should be addressed with every tool available,
including breeding.

c) It could have unintended and undesirable impacts on other welfare

relevant traits that we do not yet know about.

d) Selection against the expression of a trait does not necessarily mean

that the experiences for the animal will improve. For example, it is
unclear if a pig which does not tail bite is happier in a stimulus-poor,
barren environment than one which does. Equally, if we were to select
against the expression of lameness by measuring difficulty during
walking, we may inadvertently select for animals that are simply good at
hiding pain.

18.5.2 Barriers to Selection: Practical Considerations

For a simple trait like growth rate, few barriers exist to implementing selection.
The trait is easy, accurate and inexpensive to record and the economic
benefits of its improvement (its ‘economic value’) are easy to estimate and are
large. For welfare relevant traits, more significant barriers need to be
overcome before selection pressure can be placed on them (Figure 18.4):

• Welfare traits are often costly and difficult to measure (e.g. health traits
and redirected behaviour where it is easier to identify the victims than
the perpetrators).

The trait is difficult or costly to

record (e.g. a complex
behavioural trait)

Placing selection pressure on any

new trait means that less progress
can be made in existing traits that
are already being selected for. Practical
This might reduce profitability barriers to
implementi
ng selective
breeding to
If improvement in a welfare improve a
trait directly causes another
economic trait to welfare trait
worsen, improving both
simultaneously is not
impossible but difficult

It is hard to estimate the

economic and societal value
of improving a welfare trait

Fig. 18.4: Practical barriers that make it difficult to improve a welfare trait
through selective breeding

• The inclusion of a new trait in the collection of traits already under

154 selection (the ‘selection index’) inevitably reduces the amount of
Unit 18 Improving Animal Welfare through Genetic Selection
progress that can be made in the existing traits. This is problematic for
welfare traits where the economic benefits (if any) and the societal or
ethical benefits of improving a trait are hard to measure and may seem
inadequate to justify reducing progress in traits that have a clear and
large economic value.

• Selection to improve a welfare trait is even harder to justify if the trait is

correlated in an undesirable way with an economic trait. For example,
reducing a health problem that has resulted from selection for fast
growth is likely to lead to a reduction in growth rate. In a situation like
this, improving the health trait may be economically feasible if it
improves survival, reduces veterinary costs and allows the animals to
feed properly.

From the discussion above it should come as no surprise that few welfare
traits are currently being improved by selective breeding even though many
technically could be. It is also evident that those which are under selection
have a clear welfare impact but also a clear economic impact. So far, this
means that survival and health traits that majorly constrain productivity have
been the focus of attention. It is likely that selection on other traits will become
more feasible in the future as the automation of phenotyping becomes
possible and the costs of technology for exploiting molecular genetic
information fall (such as genomic selection which does not require routine
phenotyping).

SAQ 4
i) How may breeding help to alleviate significant welfare problems that
have existed for many decades?
ii) Write any two ethical considerations in genetic selection.

18.7 SUMMARY
Let us summarise what you have learnt so far:
• Animal breeding has proven to be a highly effective way of maximising
the benefits that humans derive from animals, whether these are
economic, cultural or aesthetic.
• Genetic change has been achieved at different rates and by different
means in different species. The application of modern breeding
techniques is likely to accelerate the improvement of traits under
selection.
• In most cases, traits that affect welfare are heritable and often to a
higher degree than economically important traits that are currently the
focus of selective breeding.
• We have seen many examples of how breeding can have negative
effects on welfare in all forms of captive species. Inclusion of welfare
traits in breeding strategies has in some cases reversed (at least in part)
the negative effects of past selection. 155
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
• Many other traits cause serious welfare problems and have become a
tolerated and routine aspect of the way that we manage animals. These
traits could be improved substantially by placing selection pressure on
them.

• There are significant ethical and economic barriers to directly selecting

to improve welfare traits. Some of the economic barriers are likely to be
overcome in the future by the greater uptake of modern breeding
approaches that reduce the costs of recording complex traits.

18.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. Explain why animal breeding is so effective in creating change in traits of
use to humans.

2. Describe what is meant by the term ‘heritability’.

3. Give examples of the way in which past selection strategies have had a
negative effect on animal welfare.

4. Describe how some negative consequences of past selection strategies

have been reversed by changing the breeding strategy itself.

5. Name some of the long-standing welfare problems that could be

improved by future selective breeding.

18.9 ANSWERS
Self-Assessment Questions
1. i) The features which are the target of improvement through genetic
selection, such as growth rate, are referred to as ‘traits’.

ii) More recent structured breeding programmes focus on improving

traits of economic importance (in livestock), convey an aesthetic
quality (e.g. in dog breeding) or allow scientific discovery (e.g. in
strains of mice developed as models of human disease).

iii) Selective breeding is unique in that it leads to permanent and

cumulative change that builds from one generation to the next.
Small improvements in a trait made in each generation can have
very major implications when summed over many generations.
Example: change in growth rate of broiler chickens.

iv) In the pig and poultry industries, large, multinational breeding

organizations supply elite genetic material to farmers and the
performance of their offspring in each trait of interest is measured
and compared on dedicated ‘nucleus’ farms. These industries
contrast with the sheep sector where breed societies manage the
registration of elite animals but the elite animals themselves and
their offspring are managed on normal farms.
v) To make rapid progress in a trait, it must be possible to record it
accurately so that an accurate reflection can be given of how well
or bad an individual is compared to its peers. This process of
156 recording performance in a trait is called ‘phenotyping’.
Unit 18 Improving Animal Welfare through Genetic Selection
2. i) Genotype is specific and unique genetic makeup of an animal.

ii) The strength of the genetic contribution is termed as the

‘heritability’ of the trait. Heritability is measured on a scale of 0 to 1
and expresses the proportion of the total variation seen in a trait
that is due to additive genetic effects.

3. i) Genes often have pleiotropic effects, meaning that one gene can
influence the expression of several traits at the same time even if
the traits appear to be unrelated. Two genes with different effects
(e.g. one affecting a production trait and one affecting a welfare
trait) can also be inherited together if located in close proximity on
the chromosome. This means that breeding for an economic or
aesthetic trait has the potential to lead to desirable or undesirable
genetic change in other traits of welfare significance.

ii) Example for undesirable effects of breeding include cardiovascular

problems and lameness in fast growing broiler chickens, skeletal
weakness in high egg producing hens, poor neonatal survival in
large litters of pigs, increased lameness and mastitis in high milk
yielding dairy cows, respiratory and thermoregulatory problems for
short-nosed (brachycephalic) dog breeds.

4. i) The use of breeding to combat welfare problems has a very major

advantage that traits can be improved without the requirement for
expensive structural or management changes by the animal
owner. It offers a very efficient, permanent and inexpensive way to
improve welfare problems. Since genetics usually contribute less
than 50% to the variation in expression of a trait in a population,
approaches where we adapt the animals by genetic selection
should be complemented by continued efforts to optimize the
environment for the animals.

ii) Any change, especially a behavioural one, may be seen to reduce

the ‘naturalness’ of the animal. Economic and practical barriers
should not be allowed to prevent the adoption of interventions that
are already well known to reduce a welfare problem and that
breeding should not be relied upon as an alternative solution.
Selection against the expression of a trait does not necessarily
mean that the experiences for the animal will improve.

Terminal Questions

1. Refer to Section 18.2.

2. Refer to Section 18.3.

3. Refer to Subsection 18.4.1 and 18.4.2.

4. Refer to Subsection 18.4.3 and 18.4.4.

5. Refer to Section 18.5. 157

Block 4 Animal Welfare-II

SUGGESTED READING
1. Rauw, W.M., Kanis, E., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N. and Grommers, F.J.
(1998). Undesirable side effects of selection for high production
efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science, 56:
15-33 (This paper published in a peer reviewed journal gives the most
comprehensive description of the welfare traits that have been harmed
by selective breeding for productivity).

2. Rodenburg, T.B. and Turner, S.P. (2012). The role of breeding and
genetics in the welfare of farm animals. Animal Frontiers, 2: 16-21 (This
paper is also published in a peer review journal and is open access. It
describes how far we have come in improving welfare in the pig and
poultry industries by using breeding).

3. Simm, G. (1998). Genetic improvement of cattle and sheep. Published

by CAB International (This book gives an accessible overview of how
breeding takes place in these species and will be useful as a more
detailed guide to the mechanism, science and industry behind
commercial breeding).

4. https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/technical-information/breeding-
genetics/%C2%A3pli/

5. The AHDB website above gives a little more information on the UK

Profitable Lifetime Index for dairy cattle.

158
Unit 19 Animal Ethics and Sentience

UNIT 19
ANIMAL ETHICS AND
SENTIENCE

Structure
19.1 Introduction 19.5 Overview of Animal
Sentience
Objectives
What is Sentience?
19.2 What is Ethics?
Why is Sentience Important
Personal Ethics
in Animal Welfare?
Professional Ethics
19.6 Scientific Evidence for
Organisational Ethics Animal Sentience
19.3 Ethical Views or Theories Evidence from Neuroscience
Contractarian View Evidence from Behavioural
Utilitarianism Science

The Animal Rights View Evidence from Cognitive

Ethology
Virtue Ethics View
19.7 Summary
The Relational View
19.8 Terminal Questions
The Respect for Nature View
19.9 Answers
19.4 Ethical Decision Making

19.1 INTRODUCTION
In previous Units you have learnt different conceptions of animal welfare and
the scientific methods we can use to measure and describe animal welfare.
We have also covered how animal welfare can be assessed, the different
steps that are required, and the methods that can be used to improve animal
welfare.

In this Unit we will address why animal welfare is considered to be important,

and return to some of the concepts and thinking that we introduced at the very
start. In Unit 1 the idea of ethical and moral reasons why animal welfare is
considered important was introduced very briefly. In this Unit we will discuss
more about the different areas of ethical thinking, and how this relates to our 159
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
relationships with animal welfare, and decision-making concerning the use of
animals. In Unit 1 we also talked about animal sentience, and why that
concept mattered for animal welfare. We will consider animal sentience again
here and review the scientific evidence for the presence of sentience in
different types of animals, taking into consideration evidence from
neuroscience, behaviour and cognitive studies. After completing this Unit you
should have a better theoretical grasp of animal welfare ethics and how these
can be applied to decision-making for animal treatment, and understand how
we might decide to which animals welfare concerns should apply

Objectives
a) Knowledge and Understanding: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

• explain the main theories of ethics applied to animals,

• appreciate animal sentience and its role in animal welfare.

b) Practical and Professional Skills: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

• apply ethical reasoning to animal welfare issues.

19.2 WHAT IS ETHICS?

Ethics can be defined as a set of moral reactions or principles that serve
as a guide for a person’s actions. Animal welfare can be an emotionally
charged subject, and sometimes we may react based on feelings or intuitions
alone – we may not like to see something and our immediate response might
be to condemn it. However, ethics is about reasoning and is important in our
treatment of animals as it allows us to make rational decisions about
appropriate ways to treat animals. It considers what is right and wrong about
the ways that we use and interact with animals. Unlike some of the scientific
arguments you have read in earlier Units, these questions cannot be solely
factual, but are based on differing concepts and moral preferences which can
be discussed and debated. If we base animal welfare decisions solely on our
feelings (e.g. stating ‘I don’t like that way of treating an animal’) these cannot
be properly debated as it is merely an expression of opinion, or a report of a
preference. If however, we state that something is ‘morally wrong’ we need to
be able to support that with reasoned arguments that justifies these views.
Further, not only should these be reasoned but they should be applicable
consistently in different contexts

Below we will consider the different ethical theories or views, particularly in

their application to animals. However, it is worth firstly briefly discussing the
following types of ethics that we may be exposed to in our day-to-day lives:

1) Personal ethics

2) Professional ethics

160 3) Organisational ethics

Unit 19 Animal Ethics and Sentience
19.2.1 Personal Ethics
We will all have our own personal views on what is right or wrong and, when
we discuss different ethical theories below, we are likely to be drawn to one or
more of these more strongly than others. We can see this where, within any
country, some people might find hunting, or eating meat, morally unacceptable
whereas others do not. In terms of personal ethics some may find
consumption of some animals unacceptable – for example, in Europe, most
people would feel that it is unacceptable to eat dogs or cats, but have no
problem with eating pigs or sheep. If someone believes it is morally
unacceptable to eat mammals, perhaps on the grounds of their similarity to
humans or some other logical reason, then this would be an inconsistent
argument since it is not applied across all contexts. However, if we believe it is
only acceptable to eat animals raised specifically for human consumption then
this argument would not be inconsistent as, in Europe, cats and dogs are not
farmed for human consumption. Despite our personal ethical views of the
world sometimes we need to abide by other ethical codes, which may differ
from our personal ethics.

19.2.2 Professional Ethics

Professional ethics are those accepted codes of practice held by a particular
group of people or professions. For example, veterinarians swear an oath on
joining their profession, which can be interpreted as the ethical or moral
principles by which the practice of their profession is governed. For example,
in India, the veterinarian oath on being admitted to the profession is:

‘Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to

use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the
protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of
livestock resources, the promotion of public health and the advancement of
medical knowledge

I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping with

the principles of veterinary medical ethics.

I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional

knowledge and competence’.

And in the UK the oath is:

“ I PROMISE AND SOLEMNLY DECLARE that I will pursue the work of my

profession with integrity and accept my responsibilities to the public, my
clients, the profession and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and that,
ABOVE ALL, my constant endeavour will be to ensure the health and welfare
of animals committed to my care.”

In both cases, these set out the ethical view of the profession and should
supersede any personal ethical viewpoints if they conflict with these
statements when at working as a veterinarian.

19.2.3 Organisational Ethics

Some organisations or companies may also have ethical or moral principles. 161
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
Sometimes these might be referred to as organisational ‘values’ or social
responsibilities. These may, for example, refer to the needs for all employees
to treat others fairly and with respect. In some cases these may also consider
specific issues to do with animals, or be encompassed in a more general view
of respect for nature or living things. For some companies, these can be very
important if these are part of what makes them unique or different to other
companies offering similar services. So, for example, a food retailer that might
trade on having higher levels of social justice and animal welfare than other
retailers, may have aspects of corporate responsibility that expect its suppliers
to have higher standards of animal welfare. For these companies any negative
publicity around poor treatment of animals may be very damaging, as it
conflicts with their values, and thus their unique selling points (USPs).
Companies would expect their employees to support their organisational
ethical views, regardless of their personal ethical perspectives.

Before we proceed, please complete activity 1.

Activity 1(Discussion): Discuss with 2-3 nearby veterinarians about

conflicting personal and professional ethics related to animal welfare. How do
they handle those conflicts? Compare their responses to the discussion given
in the section and write your observations:

Before we proceed, please complete activity 2

Activity 2 (Review): Browse the website of any global restaurant company /

food retailer and review its policy on improving the welfare of animals
throughout their lives in the supply-chain. Write your findings on the following:

a) Why does animal welfare matter to the restaurant company/food

retailer?

b) Approach to improve animal welfare (e.g. quality, partnerships,

communication etc)

c) Actions to improve animal welfare (e.g. standards, audit, transportation,

slaughter etc)

d) Any other observations

SAQ 1
i) What is meant by ethics?

ii) Why is understanding ethics important in dealing with animal welfare?

iii) Write briefly the meaning of the following:

a) Personal Ethics:

b) Professional Ethics:

c) Organisational Ethics:

162
Unit 19 Animal Ethics and Sentience

19.3 ETHICAL VIEWS OR THEORIES

There are differing accepted ethical views or theories distinguished by moral
philosophers which could apply to our treatment of animals. Some of these are
contrasting positions, which might lead to markedly different positions about
what is acceptable in interacting with animals. The following six views /
theories are widely described positions when considering animals:

1) Contractarian view

2) Utilitarian view

3) The animal rights view

4) Virtue ethics view

5) The relational view

6) The respect for nature view

19.3.1 Contractarian View

The key principle of this view is: ‘Morality is based on agreement’

This view suggests that being moral is in your own self-interest. By showing
consideration for the feelings or positions of others, we are really behaving in a
way that is for our own sake. Part of these arguments suggest that only human
are truly able to make contracts, and as animals cannot, then people only
need to treat them as well as is needed for them to be used effectively. This
moral position suggests that any animal use for human benefit, such as food,
new medical treatment or financial gain (such as entertainment) is acceptable.
This view only protects animals where they matter to people, and might confer
greater protection on an animal that is important to humans, rather than for its
own sake.

In reality this ethical view might explain how the same species (for example a
rabbit) might be treated differently, both legally and in terms of accepted
approaches, if it is a pet rabbit, a food rabbit, a laboratory rabbit or a wild
rabbit often considered a pest in some environments. The rabbit is still a rabbit
in all situations, but the view of the rabbit’s value changes depending on which
situation the rabbit is from the perspective of human benefit.

19.3.2 Utilitarianism
The key principle of this view is: ‘Morality is about maximising human and
animal well-being’.

This theory is a well-known and well-used approach to animal ethics, but is

based on benevolence towards animals as its starting point, not self interest
(as in the Contractarian view). The aim of this view is to maximise the benefits
and to always attempt to bring about the best possible consequences from our
actions, taking into account all those affected by the decision. This form of
ethics was developed by the English Philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, in the
1700s, based on earlier thinking and writing of the Greek hedonists, Aristippus
and Epicurus. Many areas where we might think about animal use, such as for 163
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
food or use in experiments, have been considered under the utilitarian ethical
arguments. For example, Peter Singer (a well-known American professor and
pioneer of the animal liberation movement) has used utilitarian ethical
reasoning to argue that, if it is possible to survive and be healthy without
eating meat, milk, fish or dairy, then one ought to choose not to eat animal
products because this is an unnecessary harm to the animals (considering the
benefits to the animals). Similarly, with experimental studies, an ethical review
of the benefits of the research (often the benefits to humans) is considered
against the possible harms (usually to the animals) when deciding if it is
ethically acceptable to carry out the research.

19.3.3 The Animal Rights View

The key principle of this view is: ‘Good results cannot justify evil means’

This ethical view can be considered as legal rights (which are created and
exist within legal systems) and moral rights (which are not created by law).
Although rights were originally seen as being something akin to ‘moral status’
and only held by humans, some philosophers have extended this view to
animals as well. They argue that rights should not be just based on biological
arguments (such as belonging to the species Homo sapiens), but should be
extended to all animals possessing particular capacities or capabilities (such
as sentience). Supporters of animal rights can span a range of differing
positions concerning which capacities that animals must have to have rights,
and which rights should be extended to animals. For some supporters of this
ethical view, such as Tom Regan (a well-known philosopher of animal rights),
all creatures that are sentient should have equal rights and inherent value,
regardless of their use to others. This view then explicitly contradicts the
utilitarian view that suggests that some animals can suffer if this is for the
greater good, and the total sum of benefit is greater than the amount of
suffering. For animal rights supporters ‘the disrespectful treatment of the
individual in the name of social good [is] something the rights view will
not…ever allow’ (Regan, 1989, ‘The Case for Animal Rights’).

19.3.4 Virtue Ethics View

The key principle of this view is: How would a morally virtuous person treat
animals?

This ethical view addresses how to be a morally virtuous person in the way we
behave towards animals, where virtue can be considered to be in possession
of a consistent and persistent set of dispositions to think, behave, judge and
feel in the right way. This may lead to feelings of mercy towards animals, or
lead people to behave with compassion, temperance and honesty instead of
callousness, cruelty or greed. Unlike some other ethical views, such as
utilitarianism or rights views, a significant role for emotions is allowed, as well
as reason. This view can also be related to the ethics of care – where it can be
considered wrong to harm animals not because it will cause more suffering (as
with the utilitarian view) or because the animal has rights which will be violated
(the rights view) but because harming the animal reflects a lack of care or an
inappropriate emotional response in the person doing the harming. These
ethical views are considered contextual views of our ethical responsibilities
towards animals, and a specific area of ethical thinking in this area is the
164 relational view, which will be discussed next.
Unit 19 Animal Ethics and Sentience
19.3.5 The Relational View
The key principle of this view is: ‘Morality grows out of our relationship with
animals and one another’

This is a relatively modern ethical view that considers that the right thing to do
is about the relationships that we have with others, including animals. A key
part of this is about respect, and this branch of ethics is often used in health
care and clinical practice, although it can also apply to our treatment of
animals. This places an importance on the relationships between animals and
humans, and thus our duties towards animals depend on whether they are
close to us or not, or whether they are under our care or not (such as
comparing domestic animals to wildlife). This is similar to virtue ethics
(discussed in 19.3.4) but goes further in encouraging close relationships
between humans and animals, and that responsibilities lie in the closeness of
those relationships. Thus, following this view, a relational theorist might argue
that our pet dog should be treated better than an animal on a farm or in a
laboratory (at least by the owner) as the relationship is stronger. In addition,
we may have a greater moral obligation towards domestic animals, as we
have to some extent ‘created’ them through selective breeding, compared to
wild animals. Whilst this might well be what happens in practice, this does
mean that there might be categories of animals, such as wildlife pests, to
which no protection at all might be extended.

19.3.6 The Respect for Nature View

The previous ethical or moral views of our treatment of animals have all
focused on animals as individuals, and that their sentience and capacity to
suffer is a key acceptance of these views. However, moral concerns about
animals may also be based on other approaches that are not based on
suffering, such as respecting nature or naturalness. This may mean that an
entire species may be valued, or the role of a species within an ecosystem. To
this way of thinking the loss of a species through extinction is bad in and of
itself, not just because of its consequences for the well-being of humans and
animals. Unlike the relational view, which regards close relationships as
particularly valuable, the respect for nature ethical view tends to focus
predominantly on ‘wild’ or ‘natural’ species, is likely to deplore genetic
modification of species (such as selective breeding of livestock), and may
support activities to preserve a species at the expense of the individuals. So,
for example, if we took the last few remaining individuals of a species and
confined them in a zoo to allow breeding and protection in various ways this
might be seen as desirable from the point of view of preserving the species, in
this ethical view, although the welfare of those individuals might be seen to
suffer.

19.4 ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

As you will have seen in the previous section, there are a number of different
ethical approaches that can be applied to our treatment of animals. These
different views can lead to quite divergent opinions on what is acceptable to do
with animals, and our responsibilities to animal welfare. In making decisions 165
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
about what to do, is it necessary to choose just one approach? In practical
ethics, often more than one approach might be used, and a pluralist approach
is possible. For example, many people are very concerned about the
extinction of a species and loss of biodiversity. However, it is also possible to
hold this view (a respect of nature ethical viewpoint) whilst also being
concerned about the welfare of an individual of that species and considering
their potential suffering to be of moral significance (an example of virtue,
utilitarian or rights ethical views). Similarly it might be feasible to hold some
elements of the animal rights ethical views (perhaps that we should never do
anything to animals that causes severe and untreatable pain), whilst also
allowing some other aspects of utilitarian views (that it is acceptable to cause
mild and transient distress to animals if there is a greater benefit or good
consequences might follow).

What you may have gathered from this discussion is that:

• Ethical decision making in relation to our treatment of animals is

problematic, often contested from different ethical views, and requires
the use of reasoned discussion and debate, without allowing emotional
responses to predominate.

• The capacities of animals, and in particular the capacity for suffering and
sentience, have been key components of many of these ethical views.

It is now to the discussion of animal sentience that we will turn in the next
section.

Before we proceed, please complete activity 3.

Activity 3 (Review of Literature): Review the literature available in the

internet on the six ethical views / theories. Compare them with the discussion
given in the above section and write the outcome in the following table.

Ethical Key Principle Position Animal Care Example

Views/Theories towards (1 to 5)
Speciesism
& Sentience

Contractarian

Utilitarian

Animal rights

Virtue ethics

Relational

Respect for
nature

SAQ 2
i) Write the key ethical principle in the following views / theories:

166 a) Contractarian view: ............................................................

Unit 19 Animal Ethics and Sentience
b) Utilitarian view: ............................................................

c) The animal rights view: ............................................................

d) Virtue ethics view: ............................................................

e) The relational view: ............................................................

f) The respect for nature view: ............................................................

ii) How the Contractarian ethical view differs from the Utilitarian view?

19.5 OVERVIEW OF ANIMAL SENTIENCE

By now you will have heard about animal sentience quite a few times in this
course and be aware that this has legal implications in some countries, and
may sometimes be used as a synonym for animal welfare. As the discussion
about animal ethics has illustrated, for many moral views on our treatment of
animals acceptance of the capacity for at least some animals to suffer is at the
heart of the debate. In this section we will discuss animals sentience in more
detail, before considering the evidence for animal sentience and which animal
species are generally considered to be sentient.

19.5.1 What is Sentience?

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively.
Eighteenth century philosophers used this term to distinguish between the
ability to feel compared to the ability to think or reason. Most famously, Jeremy
Bentham (who we introduced above in section 19.3.2) used this as an
argument for the moral treatment of animals stating:

‘The question is not, can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?’

Thus some aspects of consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence and

intentionality, can be considered as separate to the capacity to experience
sensations, both pleasurable and suffering. Indeed the neuroscientist, Antonio
Damasio, considers that consciousness may not be necessary for sentience
as the capacity to experience emotion can be generated unconsciously.

In some Eastern religions, such as Jainism, all matter, not just animals, is
endowed with sentience, and is compatible with Hinduism, Buddhism and
Sikhism that recognise non-human animals as sentient beings.

Compassion in World Farming defines a sentient animal as: Sentient animals

are aware of their feelings and emotions. These can be negative feelings,
such a pain, frustration or fear. It is logical to suppose that sentient animals
also enjoy feelings of comfort, enjoyment, contentment, perhaps even great
delight and joy. (Source: https://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/animal-
sentience/#start)

19.5.2 Why is Sentience Important in Animal Welfare?

From the definitions given above it should be very clear that sentience is 167
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
integral to the understanding of animal welfare, following the definitions of
animal welfare given in Unit 2 (section 2.3.3). Most concerns for animal
welfare, and the animal species to which these concerns are extended, are
because these animals are believed to have feelings which matter to them,
and to be capable of the experience of pain and suffering. More recently, with
the modern definitions of welfare that consider positive emotions also to be
relevant for welfare, the capacity of sentient animals to feel pleasure and
contentment is also important.

Legally, in many countries, an acceptance of animal sentience is written into

law:

• In the European Union, the Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force in
2009, recognises that animals are sentient and mandates member
states to pay full regard to animal welfare when formulating policy.

• A number of other countries or states, such as New Zealand, Quebec

(Canada) and Oregon (USA), have also since amended their laws to
recognise animal sentience.

Although animal sentience is not always well defined in the legislation, this has
allowed countries to explain what this should mean in practice. In New
Zealand, the recognition of animal sentience was considered to allow them to
‘set a new standard for society’s expectation of the way animal are treated by
focusing on positive welfare states and…enhancements.’ In Quebec, animals
were distinguished from property by stating that ‘animals are not things. They
are sentient beings and have biological needs’. In the European Parliament,
animals are now considered ‘living beings endowed with sensitivity, interests
of their own and dignity, that benefit from special protection’.

Thus, animal sentience is important for animal welfare because the very
definition of animal welfare rests on the ability of animals to experience
subjectively positive and negative emotional states, and because the
protections given to animals in law can be defined in terms of their sentience.

In the next section, we will consider:

• How we can assess the ability of animals to experience subjective

states, and

• Where or how we might determine which sorts of animals are capable of

sentience?

19.6 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR ANIMAL

SENTIENCE
Unlike other areas of science, evidence for the existence of sentience is
problematic due to the following issues:

a) Sentience is defined as the subjective emotional experiences of an

animal, and thus is considered to be the private and unobservable
feelings of the animal. Some scientists have therefore argued that this
can never be accessible to scientific investigation, whereas others
contend that it is possible to assess feelings, or that this will become
168 possible with developments in neuroscience.
Unit 19 Animal Ethics and Sentience
b) Another important issue is that it may be very unlikely we can ever
understand exactly what the animal may feel and whether that is the
same as we would ourselves feel, but the more important issue, which
we explore here, is that what the animal feels means something
important to it.

At present, there is no universally accepted scientific measure that definitively

investigates the presence of sentience, rather a series of studies that provide
supporting evidence from differing viewpoints, which we will now consider.
Perhaps the most frequently studied areas, or the most commonly investigated
feelings, are pain and fear, although more recent studies are also investigating
the basis of positive emotional states, such as play and exploration.

19.6.1 Evidence from Neuroscience

The involvement of the brain and neuroscience in emotions has come from
human studies, which showed that, when humans had injuries or otherwise Amygdala is a small
had impairments in particular brain structures, this affected their emotional almond shaped
structure inside brain.
responses. These studies have focused attention on a number of brain
It is a part of larger
regions, including the cerebral cortex, the amygdala and the brain stem as
network in our brain
being involved in emotions, firstly in humans and then in mammals. Studies called the limbic
that have applied electrical stimulation to the amygdala, or bilateral removal of system.
the amygdala, result in a number of responses in animals such as changes in
fearfulness and aggression, and increased vigilance or attention to threatening
stimuli. In humans, diseases that affect the amygdala cause changes in the
emotions of anger, sadness and disgust. The hypothalamus has also been
implicated in feelings or emotions through its role in organising the ‘stress’
axes and autonomic responses through two key pathways:

• The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which results in increased

circulating glucocortiocoids (cortisol and corticosterone) when animals
are exposed to threatening or exciting stimuli;

• The sympathetic-adrenal-medulla axis that causes release of

catecholamines (adrenaline and noradrenaline), and results in the bodily
changes such as increased heart rate, increased blood pressure,
increased sweating, vasoconstriction etc.

Stimuli that evoke changes in these pathways in humans are frequently

associated with emotional responses, and when equivalent stimuli in animals
also show similar physiological response, this can often be considered
evidence of an equivalent emotional response. More sophisticated studies
using brain imaging, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or
positron emission tomography (PET scans), have shown changes in the brains
of dogs, sheep and goats that also reflect changes in human brains when
experiencing the emotions of frustration, or pleasurable recognition (e.g. when
shown images of the faces of familiar or friendly individuals). Although none of
these studies provide definitive evidence for sentience and experience of
emotions they do provide considerable supporting evidence, and most people
would be comfortable with the idea that mammals are capable of experiencing
the emotions of pain and fear, perhaps also pleasure and excitement. One
example of neurobiological evidence for sentience from an alternative 169
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
perspective is the change in brain responses recorded from maternal ewes.
Research in Cambridge in the UK showed that maternal ewes, when hearing
the bleats of their own lambs, had altered responses in brain regions
associated not just with hearing, but also within the visual parts of the brain.
This led the authors to suggest that, perhaps, ewes were capable of forming a
mental image of their offspring, which could be evidence of a higher order
thinking.

What of other vertebrate and non-vertebrate species? Early experimental

studies argued that brain size, and the presence of a cerebral cortex, are
correlated with sentience. However, increasingly studies have demonstrated
that this is not true, and that non-mammalian animals, which lack a cerebral
cortex but may have alternative structures, are able to show behavioural
responses indicative of feeling emotion and pain. PET scanning studies
showed similar responses in the brains of reptiles, amphibian, birds and
mammals when thirsty as they saw in humans who were also able to self-
report on how thirsty they were. Birds, fish and reptiles have been shown to
have nociceptors (specialised cells capable of responding to noxious stimuli),
pathways from these receptors to the central nervous system, and an ability to
process this information in the brain in an analogous way to mammals. These
species also have receptors for analgesic drugs, such as opioid receptors,
which are considered to be relevant in the ability of an animal to experience
pain. Thus, there is considerable neurological evidence that most if not all
vertebrates could be sentient and able to experience pain. Some supporting
evidence is also available for non-vertebrates, such as cephalopoda (e.g.
octopus) and decapods (e.g. crab, lobster), which also have similar pathways,
cells and receptors, and show similar physiological responses to painful
stimuli. As before, these data are not definitive of animal sentience, but
provide some supporting evidence that these animals may be capable of
emotional expression or feelings. Interestingly, most data have focused on
whether animals can feel pain or not and relatively little work has considered
more positive emotions. Perhaps the most commonly used measure for animal
pain and animal emotion is behaviour, and this is the next level of evidence we
will consider.

19.6.2 Evidence from Behavioural Science

At its simplest, behaviour responses to pain, or other unpleasant stimuli, can
be simple reflex responses where animals more away from unpleasant stimuli
(e.g. physical stimulation, heat), and these responses are unlikely to require
the higher processing that might be associated with experience. However, as
behaviours become more complex it is likely that they require higher
processing, and where decisions and choices are altered by exposure to a
stimulus this is greater evidence that some form of experience may be
involved in the response. This can sometimes be combined with the brain
stimulation studies described above to evoke rewards and punishments in
simple learning tasks, which provide good evidence for the probable existence
of affective experiences. Where animals consistently respond more quickly to
rewarded experiences, work harder to access these rewards and avoid
punishments, this is good evidence that they, like us, are perceiving rewards
170 as desirable states, and punishment as something bad and to be avoided.
Unit 19 Animal Ethics and Sentience
In pain studies, for example, mammals, birds and fish have been shown to
select analgesic drugs when in pain, and to be willing to pay a cost to access
analgesia (such as pushing on a weighted door, or pressing a lever), which
suggests this is a response more complex than a simple robotic or reflex
response in the animal. In these studies, the animals then appeared to gain
benefit from the ingestion of analgesics (such as walking more freely in a
study of lame chickens as an outcome of increased ingestion of food
containing an analgesic), and healthy animals that were not in pain did not
increase consumption of the food with the analgesic. This provides good
circumstantial evidence that the analgesic was rewarding to those chickens in
pain, and not to those who were not. Many other studies have ‘asked’ animals
about different components of their housing environments and treatments by
looking at what choices animals make and what they do having made that
choice. Often these studies have then measured the strengths of these
preferences (for example, by asking how far an animal will walk to access
something, how hard they will push on a door, how many times they will press
a button or lever etc) to gain further understanding of how important the animal
perceives these choices. Again, although not definitive of sentience, this
provides us with a window into the perceptions of the world made by animals,
which may be different to our own.

Other behavioural evidence that might be used in support of the existence of

sentience in animals is that of the relationships animals have with one another,
and how that might alter their behaviour. There is good evidence that domestic
sheep and goats have an ability to recognise members of their social group,
and for sheep, this has been demonstrated to be an ability to recognise at
least 50 different individual and retain that memory for more than two years.
This recognition memory is expressed as a preference for spending time close
to familiar or preferred animals, and avoiding the company of unfamiliar,
aggressive or dominant animals. A specialised, and well-studied, area of
social relationships in animals is maternal behaviour and family bonds.
Maternal animals show altered behaviours when caring for their young,
including protective responses. For example, the mothers of many animals will
defend their young from predators whereas non-maternal animals would flee.
It is hard to imagine that a sheep mother, who will stamp at and attack a dog
or wolf when her young are present, and show signs of agitation and distress
when the lamb is removed, is not feeling at least some of the distress and
anxiety in these situations that a human mother might. These sorts of family
relationships are not just present in mammals. In domestic poultry, there is
evidence that hens respond in ways that might be indicative of empathy –
where one animal is capable of feeling the emotional responses of another. In
this case, mother hens appear to behave in a way that suggests they are
aware of and feeling the emotional responses of their chicks.

An alternative way of accessing animal feelings through behaviour is via

qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA), which has been suggested by
Francoise Wemelsfelder working in Edinburgh. She argues that the underlying
emotional state of an animal is expressed in its ‘body language’ or by
assessing not what the animal does but how it does it. Using a series of
studies using an approach where observers develop subjective terminology
and score animals on these scales (for example scoring terms such as 171
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
relaxed, content, agitated, fearful etc) she has demonstrated that good
agreement can be achieved between different observer on the expressivity of
the animal observed. Assessments of animal expression appear to correlate
well with measures of the autonomic nervous system, and observers blind to
animal treatment are able to place animals into the correct conditions based
only on their subjective impression of the animals response. Although not
universally accepted as allowing direct access to the feelings of an animal, this
technique can add to the weight of evidence in support of animal sentience
where good agreement can be found between different observers. As with the
neurobiological evidence, there is no absolute and definitive evidence from
behavioural studies that are irrefutable evidence of sentience. However, they
do provide further supporting evidence that this is a reasonable explanation for
what is seen. Finally, we will look at what evidence there is from cognitive
studies that support the idea of animal sentience.

19.6.3 Evidence from Cognitive Ethology

In this Section we will consider the evidence for animal feelings and emotions
from the perspective of behavioural responses that require complex changes
in animal behaviour and cognitive responses. Examples of these sorts of
responses include:

Motivational trade-offs – where animals alter behavioural decisions

depending on their underlying emotional state. For example, a hungry bird
may prioritise food over guarding painful injuries, or fearful animals may
prioritise fleeing a predator over feeding even when hungry, but resume the
other behaviour when sated or when the predator is not present. These
studies suggest that animals make different decisions about how to act
depending on emotional state.

Conditioned place avoidance or preferences – here animals learn to

associate unpleasant stimuli (something that is frightening, uncomfortable or
painful) with a particular place (avoidance) or with something very pleasant
(preference). They are then more willing to approach a place if this is paired
with the pleasant or rewarding stimuli, and less inclined to approach areas
associated with something unpleasant, even when the actual threat or reward
is not present.

Attention bias – in human psychology studies, subjects are more attentive to

threatening stimuli (such as images of snakes or spiders) when they
subjectively report a low mood state and are less attentive when they are
happier. This can occur at a level where they are not consciously aware of
being more or less attentive. Likewise, animals in an impoverished
environment are more attentive to threatening stimuli than animals that appear
to be in a more positive emotional state.

Cognitive or judgement bias – as with attention bias tests, this has also
developed from human studies, and stems from a tendency to be more
pessimistic when in a low mood state (classically this might be a propensity to
report that a glass is half empty rather than half full). Typically for these
studies in animals, animals are first trained to associate a tone, location, odour
172 or coloured symbol with a positive reward, and an opposing tone, location,
Unit 19 Animal Ethics and Sentience
odour or colour with a negative reward. Once animals have learned these
associations they may experience a negative treatment or be managed in a
barren environment and are then presented with the two stimuli again, as well
as intermediate ‘probe’ tones, locations, odours or colours. Animals that are
more pessimistic will judge the intermediate to be more likely to be associated
a ‘punishment’ and less likely to be associated with a reward. An example of
this is shown in Fig. 19.1. This is called a ‘go-no go’ trial as the dog first learns
that a dark colour is rewarded with a treat, whereas the pale colour is not. The
dog is considered to have learned the task when it always approaches the
dark colour, and does not approach the pale colour. In the test phase we want
to know if the dog will approach an intermediate colour or not. A dog that
approaches the middle tone might be more optimistic or more likely to be in a
positive mood state compared to a dog which does not approach.

Fig. 19.1: Go-No go Trial

(Left: Training phase –dog learns associations; Right: Testing phase –dogs that
approach the middle bowls are more optimistic than dogs that do not).

These types of behavioural testing procedures allow us to ask the animal very
complex questions, and the changes in behaviour in different contexts may
provide us with further evidence that supports an argument that animals are
sentient. Interestingly, birds, mammal and fish have been shown to be able to
do these complex behaviours, but some reptiles, amphibians, octopoda and
decapods can also show some of these responses, and bees have been
shown to respond in a similar way to mammals in cognitive bias testing. We do
not yet have definitive data that demonstrates sentience in a way that
everyone accepts. However, we do start to have very convincing evidence
accumulating that, on the balance of probabilities, most if not all vertebrates
are sentient, and this may also extend to other orders of animals as well.

Before we proceed, please complete activity 4.

Activity 4 (Discussion): Discuss the concept and different meanings of

‘Sentience’ with your friends and colleagues. Compare their responses to the
discussion given in the section and write the common elements:
173
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
Before we proceed, please complete activity 5

Activity 5 (Review & Discussion): The PCA Act (1960) of India

acknowledges the capacity of animals to suffer both physically and mentally
and aim to protect animals from unnecessary pain and suffering. Does it
mean that animal sentience is defined in the Indian legislation? Review the
PCA Act (1960) and discuss this with different stakeholders of animal
welfare. Write the outcome of the review and discussion:

SAQ 3
i) What is meant by sentience?

ii) Why is animal sentience important for animal welfare?

iii) Why is evidence for the existence of sentience problematic?

iv) What are the most frequently studied feelings of animals?

19.7 SUMMARY
Let us summarise what you have learnt so far:

• Ethics can be defined as a set of moral reactions or principles that serve

as a guide for our actions.

• As animal welfare can be an emotionally-charged topic we need to apply

reasoned ethical views to our decision making in this area.

• Ethical views can be our personal ethics, but may also be influenced by
professional or organisational ethical views.

• The most commonly used or described ethical views concerning our

interactions with animals are: contractarian, utilitarian, animal rights,
virtue ethics, relational ethics and a respect for nature or naturalness
view.

• The first five of these ethical views consider the suffering and sentience
of animal to be important but the respect for nature view tends to focus
on animals at the level of a species.

• It is possible to make use of more than one ethical view when

considering animal welfare, known as a pluralist approach.

• Animal sentience is the capacity for an animal to experience feelings or

emotions. Sentient animals are considered to be aware of their feelings
and emotions.

• Acceptance that animals are sentient is part of the legislation of many

countries.

• To understand sentience scientifically, we can make use of evidence

174 from neurobiology, behavioural studies and cognitive ethology
Unit 19 Animal Ethics and Sentience

19.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. Why is ethical reasoning important in discussing animal use?

2. What are the differences between personal and professional ethics?

3. Briefly describe the six main ethical views relating to our treatment of
animals.

4. Why is animal sentience relevant to animal welfare?

5. Which brain regions are considered to be relevant in animal emotions?

6. Discuss some of the behavioural studies that have been used as

supporting evidence for animal sentience.

7. Describe three examples of cognitive responses that are indicative of

emotional states and sentience in animals.

19.9 ANSWERS
Self-Assessment Questions
1. i) Ethics are a set of moral reactions or principles that serve as a
guide for a person’s actions.

ii) Ethics is about reasoning and is important in our treatment of

animals as it allows us to make rational decisions about
appropriate ways to treat animals. It considers what is right and
wrong about the ways that we use and interact with animals.

iii) (a) Personal Ethics: Our own personal views on what is right or
wrong (e.g some people might find hunting, or eating meat, morally
unacceptable whereas others do not). (b) Professional Ethics:
Accepted codes of practice held by a particular group of people or
professions (e.g. Veterinarians swear an oath on joining their
profession with ethical or moral principles by which the practice of
their profession is governed). (c) Organisational Ethics: Some
organisations or companies may also have ethical or moral
principles referred to as organisational ‘values’ or social
responsibilities (e.g. a food retailer that might trade on having
higher levels of animal welfare than other retailers).

2. i) Contractarian view: Morality is based on agreement ; Utilitarian

view: Morality is about maximising human and animal well-being;
The animal rights view: Good results cannot justify evil means;
Virtue ethics view: How would a morally virtuous person treat
animals? ; The relational view: Morality grows out of our
relationship with animals and one another; The respect for nature
view: Respecting nature or naturalness, value the entire species,
or the role of a species within an ecosystem.

ii) The Contractarian view suggests that being moral is in your own
self-interest and suggests that any animal use for human benefit,
such as food, new medical treatment or financial gain (such as
entertainment) is acceptable. This view only protects animals
where they matter to people, and might confer greater protection 175
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
on an animal that is important to humans, rather than for its own
sake. The Utilitarianism suggests that morality is about maximising
human and animal well-being. This theory is a well-known and
well-used approach to animal ethics, but is based on kindness
towards animals as its starting point, not self interest (as in the
Contractarian view).
3. i) Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience
subjectively.
ii) Animal sentience is important for animal welfare because the very
definition of animal welfare rests on the ability of animals to
experience subjectively positive and negative emotional states,
and because the protections given to animals in law can be
defined in terms of their sentience.
iii) Evidence for the existence of sentience is problematic because
sentience is defined as the subjective emotional experiences of an
animal. They are considered to be the private and unobservable
feelings. Some argue that this can never be accessible, whereas
others contend that it is possible to assess feelings with
developments in neuroscience. Further, it may be very unlikely we
can ever understand exactly what the animal may feel and whether
that is the same as we would ourselves feel.
iv) The most frequently studied feelings of animals are pain, fear, and
the basis of positive emotional states, such as play and
exploration.

Terminal Questions
1. Refer to Section 19.2.
2. Refer to Subsection 19.2.1 and 19.2.2.
3. Refer to Section 19.3.
4. Refer to Section 19.5.
5. Refer to Subsection 19.6.1.
6. Refer to Subsection 19.6.2.
7. Refer to Subsection 19.6.3.

SUGGESTED READING
1. Nielsen (2020). Asking Animals: An introduction to animal behaviour
testing. CABI, UK
2. Palmer & Sandoe (2018). Animal Ethics (Chapter 1) In: Animal Welfare,
3rd Edition, Ed. M.A. Appleby, A.S. Olsson & F. Galindo, CABI.
3. Wemelsefelder (2001). Assessing the whole animal: a free choice
profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62, 209-220.
Useful websites:
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/animal-sentience/#start)
https://www.animal-ethics.org/different-ethical-theories/
176
Unit 20 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-I

UNIT 20
ANIMAL WELFARE THEORIES
THEORIESI

Structure
20.1 Introduction Farming of Pigs for Meat

Objectives Case study 3: Horse Racing

20.2 Consequentialism 20.5 Respect for Nature Views

20.3 Contractarian Ethical Case study 1: Polled Cattle
Approaches
Case study 2: Conservation of
Case study 1: Higher Welfare Endangered Species
Meat
20.6 Ethical Dilemmas for Animal
Case study 2: Use of Animals Welfare
in Research
20.7 Summary
20.4 Utilitarian Ethical
20.8 Terminal Questions
Approaches
20.9 Answers
Animal Liberation Movement

Case study 1: Management of

Stray Cats

Case study 2: Intensive

20.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous Unit you were introduced to different ethical frameworks that
can be applied to animals, and were made aware that for many of these a
belief in animal sentience is a key part of this ethical view. We also discussed
some of the supporting evidence for animal sentience for different classes of
animal. You should now be aware that, although animal sentience is accepted
quite widely for some classes of animal (mammals and birds), and is accepted
in some circles for others (fish, reptiles), this is still a contested concept that is
not universal. Animal sentience cannot be definitively demonstrated by
scientific evidence, and thus acceptance of the weight of evidence is often the
dominant view of whether animals are sentient or not. However, the place of
animals in human society, and the moral status of animals are central to
animal welfare thinking. In this Unit, and the next, we will consider in more
depth the different ethical views / theories of animals. This initially involves 177
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
understanding the two over-arching philosophical approaches to animal ethics:
consequentialism and deontology, and then how this has influenced schools of
thought and applications in modern times.

In this unit we will consider consequential ethical approach and its application
to animal welfare with case studies.

Objectives
a) Knowledge and Understanding: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

 explain what are consequential ethical views,

 elucidate the outcomes of applying consequential ethical views to

animals.

b) Practical and Professional Skills: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

 apply ethical reasoning to animal welfare issues.

20.2 CONSEQUENTIALISM
Consequentialism, as the name suggests, is the belief that the morality of an
action can be understood by its consequence or impact. It is based on two
principles:

1) Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act

2) The more good consequences an act produces the better or more right
that act is.

This view argues that there is no intrinsically moral way to behave and that is
might be acceptable to lie or otherwise behave in a way that may appear to be
immoral if the outcome is good. For example, it might be acceptable under this
approach to lie to a murderer about the location of the intended victim as the
consequence of lying (that the victim will live) is better than the consequence
of not lying (the victim is killed). Examples of consequentialism that you have
already come across are Contractarian, Utilitarianism and Hedonism. We will
discuss the first two of these in the light of our use of animals shortly.

In practice, consequentialism can take two forms:

1) Act consequentialism: The ethical consequences of every single act

must be considered (termed ‘act consequentialism’) or,

2) Rule Consequentialism: Because generally we do not have time to do

this, and we cannot always be assured of what the consequences of our
acts might be, ethical rules are derived instead (called ‘rule
consequentialism’).

Although act consequentialism can be very flexible and responds to every

situation, however unusual, it is rather impractical and can be difficult for
178 society as it is not easy to predict what people will do or the decisions they will
Unit 20 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-I
make. Rule consequentialism is more commonly used and derives moral rules
that allow decisions to be made by applying the appropriate rule to the
situation. As we will discuss consequentialism is often used in defining our
relationships with animals, but this does not mean that it is without its
detractors or that there can be issues associated with its use. Some of the
practical and philosophical issues with consequentialism are:

 Future consequences are difficult to predict, and if we are incorrect in

our assessment of the consequences does that mean that the act was
right (as it was based on a genuine assessment of the consequences,
even if wrong) or wrong (as the actual consequences were not as we
predicted)?

 Measuring and comparing the ‘goodness’ of consequences can be

difficult and everyone may not agree with the calculation of goodness.
For example should this be the benefits to the society in general, or
more specific? In animal ethics, we are sometimes required to weight
animal harms against human benefits but not everyone would agree on
the acceptability of these weightings. We are often weighing things for
which we do not have good measures such as the quantity of human
happiness that may be the consequence against the degree of
discomfort or harm experienced by another.

 The intentions of the person doing the act is considered irrelevant as it is

the outcome that is important but generally intentions and motivations
are considered ethically relevant to most people, perhaps because they
also have an impact on future behaviour.

 Basing decision-making on the largest total sum of happiness (or some

other measure of goodness) may appear to be unfair in some
circumstances, and can appear to be biased towards the majority view,
who might all be slightly more happy, whilst ignoring the minority who
may be very unhappy indeed.

 Consequentialism may be inconsistent with human rights due to similar

arguments as above in terms of the fairness of a decision.

Although this is a popular and frequently used ethical view, deontological

views, or duty-based ethics, are also widely used and will be discussed in the
next Unit.

SAQ 1
i) What is meant by consequentialism?

ii) Write the two principles of consequentialism.

iii) How ‘Act consequentialism’ and ‘Rule consequentialism’ differ from each
other?

179
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II

20.3 CONTRACTARIAN ETHICAL APPROACHES

In the previous Unit, under Section 19.3.1 we discussed that this approach is
based on our own self-interest, but the key feature is that ethical obligations
originate in mutual agreements or contracts between people. We all have our
own self-interests, but if we act solely to achieve these we are likely to run up
against others also acting in their own self-interests. To achieve our goals we
are likely to benefit from the help of others, and others will also find it attractive
or useful for them to help us as long as they get some help in return. Mutual
cooperation can work in all our best interests so we have a number of
unspoken and unwritten contracts that are implicit in our behaviour. For
example, in normal discussion and conversation, we usually do not talk over
one another and we allow others to make their points before we make our
own. This is an unwritten cooperative ‘contract’ that allows us both to gain
maximum benefit from the conversation as we both have the opportunity to
speak and listen.

How does this sort of ethical view apply to animals? It is generally considered
by philosophers that non-human animals cannot make agreements, cannot
enter into contracts with us and do not have moral duties. Note that not all
people think like this. For example, there are some that consider that when we
work with or live with animals that are larger than us or potentially able to do
us harm we have entered into a contract with the animal that they will not harm
us in exchange for some other benefit (for example that we will feed, protect
and care for them). More widely though, we can bring non-human animals into
the Contractarian ethical view indirectly, by the moral obligations we might
have to the humans that own them. For example, if we have agreed to look
after a friend’s dog whilst they are away on holiday then the dog becomes
protected as part of our moral obligation based on the contract we have made
with the owners of the dog. We can also think of other ways in which animals
might be protected by our contracts with other humans or by the benefits that
accrue to us by taking good care of animals. We shall look at some cases
where this ethical viewpoint might be applied in the next section.

20.3.1 Case Study 1: Higher Welfare Meat

In this Case Study, we will consider the issue of farming animals for meat.
These animals may already be considered as an example of Contractarian
ethical approaches as generally these animals may be provided with food,
protection and veterinary treatment at a level higher than that provided to wild
animals. This may be, at least in the short term, to the animal’s benefit as they
may be less likely to be attacked by predators, and may not suffer from the
same diseases as wild animals. If the animals are kept by a farmer who is part
of a supply chain that provides higher welfare products to a retailer, they may
also be provided with higher standards of welfare than similar animals farmed
elsewhere. The retailer may specify a high standard of animal care (by all the
means we have previously described in earlier Units), but this reasoning may
be because the public are concerned about animal welfare, are willing to pay
higher prices to obtain high welfare meat, and the retailer is keen to sell these
products in the market. The animal is an indirect beneficiary of the contract
180 that the retailer and producer have made to supply the market with higher
Unit 20 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-I
welfare meat, and the consequence of this is improved standards of welfare.
This improved welfare can be achieved without the supplier or the retailer
caring very much about the actual animals, but because it is in the interests of
some people to have access to higher welfare meat (for all sorts of reasons as
discussed in Unit 1) then a contract is made between people that leads to
improved standards of animal welfare for some animals. As a consequential
ethical view the welfare of the animals has improved, but the means to
achieve that is not necessarily about doing good for animals, but in promoting
the self-interests of various groups of people.

20.3.2 Case Study 2: Use of Animals in Research

Let us now look at the use of a different group of animals, those used for
research purposes. In many countries, there are higher levels of legislation
governing the use of cats, dogs, monkeys and some other species in research
than there are for rats, mice and rabbits. This means that many more rodents
and rabbits are used in research facilities around the world, and relatively few
dogs, cats or monkeys. These species are all mammals, and might be
considered equally likely to be sentient compared to other species, but we
choose to restrict the number of species used because the general public
often objects to the use of specific groups of animals in research. At least
some species then benefit as they are rarely used in research experiments,
but the reason for this is not directly because of a special care for that animals
by researchers, but because of a contract between people that certain types of
animals might be deserving of better care.

Another example of this sort of ethical view might be where animal welfare of
research animals is improved because it leads to better quality research data.
As described in Unit 1, poor animal welfare can make scientific data more
variable, may lead to false outcomes that cannot be safely extrapolated to
human conditions and can hinder scientific advances. Again, the animals
might benefit by improved welfare, but this is because of the self-interests of
the scientist, who is motivated by creating better or more robust datasets, and
not because of an intrinsic interest in animal welfare or the lives of the
research animals.

A disadvantage of this approach or ethical view of animals is that often

animals are only treated as well as is needed to suit human purposes. As the
goal of this ethical view is human benefit or self-interest, there is no driver or
rationale to increase animal welfare or treat animals any better than the
minimum level that would achieve human goals. Other ethical views may,
therefore lead to higher standards of animal welfare in some situations.

Before we proceed, please complete activity 1.

Activity 1 (Case Study & Interaction): Read the Case Study 1 on Higher
Welfare Meat (Section 20.4.1). Interact with 10-15 meat consumers on their
willingness to pay more if they have access to higher welfare meat. Compare
their responses to the discussion on Contractarian approach to animal welfare
and write your observations:
181
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II

SAQ 2
i) What is the key feature in contractarian ethical approaches?

ii) Write the disadvantage of contractarian ethical approaches.

20.4 UTILITARIAN ETHICAL APPROACHES

This ethical view states that the ethically right choice in a given situation is the
one that produces the most happiness and the least unhappiness in the
largest number of people (these benefits are considered the ‘utility’ of the
approach, hence the name). It is a simple concept and appeals to common
sense for most people – it seems sensible to base ethics on producing
happiness and reducing unhappiness; and it seems to be easy to understand
and to be based on common sense. Although originally conceived of, and
used, in guiding how humans behave to one another, it is extended to animals
on the understanding that they, like humans, deserve moral consideration.
Thus, what matters in our dealings with animals is the extent to which we
affect their well-being. As we briefly introduced in Unit 19, utilitarian ethics
approaches are widely used in animal welfare and thinking about our
treatment of animals. For example the use of animals in scientific research, for
food, for transport or traction power, and for the many other uses or reasons
why we might have animals are often justified by the balance of benefits (often
but not always to humans) outweighing any possible negatives (almost always
experienced by the animals).

Historically, this seems to have stemmed from Greek moral philosophy from
forms of Hedonism, proposed by Aristippus and Epicurus, and from Aristotle
who argued that eudaimonia (happiness, flourishing, prosperity or
blessedness are all proposed as translations) is the highest human good. A
number of Western philosophers have considered the application of this way
of thinking to human behaviour afterwards, with the creation of modern
Utilitarianism usually accredited to Jeremy Bentham in the late 1700s, and
modified by John Stuart Mill in the 1800s.

From an animal ethics perspective, Jeremy Bentham is seen as particularly

important as he was an early advocate for animal rights, or animals as moral
beings. He defined utilitarianism philosophy as: ‘it is the greatest happiness of
the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong’ understanding
happiness to be a predominance of pleasure over pain. When applied to
animals you can see that this is very similar to the definition of ‘a good life’
from earlier Units. At the time that Bentham was writing, there was a general
view that the inability of animals to talk or apparently to reason meant that man
could do with them as they wished, that animals were incapable of feelings.
However, Bentham argued and believed that the ability to suffer, not the ability
to reason, should be the benchmark for deciding on how to behave. He
accepted that animals could be killed for food, or in defense of human life, and
in the use of animals in medical experiments, provided that they did not suffer
182 unnecessarily in the process. Thus if the experiment had a goal in mind to
Unit 20 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-I
benefit humanity, and a reasonable chance of achieving that goal, then it is
acceptable to use animals. This sort of reasoning is still applied very widely in
making ethical decisions about animal experiments.

Today one of the best-known proponents of the application of utilitarianism to

animal use and animal ethics is Professor Peter Singer, Professor of
Philosophy in Australia, and author of ‘Animal Liberation’ in 1975.

In the following sections, we will now consider animal liberation use of

utilitarianism, and what it means for animal welfare and our interactions with
animals.

20.4.1 Animal Liberation Movement

The foundation of this line of reasoning is in equality – that is that all animals
are equal, meaning that the interests of every being affected by an action
should be taken into account and given the same weight as the interests of
any other being. Often, in the application of Utilitarian ethical reasoning, the
interests of humans are considered to take priority over those of animals,
whereas the Animal Liberation line of thinking re-adjusts to consider all to be
equal. To Animal Liberationists, prioritizing human interests is considered
‘speciesism’, that is to provide special arguments for the rights of one species
(in this case humans) over another. This does not mean that animals ought to
have all the rights that we think humans should have, but argues for the
equality of consideration of interests. For example, animals ought to have an
equal right not to experience pain, at a level that matters to it, as a human
should. The action of inflicting pain may be different – for example slapping a
horse may not cause the amount of pain that slapping a child would, but hitting
a horse with a stick might inflict a similar amount of pain. From the Animal
Liberation view, these are both equivalent and if one is considered morally
wrong, then so must the other.

The goal of the animal liberation movement is to end the ‘speciesist’ bias
against animals by taking their interests more seriously than they are currently.
The focus, as utilitarianism, is on the amount of suffering and the numbers of
animals involved, hence the movement is most concerned about the use of
animals in experiments (which can involve millions of animals per year) and
those farmed for food, particularly in intensive systems (which can involve
billions of animals each year). Thus, using this reasoning, we might argue for a
very small amount of experimentation on animals where the outcomes would
improve the lives of many humans or animals, but against the vast majority of
studies, which have negligible impact on human well-being, or investigate
trivial issues (testing of cosmetics for example). Here the balance of suffering
versus benefit, or of pain versus pleasure, is weighed with both the human and
animal interests valued as having an equal consideration. Similar arguments
are made for the production of animals for food. Since many people like to eat
meat because they enjoy the taste or some other sensory aspect of eating
meat, but could be equally wellnourished by eating a non-animal or plant-
based meal then the modern animal production, particularly very intensive
agriculture, is problematic as it causes negative impacts on animal welfare,
with only a small benefit to humans. Following an Animal Liberation view, most 183
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
animal experimentation and nearly all animal production would cease,
because the cost to the animals involved is not considered sufficiently
counterbalanced by the human benefits.

The Animal Liberation ethical view is one particular movement based on

utilitarian ethical reasoning. Although this approach might take a stronger view
than others, particularly in assigning animals an equality with humans, various
less extreme uses of utilitarianism are made every day in our uses of animals.
We will now consider some other Case Studies in the application of
Utilitarianism to animal use.

20.4.2 Case Study 1: Management of Stray Cats

In many countries, there is a significant population of free-roaming, stray or

feral cats. These animals have no specific owner, and usually feed themselves
through foraging for scraps and hunting wildlife, often birds and rodents. They
breed indiscriminately and may have a short life span through high kitten
mortality, uncontrolled disease, hunger, and injury, e.g. through road traffic
accidents. There may also be a negative impact on wild bird populations,
particularly in countries where cats are not native but have been imported, and
the local fauna have few evolved defences against cats. It is often considered
that it would be better to have a strategy of euthanizing stray cats to control
the population. This can be seen to be the application of utilitarian ethical
thinking in that the humane killing of stray cats could be seen as a way of
reducing pain and harm as stray cats otherwise live very poor lives. In
addition, the remaining stray cat population may benefit, because there will be
less competition for food, as might the local wildlife populations that will suffer
less predation. Overall then, we might consider that the killing of some of the
population is justified as it reduces their suffering (and that of the any birds
that might be preyed upon), and increases the pleasures of the remaining
populations as they are likely to have more or better food to eat.

20.4.3 Case Study 2: Intensive Farming of

Pigs for Meat

Modern pig farming in many countries is very intensive, with sows confined to
very small crates throughout gestation in many countries (this practice is
banned in some countries, but not in others), which prevents them from
turning around or interacting with other animals. Sows give birth to several
large litters, whilst in confinement and can suffer from leg weakness, lameness
and lesions from the low levels of activity. Their piglets are often kept in barren
housing, and may experience tail-docking, castration and tooth clipping all
without the use of anaesthesia. It would be reasonable to suppose that the
amount of suffering by the animals in these systems is quite significant. The
human benefit that derives from this is the ability to eat a meat product that
many consumers enjoy, for a low price so it is accessible to a large number of
people. From a utilitarian view this is problematic, as the negative effects on
the animals are not outweighed by significant human benefits. It does not
argue that the eating of meat is wrong, only that the balance of suffering to
benefits is not in favour of the benefits. By moving to a higher welfare farming
184 system, where sows are unconfined or able to forage outside, enriched or
Unit 20 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-I
outdoor environments are used and surgical procedures are not carried out,
we might conclude that now the balance of suffering and benefits has shifted
to a more positive position, and eating meat under these circumstances is
acceptable.

20.4.4 Case Study 3: Horse Racing

The third case considers the use of horses in racing. This often involves
thoroughbred race horses that are bred to race and are taken into ridden work
and training at a very young age. Horses have a relatively short racing career,
often only a few years, before they are retired and either rehomed as ridden
horses, become breeding animals or may be sold for other purposes, including
being killed for meat. Some horses that are very successful may have very
high standards of care, whereas others may perform poorly and receive poor
treatment during training. The risks of suffering very significant injuries during
racing are high, and some horses continue to experience behavioural or
functional problems after their racing careers are over. Thus, although not all
horses may suffer, there will be a number of animals that will experience
injury, pain and distress through being part of the racing industry. The human
benefit or happiness accruing from this could be considered relatively small or
trivial, and therefore a utilitarian ethical view might ask if this is sufficient
benefit, when weighed against the potential for animal suffering.

Before we proceed, please complete activity 2.

Activity 2 (Case Study & Interaction): Average Life of a Male Chick in the
Egg Industry is One Day

At the layer-hen hatcheries, the sex of the newborn chicks is checked and
unwanted male chicks are killed when they are one day old. Around 7 billion
male chicks are killed / year (using gas chambers, mechanical machines,
manual killing, electrocution, stuffing in big plastic bags etc). The human
benefit that derives from killing male chicks is the ability of egg industry to
place 100 percent female chicks in layer farms, save costs and to produce
more eggs for a low price to the consumers.

Discuss the above case study with your friends and colleagues from a
utilitarian view on, (a) Balance of suffering to benefits, (b) Moving to a higher
welfare system and consuming eggs is more acceptable by shifting balance of
suffering and benefits to a more positive position (e.g. Technology to
determine chick’s sex long before hatching or technology to produce eggs with
female embryos only etc). Compare the outcome of the interaction with Case
Study on ‘Intensive Farming of Pigs for Meat (Section 20.5.3)’ and write your
observations:

SAQ 3
i) What is the essence of utilitarian ethical approach?

ii) Why is Jeremy Bentham seen as particularly important from utilitarian

animal ethics perspective?

iii) What is the significance of ‘Animal Liberation’ line of thinking?

185
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II

20.5 RESPECT FOR NATURE VIEWS

Advocates of this ethical view consider that we have a duty to protect not just
individual animals, but also the species to which they belong. What matters is
the consequences for the species as a whole, rather than for the individual. As
we argued before (Unit 19), this is rather different to other ethical views, which
consider the individual animal, and animal sentience, as an important part of
ethics, as it is the species itself that is important. Further, within this ethical
viewpoint, it is the integrity of the species, as well as its existence, that
matters. This means that the genetic structures of the species is also
important, and it is disrespectful to interfere with the genetic makeup of a
species, as well as to impact on the environment or other aspects of nature.

This view is quite different to the animal welfare views that we have so far
discussed, where the feelings of that animal and its suffering are important,
and perhaps most similar to a view of welfare that promotes naturalness. Here
it might be accepted that an individual animal suffers, but if this occurs within a
natural setting and is part of nature, such as the prolonged death of a hunted
animal by a predator, then this is acceptable, as ‘nature must take its course’.
Conservation of genetic resources and species, and maintaining biodiversity,
are inherent to this view of animals. When a species becomes extinct it is not
simply that there is a loss of resources, but the problem is the loss of the
species, which had an intrinsic value and this no longer exists.

Let us now consider how this might apply by considering some case studies:

20.5.1 Case Study 1: Polled Cattle

Many breeds of domestic cattle have horns, sometimes in both sexes, which
might be valuable in a wild setting as they allow the cattle to defend
themselves against predators. However, when domesticated and housed,
horns can be a source of injury and even death through fighting, causing pain
and damage to other cattle, as well as, potentially, to animal-keepers. For this
reason the horn buds of young calves are often removed, through a variety of
means such as burning, scooping or using caustic paste to remove the horn
tissue (a process called disbudding in young animals or de-horning in older
animals). Although many countries require some form of anaesthesia or
analgesia to be used, by no means all countries do, and this procedure is
accompanied by considerable pain in the calves lasting for some time
afterwards. Often the use of polled genotypes, or the introgression of polled
genes (cross-breeding studies to transfer genetic information from one breed
to another), or even the use of gene splicing or other genetic modification
techniques to introduce polled genes into a breed, have been advocated as a
means to reduce the need for de-horning. Using utilitarian ethical arguments,
for example, this might be justified as a method to improve the welfare of
many by reducing the number of horn-related injuries in cattle and humans,
and reducing the pain associated with horn bud removal in the calves.
However, from a respect for nature view, this is not acceptable since the
genetic integrity of the breed is most important and this will have been
violated. The pain and suffering of a dis-budded calf is not relevant in this
argument, since it is made at the level of the species or breed of cattle. It is
also worth noting here that the physical means of de-horning or dis-budding
are also not acceptable to some proponents of this view, since these
186 procedures have altered the structural integrity of the animal.
Unit 20 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-I
20.5.2 Case Study 2: Conservation of Endangered
Species
Alterations in land use, habitat degradation and encroachment, and hunting or
poaching has meant that many wildlife species are at risk of going extinct or
are critically endangered. In an effort to preserve a species from extinction at
all costs, proponents of the respect for nature ethical view would advocate
interventions to preserve populations and the species. This might include such
things as capture of all remaining members of a species and setting up a
captive breeding programme within a zoo or other facility to ensure that the
species is maintained; preventing or excluding humans and domestic animals
from a particular habitat to preserve the species; and/or culling of other
animals to ensure the lives of the species of interest. For example, culling of
non-native predators or other species that might compete with the endangered
species. Moving wild animals into captivity may often cause a reduction in
welfare as it can be challenging to be able to provide a suitable environment
that meets all the animal’s needs, and the process of capture may be
extremely stressful. The impact on the individual animal may be more
important than the preservation of a species for those supporting other ethical
views, but might be seen as justified in the respect for nature ethical view.
Similarly, the culling of one species to make space for another might be
considered ‘speciesist’, or likely to cause a greater level of suffering compared
to the benefits accrued, with some ethical views, but might be seen as
necessary or desirable by others, where the consequences would otherwise
be the loss of an entire species.

20.6 ETHICAL DILEMMAS FOR ANIMAL

WELFARE
By now it should be clear to you that there are no simple solutions to the
question of how we should treat animals, and there are many different ethical
views that might have an impact on what we consider to be acceptable or not
acceptable in the treatment of animals. In this Unit we have only considered
one type of ethical approach, consequentialism, but already it is clear that,
depending on how we apply ethical thinking, we may end up in a different
place, even within the same approach. An important consideration in how we
manage animals is that we are usually weighing up the needs of humans and
the needs of animals, so whether we consider these to have equal value, or
the needs require equal consideration, can influence our decision making. For
consequentialism the defining issue is the end result – the means of achieving
this is less important than the final outcome. However, often we are making
decisions where we do not know what the final outcome will be, and we may
be ignoring what happens during the process. For example, if our goal is the
preservation of a species, then the impact on the individuals, the suffering and
even death of some animals may be unimportant, as long as the end goal of
the process is to ensure that the entire species survives. Similarly, if the
outcome of an experiment using animals is the development of a vaccine that
may save many humans lives that might be considered acceptable, even if the
experiments cause extreme suffering in a relatively small number of animals.

However, there are other ethical approaches, as we briefly introduced in Unit

19, and in the next Unit we will look at an explanation of these approaches,
and the possible outcomes of applying these to different cases of animal use. 187
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
Before we proceed, please complete activity 3.

Activity 3 (Case Study & Discussion): Animal Experiments and 3 Rs

Read the following:

‘If the outcome of an experiment using animals is the development of a

vaccine that may save many humans lives that might be considered
acceptable, even if the experiments cause extreme suffering in a relatively
small number of animals’. Experimenters should use the minimum number of
animals to achieve 95% statistical confidence and provide justification for not
using non-animal alternatives - included elements from the Three Rs principles
of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement.

Discuss the above with your friends and colleagues from Consequentialism
ethical dilemma perspective. Compare their opinions to the discussion given in
the above sections and write your observations:

SAQ 4
i) How is the ‘Respect for Nature View’ approach different from other
ethical approaches?

ii) What are the interventions to preserve species from extinction from
‘Nature Ethical View’ perspective?

20.7 SUMMARY
Let us summarise what you have learnt so far:

• In this Unit we have considered the application of consequentialism to

our decision-making about animal use.

• This ethical approach argues that it is the consequences of our actions

that matter, the ends can be considered to justify the means.

• Within this approach we have examined the use of contractarian,

utilitarian and respect for nature views.

• Contractarian ethics can improve animal welfare when it is in human

best interests for this to occur, perhaps because improved animal
welfare can also achieve human goals.

• Utilitarian ethics is a widely used ethical framework for animal use, that
looks to maximise happiness or benefits, at a minimal cost or
unhappiness.

• The Animal Liberation Movement applies this ethical framework, but

arguing that animals interests require equal consideration to human
interests in our decision-making.

• The respect of nature ethical view does not consider the individual as
relevant, but makes decisions based on preserving the species and its
188 integrity.
Unit 20 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-I
• By considering different case studies, we saw that applying different
ethical views influences our decision-making, and that will affect whether
we view some uses of animals as right or wrong.

20.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. What are the general principles on which consequentialism is based?

2. How do contractarian views differ from utilitarian ethical views?

3. How is the morality of farming of animals for meat affected by different

consequentialist ethical thinking?

4. Briefly describe the respect for nature ethical view.

5. How are the different approaches to reduce the threat of horn-related

injuries considered by applying different types of ethical reasoning?

20.9 ANSWERS
Self-Assessment Questions
1. i) As the name suggests, consequentialism is the belief that the
morality of an action can be understood by its consequence or
impact.

ii) The two principles of consequentialism are: Whether an act is right

or wrong depends only on the results of that act, and the more
good consequences an act produces the better or more right that
act is.

iii) In act consequentialism, the ethical consequences of every single

act must be considered and in rule consequentialism, generally we
do not have time to do this, and we cannot always be assured of
what the consequences of our acts might be, ethical rules are
derived instead.Rule consequentialism is more commonly used
and derives moral rules that allow decisions to be made by
applying the appropriate rule to the situation.

2. i) Contractarian approach is based on our own self-interest, but

the key feature is that ethical obligations originate in mutual
agreements or contracts between people.

ii) The disadvantage of contractarian ethical approaches is that often animals

are only treated as well as is needed to suit human purposes. As the goal of
this ethical view is human benefit or self-interest, there is no driver or rationale
to increase animal welfare or treat animals any better than the minimum level
that would achieve human goals.

3. i) The essence of utilitarian ethical approach is that, the ethically

right choice in a given situation is the one that produces the most
happiness and the least unhappiness in the largest number of
people - these benefits are considered the ‘utility’ of the approach. 189
Block 4 Animal Welfare-II
ii) Jeremy Bentham is seen as particularly important as he was an
early advocate for animal rights, or animals as moral beings. He
defined utilitarianism philosophy as: ‘it is the greatest happiness of
the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong’
understanding happiness to be a predominance of pleasure over
pain.

iv) The foundation of ‘Animal Liberation’ line of reasoning is in equality

– that is that all animals are equal, meaning that the interests of
every being affected by an action should be taken into account and
given the same weight as the interests of any other being.

4. i) Unlike other approaches, the ‘Respect for Nature View’ approach

advocates that we have a duty to protect not just individual
animals, but also the species to which they belong. What matters
is the consequences for the species as a whole, rather than for the
individual.

ii) In an effort to preserve a species from extinction at all costs,

proponents of the respect for nature ethical view would advocate
interventions to preserve populations and the species. This might
include such things as capture of all remaining members of a
species and setting up a captive breeding programme within a zoo
or other facility to ensure that the species is maintained; preventing
or excluding humans and domestic animals from a particular
habitat to preserve the species; and/or culling of other animals to
ensure the lives of the species of interest.

Terminal Questions
1. Refer to Section 20.2.

2. Refer to Sections 20.3 and 20.4.

3. Refer to Subsection 20.4.2.

4. Refer to Section 20.5.

5. Refer to Section 20.7.

SUGGESTED READING

1) Palmer and Sandoe (2018). Animal Ethics (Chapter 1) In: Animal

Welfare, 3rd Edition, Ed. M.A. Appleby, A.S. Olsson & F. Galindo, CABI.

2) http://www.aedilemma.net/home - A website where you can learn more

about different ethical views and how different ethical views influence
your own behaviour through interactive animal ethical dilemmas.

190
Unit 21 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-2

UNIT 21
ANIMAL WELFARE THEORIES
THEORIESII

Structure
21.1 Introduction 21.4 Practical Ethical Decision-
Making
Objectives
21.5 Summary
21.2 Deontological approaches
21.6 Terminal Questions
Animal Rights View
21.7 Answers
Case study 1: Farming Chickens
for Meat

Case study 2: The Laboratory Rat

21.3 Virtue Ethics

Relational Ethics

Case study 1: The Stray Dog

Case study 2: The Rabbit

21.1 INTRODUCTION
In the last Unit we discussed consequential ethical approaches and
understood how these were related to the outcomes of our actions, rather than
what we actually do. In these approaches the ends are seen to justify the
means and the main aim is to ensure that a good outcome is achieved from
our decision-making. However, even within this framework, there are several
schools of thought about how this can be applied and, as we investigated with
a series of case studies, these can lead to different thinking and outcomes for
animals depending on which ethical view we apply.

Objectives
a) Knowledge and Understanding: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

 explain the difference between consequential and deontological

ethical views

 understand the outcomes of deontological ethical views 191

Block d Animal Welfare-II
b) Practical and Professional Skills: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:

 apply ethical reasoning to animal welfare issues

21.2 DEONTOLOGICAL APPROACHES

Unlike consequentialism, deontological ethics are concerned with what people
do, not the consequences of their actions. The key principles are:

1) Do the right thing because it is the right thing to do

2) Avoid doing wrong things because they are wrong.

This philosophical position believes that you cannot justify an immoral action
by showing that it produced good consequences (whereas consequentialism
would argue there is no such thing as a moral or immoral action). Thus, people
have a duty to act according to the rights and wrongs of the act, regardless of
the consequences. This view is most famously associated with the 18th
Century philosopher Immanuel Kant, who believed that it was not morally
acceptable to tell a lie, even if this would save someone from murder (we used
as an example in Unit 20). So, in comparison to Consequentialists who would
consider what things are good and then identify the right actions to achieve
that, Deontologists would first consider the right actions and then proceed from
there (Box 21.1).

Box 21.1: Deontology Theory

Deontology is an ethical theory that states that the morality of an action

should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series
of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.

Deontology, or duty-based ethics, can have several good points:

 It emphasizes respect and can provide the basis for human rights or
other rights (as we will discuss in Section 21.3.1), and thus the rights of
a single individual are given due regard even if those are at odds with
the interests of a larger group.

 It also states that some acts are always wrong, and for these acts the
ends can never justify the means that might achieve them. From an
animal use point of view we might feel that it is never acceptable to carry
out a procedure on some types of living animal (such as a great ape)
that will cause persistent and untreatable pain, regardless of the good to
human medicine or health that may ensue (as is present in the laws of
some countries, but note that not all people might agree).

 It can provide certainty, as actions are always the same because they
are not reliant on predicting future outcomes.

 It also deals with intentions and motives of the actor. For example,
accidentally causing an injury to an animal would be acceptable in
deontological ethics as the act was not intended, whereas it may not be
192 from a consequentialism view since the outcome harmed the animal.
Unit 21 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-2
However, deontological ethical views may also have a number of bad points:

• It sets absolute rules, whereas not all cases may fit under these rules
and that can make it difficult to implement.

• In addition, applying deontological rules might make the world a less

good place, because it is focused only on the acts and not on the
outcomes, which could reduce overall happiness in the world (not lying
to a would-be murderer for example that leads to the killing of an
innocent person).

• As we have already discussed, often there are ethical dilemmas in

animal use that are not simple, and it can sometimes be hard to
reconcile conflicting duties, for example where our duty to an animal
may conflict with the duty to the animal’s owner, or where to treat one
animal that is sick (which might be the right things to do) might impact
negatively on the other animals in a group.

Kantian duty-based ethics (named after Kant as described above) can be

uncompromising and are based on an idealized but perhaps unachievable
view of every human behaving in an entirely rational manner. Kant developed
what he called ‘The Categorical Imperative’, which states that one should
always act in such a way that it could be applied to everyone in the same
situation. So, if we are not willing for the same ethical rule to be applied to us,
then we cannot apply this rule to another situation.

Example: If considering to break a promise we have made to someone, we

should consider if we are happy with others breaking promises they have
made to us. If we are not we should then conclude that it is not morally
acceptable for us to behave in this way. In addition, the ethical rule that we are
claiming to follow must be applicable universally, otherwise it is not a valid
rule. So following the same line of thinking in our example above, if we agree
that it is ok for us to break a promise then it must be so that all promises can
be broken, and thus promises have no value anymore. This rule then becomes
not a valid moral rule (that it is ok to break promises) and this can guide our
moral thinking. Because Kantian ethics can seem difficult and
uncompromising, more recent variations on duty-based ethics, put forward by
Sir David Ross (and so called Rossian duty-based ethics), suggest that there
might be two kinds of duties:

• Prima facie duties – which are self-evident and obvious duties or

responsibilities.

• Actual duties – what we should do based on the balance of these

responsibilities.

How we determine what is the right thing to do, and what our duties are, and
to whom, are still open to discussion, as with other ethical views and these
might be applied in real-life situations in regard to our use of animals will be
discussed next. 193
Block d Animal Welfare-II
21.2.1 Animal Rights View
Defenders of animal rights believe that there are fixed ethical rules that always
apply to and limit our treatment of animals, as we have discussed above.
These suggest that there are things that are just not ethical to do to animals,
which must be prohibited. Although this applies to all views of animal rights,
what rights animals should have can vary from person to person, and thus the
animal rights view can cover a range of differing views of animal treatment and
use. At the milder end of this view, we might consider it to be the right of
animals to be ‘treated with respect’ or ‘treated humanely’. This would consider
an animal’s rights to have been respected if we do not carry out anything to an
animal that was an avoidable harm, but might allow livestock farming and use
of animals in experiments as long as every step was taken to avoid suffering
or harm. At the other end of the spectrum would be more radical views that
might consider that an animal should have rights that are just like human
rights. Holders of this view would contend that animals have the right not to be
killed for human benefit (except in self-defence) and thus this view would be
incompatible with farming of animals for meat and the use of animals in
research and experimentation.

One of the best known proponents of these views is the American

Philosopher, Tom Regan, who published ‘The Case for Animal Rights’ in 1983.
Here he argues that at least some non-human animals have moral rights,
because they are ‘subjects-of-a-life’, where ‘…they have beliefs and desires:
perception, memory and a sense of the future, including their own future: an
emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference- and
welfare-interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and
goals; a psychological identity over time and an individual welfare in the sense
that their experiential life fares well or ill for them…’ (Tom Regan, 1983, The
Case for Animal Rights, p243.).

We will now consider how holding this ethical view might influence our views
on the acceptable treatment of animals by looking at two case studies or
scenarios.

21.2.2 Case Study 1: Farming Chickens for Meat

Poultry are widely farmed for meat production, typically using fast growing
strains of chickens, and are housed in large barns, often at very high stocking
density. Chickens are provided usually with a continual supply of food and
water, and reared on sawdust or other litter. Chickens may suffer from leg and
bone weakness that makes it difficult for them to walk easily as they age, and
may experience hock, foot or chest burns from coming into prolonged contact
with contaminated litter. Chickens in these systems may also be kept at low
light intensities and be given little to do that allows them to express natural
chicken behaviour, such as scratching, dust-bathing and roosting. Proponents
of animal rights would reject this intensive housing system, regardless of
whether they are radical or support a milder form of animal rights views,
considering that the chicken is not treated with respect, that its right to be
protected from avoidable harm has not been met. In intensive systems, often
the whole flock is considered together, rather than the individual, and the birds
can experience pain, suffering and distress. This might lead to a view that it is
194 not ethically acceptable to eat chicken meat produced under these conditions.
Unit 21 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-2
Supporters of a milder form of animal rights might take what could be
considered a ‘welfarist’ view and if the system could improved by various
interventions (such as: using slower growing chickens that do not suffer from
leg weakness; allowing outdoor access, natural lighting and environmental
enrichments to meet chicken needs; ensuring a humane and painless capture
and slaughter process etc.), then this could be considered to be treating the
chicken with respect and would make meat consumption ethically acceptable.
However, more radical supporters of animal rights would consider that it is
never acceptable to eat a chicken, as this would violate the bird’s right to life,
and therefore no chicken production facility, regardless of how hard it might try
to improve welfare, would be ethically acceptable.

21.2.3 Case Study 2: The Laboratory Rat

Millions of rats and mice are used in experimental laboratories around the
world. They are usually bred in specific facilities to meet laboratory
requirements and are housed, often singly, in relatively barren housing,
providing food, water and limited bedding only. Animals are usually kept in
racks in a room housing large numbers of animals housed above, alongside or
below, often on a fixed lighting schedule of light and dark and with closely
controlled environmental parameters. Animals can be used in a vast array of
studies including such things as investigations of psychological responses,
behavioural studies, drug trials, and fundamental studies to understand the
basis of human diseases. Some, but not all, of these studies may involve fear,
pain or distress to the animal involved, although end points are usually
included in the study that state at what level of animal suffering or dysfunction
a study must end.
To supporters of animal rights this use of animals is not acceptable, regardless
of any potential benefits to humans or animals that might ultimately accrue
from the studies. Here this is markedly different to utilitarian or
consequentialism in that the outcomes, the benefits, can never be taken as a
justification for the harm that the animal might experience. The rights, and the
inherent value of the animal, has not been respected and the use of animals in
this way cannot be allowed. To those at the milder end of the spectrum of
rights, it might be possible for very limited studies to be carried out, perhaps
some behavioural studies using positive reinforcement, if the animals can be
housed in such a way that they are treated with respect and humanity (such as
group housing with enrichment and they are re-homed at the end of the study).
But, in general, animal experimentation is incompatible with a belief in animal
rights.

SAQ 1
i) What is Deontology ethical theory?

ii) How is the deontological ethical view different from consequentialism?

iii) What do you understand by the ‘Categorical Imperative?’
iv) What is the difference between prima facie and actual duties?
v) What are the key features of animal rights view?
195
Block d Animal Welfare-II

21.3 VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue ethics has arisen from ancient Greek philosophy, and is particularly
attributed to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. The focus is on the character of the
individual, and that morality arises from intrinsic values. Different schools of
philosophy have suggested different attributes that make up a virtuous person
– for example, Plato suggested the cardinal virtues of wisdom, justice, fortitude
and temperance, whereas Socrates argued that virtue is knowledge. Aristotle
listed many more virtues, including courage, magnanimity, truthfulness and
friendliness as virtues, and included emotional virtues as well as more
intellectual virtues. Critics have suggested that virtue ethics are culturally
relative, since different people and societies may have different opinions on
what constitutes virtue. Others argue that virtues should arise from the
community where virtue is to be practiced and therefore this is a strength of
virtue ethics.

With the rise of utilitarianism and deontology, virtue ethics, as the third main
framework, has receded as a key area of ethics, although there are still
contemporary virtue ethicists who would argue for its relevance. Detractors
have suggested that virtue ethics can, in fact, be subsumed as part of the
other two areas. Deontology contains notions of virtue in understanding what
are duties and rights, and utilitarianism also contains key aspects of virtue
ethics. Eudaimonia, as we discussed briefly in Unit 20, is the concept of
human flourishing or happiness, and can be seen as the state of a virtuous
person, achieving happiness or flourishing by pursuing a virtuous life, or as an
end in weighing up the costs and benefits as part of utilitarian approaches.
Virtue ethics can be considered to differ from both deontology and
utilitarianism as its focus is mainly on being a particular type of person rather
than acting in a particular way. It can be linked to both other ethical
approaches, however, through happiness and how this can be achieved,
through being virtuous, acting in a specific way to increase happiness, or
aiming to increase the overall amount of happiness.

Thus, in our response to, and decision-making about, animals, this ethical
view argues we should behave in a caring, generous and honest way not
because of the outcomes for the animals, or because of the rights of the
animal, but because this is what makes a caring and virtuous person.
Consideration of our attitudes, and those that underlie use and abuse of
animals, can lead us to make judgements about what is ethical or not in our
treatment of animals. This is different to either of the other two considerations
of animal treatment (deontology or utilitarianism) as it does not permit anything
to be done to animals as long as interests are maximized, and nor does it
prohibit any use of animals if there are times when the harming of some
animals may prevent a moral catastrophe. Instead, virtue ethics can be used
to take into account the context-dependent situations, in which human-animal
relationships are usually found.

21.3.1 Relational Ethics

Relational ethical views are an example of context-dependent ethical

196 approaches, in which there are not simply rules that must be used at all times,
Unit 21 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-2
rather the approach is modified by the context in which they are practiced. For
relational ethics, this argues that it is the importance of the relationship, in this
case between ourselves and the animal, which is relevant to their treatment.
Put simply, this means that where a relationship between an animal and a
person already exists (such as between a shepherd and the flock), then
special ethical limits on the treatment of the animal exists. Where we have
domesticated animals that are dependent on our care, then we have an ethical
duty to provide care to them, in a way that we may not to wild animals. For
example, the shepherd should provide food and medical care for the flock of
sheep under their care, but has no moral duty to provide food or medicines to
wild sheep.

Relational ethical views might go further than this though. Because the key
idea is that there are value in close relationships, they encourage respect and
can provide a vehicle for improved virtue or eudaimonia, this suggests that
close relationships should be encouraged. This is because they have value in
themselves, where both the person and the animal may benefit and flourish,
because the closeness of the relationship leads to improved quality of care for
the animal, and improved well-being for the person.

Let us consider some case studies to help to illustrate this view.

21.3.2 Case Study 1: The Stray Dog

In many countries unowned, or free-roaming, stray dogs live on the streets in

close contact with humans. Dogs are opportunistic and adaptable creatures,
and where food resources are made readily available by poor human
management of waste, then dog populations will increase. These dogs can
have a good quality of life in some respects, as they are free to engage in
natural behaviour and can make choices about their own lives and wants.
However, it is a life of high risk and they may suffer from diseases that cause
pain, discomfort and suffering, such as mange, and are at risk of injury and
accident. In some places, stray dogs might be considered ‘community dogs’
where they have no specific owners but the community cooperates to provide
food, water, shelter and basic care for the dogs. In the same environment, we
might find owned dogs, which live more closely with a single person or family.
The relational ethical view would consider that the owned dogs are the moral
responsibility of the people or family with whom they live, and this animal
should therefore be treated better than the streetliving dogs. Community dogs
also have a closer relationship with people in the community, although this
may be lesser than the owned dog, and therefore there is a moral relationship
that must be upheld for these dogs too. In the same way as it would be
unacceptable for the owners to beat or starve their dog, then the community
dog should also enjoy a better degree of care than other stray dogs, because
of the relationship with the community. Coincidentally, the community then will
also enjoy a better life with the dogs, through a more harmonious relationship
with the dogs and a reduced threat of zoonotic disease. Street dogs that have
no such relationships with people may not be the moral responsibility of any
one person, and therefore may be treated worse than either owned or
community dogs. 197
Block d Animal Welfare-II
21.3.3 Case study 2: The Rabbit
We already introduced the moral conundrum of the rabbit in an earlier Unit.
Rabbits can be kept as pets in many countries, where like all pets there is a
moral duty by the owner to provide food, water, shelter, social companionships
and veterinary care to the animal because it is under their care and there is a
close relationship between the rabbit and people. However, rabbits can also
be farmed for meat or fur, or used in laboratories for experiments. Under these
circumstances supporters of the relational ethical view would consider it
acceptable for these animals to be treated less well than pet rabbits as the
relationship between humans and the animals is not as close. Finally, in many
countries, rabbits are an invasive pest species that breeds prolifically and can
be destructive in eating grass and vegetables that have been planted for other
purposes. For supporters of the relational ethical view we have no specific,
moral duties to pest rabbits, except to get rid of them as efficiently as possible.
From the rabbit’s point of view it still has the same interest in its own welfare,
the same needs for food, water and other aspects of welfare, regardless of our
use of it, but from the relational ethical view our responsibilities to provide
good welfare or good care is less for those rabbits to which we do not have a
close relationship or any relationship at all. The ethical or moral duty then is
dependent on the context in which we interact with the animal.

21.4 PRACTICAL ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING

By now it should be very clear to you that ethical reasoning around our use
and treatment of animals is far from clear and, depending on the ethical
frameworks we may be using, can result in very different decisions being
made in practice for our treatment of animals. This does not mean that one
ethical view is right and the others are wrong, they are all equally valid in
considering how animal should be treated. As we discussed in section 19.5, is
it necessarily the case that a person must adopt only one ethical framework
and make all decisions based on this alone, it is perfectly possible to use
different types of ethical reasoning in making decisions. As we have discussed
throughout Units 20 and 21, through the use of different case examples,
application of different ethical views, or sometimes even the strength of
different ethical views (as in Animal Rights views) can influence what might be
considered ethical and moral in the treatment or use of animals.

Although all the ethical frameworks discussed are relevant to animal

treatment, in practice a number of ethical positions dominate. Utilitarian
practices are widely used, and can form the basis of Animal Welfare and
Ethics Review Boards (AWERBs) in many countries, which make decisions
about the costs and benefits of proposed experimental studies using animals
and whether these should be permitted or not. However, here too a pluralist
approach can be seen as, for many countries, the great apes are not permitted
to be used for any experimental studies (involving invasive or harmful
procedures, they may take part in behavioural studies of cognition or learning),
applying an animal rights view that these animals have rights that are greater
than those of other non-human animals. Also we might see evidence for
198 relational ethical views too, as the use of dogs and cats in research generally
Unit 21 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-2
requires much more evidence and justification than the use of rats and mice.
The relational view of animal treatment is also often apparent in the practical
treatment of animals: in general, pet animals (with whom we have a close
relationship) enjoy a much greater standard of veterinary care, concern for
their welfare and often a more humane end than might farmed animals.

A final point here is that, in the application of ethical reasoning, most ethical
views are influenced by the capacities that animals have. In considering
whether the interests of the animal are relevant (in utilitarian thinking) or the
types of animals that should be given rights (in Animal Rights moral reasoning)
then the capacity of the animal to suffer, to be sentient, is relevant. In some
cases the degree of rights or the assessment of harm/benefit might be greater
for some animals because they are perceived to have a greater capacity for
emotional experience than others (for example, this is likely an influence in the
greater rights given to the Great Apes compared to other primates). The
relational ethical view, and the respect for nature position, differ from other
views in that this is less important compared to the intrinsic value that the
animal may have, either as a species, or as an individual.

SAQ 2
i) What is the key feature in the Virtue ethics approach?

ii) How does the Virtue ethics approach differ from utilitarianism and
deontology approaches?

21.5 SUMMARY
Let us summarise what you have learnt so far:

• In this unit we have considered the application of deontology and virtue

ethics in our decision-making around the treatment of animals.

• Deontology is the ethical view that it is not the outcomes or the

consequences of our actions that should be considered, but the actions
themselves.

• The best-known application of this ethical view to the treatment of

animals is the ‘Animal Rights’ movement.

• Within Animal Rights there is variation in what sort of rights should be

extended to animals, and thus what is acceptable treatment of animals.
At the more extreme end, any use of animals would be considered
unacceptable.

• The third ethical framework that can apply to animals is virtue ethics,
which suggests it is not actions that are important, but the type of person
we are.

• Relational ethics argues that the way we should behave towards animals
depends on the closeness of the relationship we have with them, and 199
Block d Animal Welfare-II
thus we should provide better care to animals, such as pets, because we
have a closer relationship to them than to farm animals or laboratory
animals.

• Our ethical decision-making in practice may favour one or other

approach, and some views are more commonly used than others, but no
position is more or less ‘right’ than others in determining the treatment of
animals.

21.6 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. How do deontological ethical views differ from consequentialist views?

2. Briefly describe animal rights approaches to the treatment of animals.

3. Describe how different ethical views might influence decisions to use

animals in experiments.

4. What are the key principles of virtue ethics?

5. Discuss the application of relational ethical thinking to our treatment of

the rabbit in different contexts.

21.7 ANSWERS
Self-Assessment Questions
1. i) Deontology is an ethical theory that states that the morality of an
action should be based on whether the action itself is right or
wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the
consequences of the action.

ii) Unlike consequentialism, deontological ethics are concerned with

what people do, not the consequences of their actions. The key
principles are: do the right thing because it is the right thing to do,
and avoid doing wrong things because they are wrong.

iii) The Categorical Imperative states that one should always act in
such a way that it could be applied to everyone in the same
situation.

iv) Prima facie duties are self-evident and obvious duties or

responsibilities. Whereas actual duties are what we should do
based on the balance of these responsibilities. 5) Defenders of
animal rights believe that there are fixed ethical rules that always
apply to and limit our treatment of animals. These suggest that
there are things that are just not ethical to do to animals, which
must be prohibited. Although this applies to all views of animal
rights, what rights animals should have can vary from person to
person, and thus the animal rights view can cover a range of
differing views of animal treatment and use.

2. i) Virtue ethics focus is on the character of the individual, and that

200 morality arises from intrinsic values.
Unit 21 Animal Welfare Ethical Theories-2
ii) Virtue ethics approach argues that we should behave in a caring,
generous and honest way not because of the outcomes for the
animals, or because of the rights of the animal, but because this is
what makes a caring and virtuous person. Virtue ethics can be
used to take into account the context-dependent situations, in
which human-animal relationships are usually found.

Terminal Questions
1. Refer to Section 21.2.

2. Refer to Subsection 21.2.1.

3. Refer to Section 21.4.

4. Refer to Section 21.3.

5. Refer to Subsection 21.3.3.

SUGGESTED READING
1. Palmer and Sandoe (2018). Animal Ethics (Chapter 1) In: Animal
Welfare, 3rd Edition, Ed. M.A. Appleby, A.S. Olsson & F. Galindo, CABI.

2. http://www.aedilemma.net/home - A website where you can learn more

about different ethical views and how different ethical views influence
your own behaviour through interactive animal ethical dilemmas.

201
Volume 2 Animal Welfare-II

GLOSSARY
3Rs : A set of three key principles in the use of animals
in experiments. These are (in decreasing order of
importance) replacement for the use of animals,
reduction in the numbers of animals used and
refinement to minimize the harms to the animal.

A Good Life : This is an aspirational goal, which recognises that

animal welfare should go beyond just a life worth
living.

Abnormal Behaviour : Behaviours that are performed at an abnormally

high frequency, or in an abnormal context or are
displayed towards an inappropriate object
(sometimes called mis-directed behaviour),
usually as a consequence of housing or
management that does not meet the animals
needs.

Absolute Animal : They are the absolute agreed standard of animal

Welfare Standards welfare that everyone should adhere to and apply
to all animals regardless of the country in which
they live (e.g. OIE standards).

Adaptations : Any behavioural or physical characteristics of an

animal that help it to survive in its environment.

Aggressive behavior : Damaging conflict behaviour, such as biting,

pushing and fighting.

Agonistic behavior : The full behavioural repertoire related to conflict,

ranging from threat display to withdrawal after
conflict; includes aggressive behaviour.

Amygdala : A cluster of nuclei in the limbic region of the

cerebral cortex which performs a primary role in
the processing of memory, decision-making and
emotional responses in vertebrates.

Animal Husbandry : This is the branch of agriculture concerned with

animals that are raised for meat, fibre, milk, eggs,
or other products.

Animal Liberation : A movement begun by the utilitarian philosopher,

Peter Singer, in the 1970s which argues for the
benefits/costs to animals to be given equal
consideration to those of humans in any ethical
decision-making.

Animal Rights : An ethical view that states that sentient animals

have moral rights to be treated in the same way
as other sentient creatures (including humans).
202
Volume 2 Animal Welfare-II
Animal Rights : An idea, based on deontology, that some, or all,
non-human animals are entitled to their own
existence, are ‘subjects-of-a-life’, and their
interests in avoiding suffering should be
respected.

Animal Sentience : The capacity of animal to feel or experience the

world subjectively.

Animal Welfare : The minimum conditions under which an animal

Standards should be kept as determined by legislation, or
other bodies.

Animal-based : Outcome-based measures or indicators which

Measures focus on the animal (as an individual or group of
animals) and assess the actual impact on welfare
of the animal.

AWIN : Acronym for the Animal Welfare Indicators

project, which was the second large animal
welfare project funded by the European Union
and developed welfare assessment protocols for
a range of farmed species.

Behaviour : The way in which an animal acts or conducts

itself, especially towards others.

Biological Function : The physiological changes and responses made

by all living things as they adjust to the
environment.

Brain Stem : The posterior part of the brain connecting the

brain to the spinal cord, controlling sleep and
wakefulness, basic functions such as breathing
and swallowing and autonomic functions.

Breeding : Breeding is sexual reproduction that produces

offspring by animals.

Carnivore : A carnivore, meaning “meat eater”, is an

organism that derives its energy and nutrient
requirements from a diet consisting mainly or
exclusively of animal tissue, whether through
predation or scavenging.

Catecholamine : Class of amines and neurotransmitters that

include adrenaline and noradrenaline released
when animals are threatened as an output of the
SAM axis.

Cerebral Cortex : The outer layer of neural tissue that covers the
cerebrum in humans and other mammals, often 203
Volume 2 Animal Welfare-II
referred to as the ‘grey matter’. It is the mostly
highly developed part of the brain and is
responsible for most information processing in
mammals.

Codes of Practice : The guidance or rules of agreed practices that

should be adhered to by an animal keeper. These
are not legal documents, but the law may require
the animal keeper to meet these specifications.

Cognitive Bias : A form of behavioural testing that asks animals to

Testing discriminate between rewarded or unrewarded
stimuli and then assesses how the animal
behaviours when an ambiguous stimuli is given
(also called judgement bias).

Compliance : An assessment that the law (in this case relating

to animal welfare) is being met and thus the farm
or facility is ‘compliant’ and doing as it should.

Conditioned Place : The association of a location with a positive

Avoidance/Preference (preference) or negative (avoidance) event that
leads to the place becoming preferred or avoided
in expectation that something rewarding or
punishing will occur there.

Consciousness : An awareness of internal or external existence;

self-awareness.
Consequentialism : An ethical approach that advocates that it is the
outcomes of our actions that are important, rather
than what we do.
Contractarian : An ethical view that suggests that what we do is
guided by selfinterest and follows from social
contracts made between individuals.
Contractarianism : The view that ethical obligations come about from
mutual agreements or contracts between people.
Controllability : Being able to control or regulate events that are
happening.
Deontology : An ethical theory that states that the morality of
an action should be based on whether the action
itself is right or wrong under a series of rules,
rather than based on the consequences of the
action.
Discomfort : A feeling of being uncomfortable physically or
mentally, or something that causes this.
Disease : A disorder of structure or function in an animal,
especially one that produces specific symptoms
or that affects a specific location and is not simply
204 a direct result of physical injury.
Volume 2 Animal Welfare-II
Distress : An extreme anxiety, sorrow, or pain.

Dominance Hierarchy : This is a social ranking system within a group of

the same species in which certain forms of status
and privilege are held by those ranking at the top,
usually the stronger or more aggressive
members.
Dominant Animal : A dominant animal is one whose sexual, feeding,
aggressive and other behaviour patterns
subsequently occur with relatively little influence
of the other group members.
Environmental Coping : All animals have evolved to do best in a particular
environmental niche and so possess a set of
biological adaptations that allow the animal to
cope well with that environment.
Ethics : A set of moral reactions or principles that serve
as a guide for a person’s actions.
Eudaimonia : A central concept in Arisotle’s ethical views from
ancient Greece, meaning human flourishing,
prosperity, happiness or blessedness.
Eudemonia : Living a virtuous life, or a life with value and
meaning (In ancient Greece).
Fear : An unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of
danger, pain, or harm.
Feasibility : In the context of welfare assessment, this is an
assessment of whether the measure or indicator
can be recorded in all situations in which we may
want to record it, and within an acceptable period
of time; whether it is practical to assess.
Feedback : Providing information about the scores achieved
to the person being audited for animal welfare to
allow changes to be made.
Feelings : The sensations and experiences of conscious
being.
Five Domains : Nutrition, environment, health, behaviour and
animal’s mental state.
Five Domains : An adaptation of the Five Freedoms developed in
New Zealand to allow assessment of the welfare
of animal used in research and teaching. This
considers welfare in four physical domains which
then leads to a further fifth domain of the animal’s
mental state which defines its welfare.
Five Freedoms : Freedom from hunger and thirst; discomfort; pain,
injury or disease; to express normal behaviour,
and; fear and distress. 205
Volume 2 Animal Welfare-II
Five Freedoms : The oldest and best known comprehensive
welfare assessment framework which was
developed in UK in 1970s. This defines animal
welfare in terms of five specific areas where
animal requirements should be respected and
considered.

Framework : A supporting structure around which a concept

can be built.

Generation Interval : It is the concept in animal breeding in which how

quickly a new-born animal itself becomes a
parent is recorded.

Genetic Modification : The process of changing the characteristics of an

animal (or other organism) through transferring
genetic material (DNA) from another organism, or
by the targeted removal of genes or DNA. This
can sometimes also refer to the selective
breeding to increase the frequency of specific
genes within the population.

Genetics : Genetics is a branch of biology concerned with

the study of genes, genetic variation, and
heredity in organisms.

Genotype : Genotype is the specific and unique genetic

makeup of an animal.

Glucocorticoids : A group of corticosteroids involved in the

metabolism of carbohydrates, proteins and fats
with anti-inflammatory action. Most commonly
measured species from the activation of the HPA
axis are cortisol (most mammals and fish) or
corticosterone (birds and rats).

Gregariousness : Is the degree to which individuals in an animal

population tend to associate in social groups.

Hedonia : In human studies, a good quality of life includes

aspects of pleasureseeking which is termed as
‘hedonia’ (In ancient Greece).

Hedonism : An ethical view that pleasure (the satisfaction of

desires) is the highest good and the proper aim of
human life.

Herbivore : Herbivore is an animal anatomically and

physiologically adapted to eating plant material,
for example foliage or marine algae, for the main
component of its diet.

Heritability : The strength of the genetic contribution to the

variability of a trait is termed as the ‘heritability’ of
206 the trait.
Volume 2 Animal Welfare-II
Homeostasis : The set point for biological processes within the
body (e.g. temperature, blood pressure) which
the animal attempts to maintain by altering
biological function if the environment has
changed.

HPA axis : Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal hormonal cascade

pathway that results in the release of
glucocorticoids from the adrenal cortex when
animals are under threat.

Human-animal : The relationship and communication between

Interaction humans and animals.

Human-animal : A measure of the quality of the relationship

Relationship between an animal and its keeper. This can be
positive, in that the animal regards its keeper as a
source of food, companionship and care, or
negative as a source of fear or pain. This is often
measured by willingness to approach and interact
with a human, or the behaviours expressed when
in close contact to a person.

Hunger : Hunger is a condition in which an animal, for a

sustained period, is unable to eat sufficient food
to meet basic nutritional needs.

Hypothalamic : A hormonal system triggered in the brain

Pituitary Adrenal Axis (hypothalamus) which brings about the release of
glucocorticoid hormones from the adrenal gland
to support animal responses to environmental
challenge.

Hypothalamus : A region of the brain that coordinates the

autonomic nervous system, and the activity of the
pituitary gland to control body temperature and
other aspects of homeostasis, growth,
reproduction and emotional reactivity.

Injurious Behaviour : Abnormal behaviours performed by animals on

themselves or others which leads to injury.
Injury : Injury, also known as physical trauma, is damage
to the body caused by external force.
Introgression : A genetic process of introducing a gene from one
species (or sometimes one breed) to another
through grossing and then repeated
backcrossing.
Malnutrition : Malnutrition, in all its forms, includes under-
nutrition (wasting, stunting, and underweight),
inadequate vitamins or minerals, overweight,
obesity, and resulting diet-related non-
communicable diseases. 207
Volume 2 Animal Welfare-II
Maslow’s Hierarchy of : At the bottom of the hierarchy are the basic
Needs needs (of humans and animals) for meeting
physiological and safety needs. Further up (for
humans) are needs associated with being part of
the social group, being valued and self-
actualisation or achieving ones goals.
Minimum Animal : They are an indication of the lowest permitted
Welfare Standards level of animal welfare – these are the levels
below which an animal should not fall.
Multi-dimensional : Animal welfare should assess a range of different
Animal Welfare dimensions of animal welfare to be seen as
Assessment comprehensive, and considering animal physical
and mental requirements.
Multi-dimensional : A scheme or system that allows all the different
Welfare Assessment facets or dimensions of animal welfare to be
considered.
Mutual : A feeling or action experienced or done by both
that are involved. For example: mutual trust, they
both trust each other.
Natural Life : All animals need to be maintained in an
environment as close as possible to that in which
the wild ancestors of that species evolved.
Naturalness : The degree to which animals are living in an
environment that is similar to that in which their
species evolved, and the capacity that the animal
has to perform the normal behaviours of that
species.
OiE : The world organisation for animal health, which
provides a global strategy and standards for
animal welfare.
Omnivore : An omnivore is an animal that has the ability to
eat and survive on both plant and animal matter.
Optimum Animal : They define or provide guidance on the best level
Welfare Standards of animal care, based on the evidence provided
by animal welfare science (on housing, feeding,
healthcare, opportunity to express natural
behaviour etc).
Pain : Pain is an unpleasant sensation and emotional
experience that links to tissue damage.
Positive Emotional : The state of being associated with positive
State feelings, such as contentment, relaxation,
positive anticipation, interest or confidence.
Predictability : The ability to predict; having a valid expectation
about what is going to happen under certain
208 conditions.
Volume 2 Animal Welfare-II
Preference Test : Type of behavioural test that asks animals to
choose between two or more conditions or
environments to determine what are important to
particular species.

Production : The production of animal goods such as meat,

dairy, wool, and leather.

Qualitative : A specialised form of behavioural measurement

Behavioural that asks how animals are behaving, through
Assessment assessing their body language.

Red-Amber-Green : Application of a ‘traffic light’ scheme allows quick

Scores and easily understood feedback to be given
where red means that animal welfare is poor, or
in the danger area, amber is a warning and green
means animal welfare is good, often used in
comparison with other facilities.

Reliability : In the context of welfare assessment, this is an

assessment of whether the measure or indicator
can be recorded in the same way by more than
one person (reproducibility) and by the same
person on different occasions (repeatability).

Resource Holding : Dominance is conferred by the ability to obtain

Potential (RHP) and defend a resource, termed resource holding
potential.

Resource-based : Input-based measures or indicators which look at

Measures the environment in which an animal is kept and
generally look at the risks and opportunities for
good and poor animal welfare respectively, rather
than the actual impact on the animal.
RSPCA-Assured : The UK’s Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals has a food certification scheme,
previously known as Freedom Foods, which
focuses on reducing confinement of farmed
animals, and encouraging the use of space,
comfort and enrichment.
SAM Axis : Sympathetic adrenal medullary neural pathway
that causes the release of catecholamines from
the adrenal medulla and organises the ‘fight-
flight’ reactions of animals when threatened.
Sampling : Where it is not possible to measure the welfare of
all animals in a population, then a sampling
method is required to select a suitable number of
animals in an unbiased way on which to base the
overall assessment of the population.
Sentience : The capacity to feel, perceive or experience
subjectively. 209
Volume 2 Animal Welfare-II
Sentient Animal : An animal that is aware of its feelings and
experiences, and where those experiences
matter to it.

Social Behaviour : It can be defined as all behaviour that influences,

or is influenced by, other members of the same
species.

Social Interactions : Animal social behaviour, the suite of interactions

that occur between two or more individual
animals, usually of the same species, when they
form simple aggregations, cooperate in sexual or
parental behaviour, engage in disputes over
territory and access to mates, or simply
communicate across space.

Social Stress : Social stress in animals arise from drastic

changes in social behaviour and population
density, which will have a marked influence on
growth, reproductive performance and many
types of behaviour.

Speciesism : A concept of considering one species to be more

important than another. This can be considering
the interests of humans to be more important
than other animals, or considering more
charismatic species to be more worthy of
protection than less attractive species.

Stereotypy : Repetitive, unvarying and apparently functionless

behaviours which are performed usually by
animals housed in restrictive conditions that do
not meet their behavioural needs, sometimes at
very high frequency (e.g. the animal spends large
parts of its day performing these activities).

Subordinate Animals : Opposite of dominant animals, their behaviour

can be relatively easily influenced or inhibited by
other group members.

Sympathetic Adrenal : A neural system triggered in response to

Medulla Axis challenge which brings about a ‘fight, flight or
freeze’ response in the animal.

Thirst : Thirst is the feeling of needing to drink

something.

Tibial : In broilers, this is the inadequate development of

Dyschondroplasia the cartilage leading to pathologies in the growth
plate.

Trait : The features that are the target of improvement

through genetic selection, such as growth rate,
210 are referred to as ‘traits’.
Volume 2 Animal Welfare-II
Utilitarianism : An ethical view that considers the consequences
of our actions to be guided by a desire to
maximise benefits and minimise harms.

Utilitarianism : A form of consequentialism that seeks to

maximize the benefits to the greatest number,
and to minimize the costs. This weighs up the
relative benefits and costs to all those affected by
a decision.

Validity : In the context of welfare assessment, this is an

assessment of whether the instrument or
measure is actually measuring or assessing what
we want it to measure.

Virtue Ethics : An ethical view that argues that it is what we do,

rather than the consequences of what we do, that
is important, asking what would a moral or
virtuous person do in a given situation.

Virtue Ethics : An ethical view that argues that it is what we do,

rather than the consequences of what we do, that
is important, asking what would a moral or
virtuous person do in a given situation.

WAZA : The World Association for Zoos and Aquariums

which provides guidance and standards of
practice for zoos that are members of the
association.

Weaning : The act or process of separating a baby or young

animal from its mother which may cause
psychological stress as well as preventing it from
feeding on its mother’s milk and thus, needing to
start eating other food.

Weighting Scores : It is usually though that not all aspects of animal

welfare, as measured by a set of indicators, will
be equally important for the animal. To avoid the
bias that might come from simply adding all
scores together, a ‘weighting’ (or multiplication)
factor would be applied to the more important
indicators to give them greater importance or
weight in the final score.

Welfare Outcomes : Animal-based indicators of welfare are

sometimes also referred to as ‘outcomes’ since
they report on the actual impact on the animal,
and are direct measures of welfare status.

Welfare Outcomes : Animal-based indicators of welfare are

sometimes also referred to as ‘outcomes’ since
they report on the actual impact on the animal,
and are direct measures of welfare status.
211
Volume 2 Animal Welfare-II
Welfare Quality : The four Principles for good animal welfare are:
Criteria Principles good feeding; good housing or environment;
good health, and; appropriate behavior.

Welfare Quality® : A large European project which set out to

develop welfare assessment schemes, based
largely on animal-based measures, for cattle,
pigs and poultry. This project defined animal
welfare in a set of four principles and 12 criteria
which expanded on the Five Freedoms to allow it
to be used for welfare assessment of farmed
animals.

212