Animal Welfare: Review of the Scientific Concept and Definition

WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository

2009

Animal welfare: review of the scientific concept and definition

Corrado Carenzi University of Milan

Marina Verga University of Milan

Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/assawel

Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Other Animal Sciences Commons, and the Other Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Carenzi, C., & Verga, M. (2009). Animal welfare: review of the scientific concept and definition. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8(sup1), 21-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.21

This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Review article

Animal welfare: review of the scientific concept and definition

Corrado Carenzi, Marina Verga

Dipartimento di Scienze Animali. Università di Milano, Italy Corresponding author: Prof. Marina Verga. Dipartimento di Scienze Animali. Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Milano. Via Celoria 10, 20133 Milano, Italy - Tel. +39 02 50318037 - Fax: +39 02 50318030 - Email: [email protected]

Paper received April 23, 2007; accepted October 18, 2007

ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper is to present a review of the current scientific viewpoints about the concept and definition of animal welfare. The need of interaction among different disciplines is stressed, as well as the need to scientifically assess welfare, using validated indicators. The role of applied ethology in animal welfare science is stressed. The paper provides a brief overview of the historical steps in the development of the concept and presents scientific viewpoints, briefly explaining their theoretical foundation. The possibility of defining welfare on a scientific basis is explained, identifying the main problems according to the scientific, cultural and social background. Another aspect considered is the relationship between welfare and ethics, evidencing the meaning of such an interaction and its possible evolution.

Key words: Animal welfare, Welfare concept, Welfare definition, Science, Ethics.

RIASSUNTO

Concetto e definizione scientifici del benessere animale: una review

Scopo del presente lavoro è fornire una visione aggiornata sulle conoscenze scientifiche in merito al concetto ed alla definizione di ‘benessere animale’, prendendo in considerazione i punti di vista espressi dai vari ricercatori sui diversi aspetti che questi implicano. Viene presentata la complessità di tale concetto e la necessità di affrontarlo attraverso l’interazione di diverse discipline, sia nell’ambito delle scienze naturali che di quelle sociali. Si prende in esame anche la possibilità di definire il termine ‘benessere’, attraverso un breve percorso storico in merito alle diverse scuole di pensiero e di ricerca. Si evidenzia inoltre la necessità di una visione scientifica del benessere animale, sia nella sua definizione che nelle metodologie di indagine utilizzate per valutarlo, sottolineando in particolare il ruolo dell’etologia applicata. Infine si pone in relazione la scienza che studia il benessere animale con l’etica, identificando le possibilità di interazione tra le due discipline.

Parole chiave: Benessere animale, Concetto di benessere, Definizione di benessere, Scienza, Etica.

Ital.J.Anim.Sci. vol. 8 (Suppl. 1), 21-30, 2009 21

01_VERGA.indd 21 8-04-2009 16:50:31 Carenzi - Verga

Introduction methodology first used in human micro-eco- nomics, have been used in order to discover Animal welfare is a multi-faceted issue how much animals value environmental which implies important scientific, ethical, resources (Cooper, 2004). Moreover, the col- economic and political dimensions (Lund et laboration among ethologists, physiologists al., 2006). Thus this science needs an inter- and psychologists has produced a model to disciplinary approach, bringing together re- interpret stockperson–animal interactions searchers from different disciplines within (Hemsworth and Coleman, 1998). Thus the the biological sciences, such as physiology, nature and consequences of such interac- veterinary science, ethology and comparati- tions for both the human and the animal ve psychology. Moreover, although the first may explain the effects of some stressors steps had been based on the natural scien- on reproductive processes, metabolism, and ces, subsequently it appeared necessary to immune response on the one hand and the use a broad multi-faceted approach to scien- quality of animal husbandry on the other, tific animal welfare questions. In fact this which involve both animal welfare and pro- approach, mainly combining ethology, phy- ductivity. siology, psychology and the studies of the Due to the fact that the study of animal human–animal interaction, may offer the welfare includes husbandry and human– advantages of improving the understanding animal interactions, the multi-faceted ap- of knowledge about animal welfare issues proach has to include collaboration between as well as to obtain methodological gains. the natural and social sciences. This may As far as ethology is concerned, this di- improve knowledge on relevant aspects of scipline has a key role in the development human behaviour and of animals’ roles in of animal welfare science (Millman et al., society. From this viewpoint, also the colla- 2004) and applied research. Applied etholo- boration with philosophers has revealed to gists have to use a “whole animal” approa- be fruitful in recognising the value dimen- ch, including the study of the causation and sion in animal welfare science and in better development of behavioural systems, which understanding the whole concept of animal are related to the understanding of animals’ welfare (Lund et al., 2006). stress, linking behaviour to its physiological bases and processes (Broom and John- State of art on the concept of welfare son, 1993; Moberg and Mench, 2000). The practical application of the results of the Animal welfare as a ‘formal discipline’ research on applied ethology may contribu- started with the publication of the Bram- te to improving the design of housing and bell report on the welfare of farm animals, equipment and of management practices issued by the British government in 1965 (Grandin, 1993), allowing animals to ex- (Brambell Report, 1965). The adoption of press their behaviour and to cope with the a conventional scientific approach, with environment. experiments focusing on the effects of sin- Concepts and approaches from cognitive gle factors under controlled circumstances psychology have also been applied in animal (Sandøe et al., 2003), allowed the new disci- welfare research, for example to develop pline to be established as a science, or as “a theories and research methods regarding young science” (Millman et al., 2004). farm animals’ emotions (Désiré et al., 2002). A very large amount of research has been Analogues of consumer-demand studies, a carried out about animal welfare problems

22 Ital.J.Anim.Sci. vol. 8 (Suppl. 1), 21-30, 2009

01_VERGA.indd 22 8-04-2009 16:50:31 Welfare concept and definition

involving very specific fields of interest, such ness, or capacity to learn from others in or- as the development of welfare assessment der to understand the animal minds. These methods in different environments, as well studies, besides making it possible to obtain as more fundamental questions relating to a deeper knowledge of animal minds, also the biological bases of welfare and stress. give a clear picture of how animals perceive Among the main issues involved in the the world and how environmental stimuli concept of welfare are the concepts of ‘suffe- may affect their welfare level. Of course the ring’ and ‘need,’ as well as the ‘five freedoms’ stimuli perception and the consequent reac- which are more related to animal husbandry tion to them are determined by the interac- and management by man. These concepts tion between genotype (species and breed) are related to the fact that animals are now and learning (experience and interpretation acknowledged as “sentient beings” as in Am- of that experience) (Webster, 1994). The pos- sterdam Treaty in 1997, which confers spe- sibility to deepen the knowledge of animals’ cial consideration for them under European minds also makes it possible to better un- Law (Millman et al., 2004). The concept of derstand animals’ ‘subjective experiences’, ‘sentience’ had been already given scienti- both positive and negative. These latter may fic validity by Darwin (Webster, 2006). It also involve ‘suffering,’ which consists of “a is related to the strong debate opposing in wide range of unpleasant emotional states” the past behaviourists and ethologists. In (Duncan and Dawkins, 1983). Suffering oc- fact at the beginning the American school curs “when unpleasant subjective feelings of Behaviourism did not accept in the scien- are acute or continue for a long time be- tific vocabulary “all subjective terms such cause an animal is unable to carry out the as sensation, perception, image, desire and actions that would normally reduce risks to even thinking and emotion” (Watson, 1928; life and reproduction in those circumstan- Skinner, 1938). Initially ethologists also ces” (Dawkins, 1990). generally restricted their considerations to The different aspects of the concept of observable behaviour, although using terms animal welfare have always to be taken such as ‘hunger,’ ‘pain,’ ‘fear’ and ‘frustra- into consideration in the studies on animal tion’ (Duncan, 2006). Also, positions such as science. This means that all the biological the following were adopted by many scien- components, both physical and psychologi- tists (Tinbergen, 1951): “Because subjective cal, concurring in determining the welfare phenomena cannot be observed objectively level, have to be studied and linked together. on animals, it is idle to claim or to deny Moreover physiological, immune and beha- their existence.” Animal sentience has beco- vioural measures should be validated and me an important issue after the publication their underlying biological mechanisms of Griffin’s book on it (Griffin, 1976). Due to should be adequately understood (Rushen the development of research and to chan- et al., 2003). ges to the initial positions, psychology and The animals‘ biological mechanisms are ethology started to collaborate. Thus, con- directed to simultaneously adapt to many trary to the belief that we could never know environmental stimuli, sometimes conflic- how animals feel, but only how they behave, ting and potentially stressful stimuli, whose some ethologists, such as Dawkins (1980, importance determines priorities of action. 1993) and cognitive psychologists, such as The challenge for animal welfare research Toates (1986), have carried out studies of is to discover how animals ‘feel’ and how perception, decision making, self-aware- much it does matter to them. Following

Ital.J.Anim.Sci. vol. 8 (Suppl. 1), 21-30, 2009 23

01_VERGA.indd 23 8-04-2009 16:50:32 Carenzi - Verga

this challenge, another important issue is (Brambell Report, 1965), revised by FAWC to find out which are the animals’ specific (1993) as follows: needs and how these needs may be fulfilled - Freedom from thirst, hunger and mal- by the environment where they live. In fact nutrition – by ready access to fresh water the possibility to fulfil the biological needs and diet to maintain full health and vigour is related to the welfare level. In this res- - Freedom from discomfort – by providing pect, a long debate has been raised among a suitable environment including shelter researchers on animal welfare about the and a comfortable resting area term ‘need.’ According to Fraser and Broom - Freedom from pain, injury and disea- (1997) “the general term ‘need’ is used to re- se – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and fer to a deficiency in an animal which can be treatment remedied by obtaining a particular resource - Freedom to express normal behaviour or responding to a particular environmen- – by providing sufficient space, proper facili- tal or bodily stimulus.” Considering animal ties and company of the animal’s own kind welfare in practice, the animal may be in- - Freedom from fear and distress – by en- teracting with a variety of factors that may suring conditions which avoid mental suf- represent the fulfilling of the ‘needs,’ i.e. re- fering. quirements for obtaining physical and men- According to Webster (1994), “absolute tal health (Odendaal, 1998). The needs vary attainment of all five freedoms is unreali- according to the species characteristics and stic,” but these freedoms are an “attempt evolution, and may be divided into different to make the best of a complex and difficult categories, which may be summed up in the situation.” These have to be deeply conside- following: red in husbandry systems for farm animals, - environmental needs, such as housing because they have to be given the possibility and management which include handling to adapt well to them, in order to avoid un- and breeding, as well as hygiene, transport due distress and consequently produce well and environmental enrichment; in optimal conditions. In any case, animals’ - physiological and behavioural needs, welfare has to be considered in a realistic which include the possibility to express the way, avoiding anthropomorphism into its main specific biological functions as well as evaluation (Webster, 1994), as well as pure the behavioural repertoire. This possibility mechanistic consideration. also depends on the interaction with human beings and on the genetic selection of reared State of art on the definition of welfare subjects for desirable traits. The biological functional systems and the The long debate about animal welfare motivational state determine the variety of includes the possibility of defining the term each organism’s more or less urgent needs ‘welfare’ itself. This word must reflect a (Baxter, 1988; Broom 1988; Hughes and Dun- clear concept, which can be scientifically as- can, 1988), and the impossibility of satisfying sessed (EFSA, 2006) and which can be used the needs may raise welfare problems. by the scientific community and can be in- In this respect, the concept of ‘freedom’ cluded in laws (Broom, 1991). The definition in animal husbandry has been introduced should also explain the meaning of animal and plays a key role. In fact the knowledge welfare to various categories of people, such about the needs of animals is related to the as corporations, consumers, veterinarians, proposal of giving animals some ‘freedoms’ politicians and others (Hewson, 2003).

24 Ital.J.Anim.Sci. vol. 8 (Suppl. 1), 21-30, 2009

01_VERGA.indd 24 8-04-2009 16:50:32 Welfare concept and definition

The term ‘welfare’ is not uniformly defined coping success of the organism towards the and used in the literature. This may be due stressors. A good welfare level means absen- to the different attitudes towards animals, ce of distress or of a large stress response but implies also the different methodologies (Broom, 1986; Wiepkema, 1987; Broom and used to evaluate welfare (Weber and Zara- Johnson, 1993). Examples of this approach te, 2005). Thus many definitions of welfare are the definitions stressing the coping suc- have been proposed, according to cultural cess. Broom (1986) states that “the welfare developments of the societal view about the of an animal is its state as regards its at- relationship between man and animals. In tempts to cope with its environment”. This the past welfare had been seen, mainly by approach is linked to a hierarchy of biolo- veterinarians and farmers, chiefly in terms gical ‘needs’ and to the evidence of the im- of the body and physical environment. But portance of their fulfilment or not in order such a view has limitations: for example to maintain good welfare levels (Duncan, good physical outcomes, due to genetics and 2005). environment, do not mean that mental sta- A second approach states that the rela- te is not compromised. Moreover, physical tionship between stress and welfare, which state may be affected by both positive and is a central issue and had been already sta- negative experiences (Hewson, 2003). Thus ted by Wood-Gush et al. (1975), is a complex the definitions of animal welfare proposed one and welfare could not be defined simply by various researchers reflect their different in terms of stress (Duncan, 2002). Already backgrounds. the Brambell Report (1965) acknowledged To date, the contribution of different di- the role of mental processes in welfare. Its sciplines to the definition of animal welfare definition was the following: “welfare is a implies stressing both the biological func- wide term that embraces both the physical tioning and the relation between body and and mental well-being of the animal. Any mind, considering the organism in a more attempt to evaluate welfare, therefore, must comprehensive way. take into account the scientific evidence Some confusion exists also between the available concerning the feelings of animals terms welfare and well-being, which in dic- that can be derived from their structure and tionaries are respectively: “the state of being functions and also from their behaviour.” or doing well” and “a good or satisfactory Another definition states that “welfare is a condition of existence,” which are linked to state of complete mental and physical heal- the concept of ‘quality of life’ (Fraser, 1998); th, where the animal is in harmony with its however the two terms may be probably environment” (Hughes, 1976). This defini- used also as synonyms (Fraser, 1998). tion is very similar to the one given by WHO On a scientific basis, three main approa- (1946): “a state of complete physical, mental ches have been followed in order to define and social well being, and not merely the ab- and, consequently, to find methodologies to sence of disease or infirmity.” assess welfare level. Thus this second approach emphasises The first approach emphasises the bio- much more the psychological aspects of logical functioning of organisms, such as welfare, considering feelings or emotions growth and reproduction, as well as health as key elements in determining the quali- and behaviour. Behaviour represents the ty of life, which includes not only the state first response to the environmental stimuli of the animal’s body, but also its feelings. and may give at first a clear picture of the This approach was raised by some sort of

Ital.J.Anim.Sci. vol. 8 (Suppl. 1), 21-30, 2009 25

01_VERGA.indd 25 8-04-2009 16:50:32 Carenzi - Verga

criticism to the functional approach. Dun- The third approach emphasises natural can and Dawkins (1983), for example, state living, stating that animals should be al- that there may be contradictions in welfa- lowed to live according to their natural at- re descriptors, such as when an animal is titudes and behaviour, mainly developing showing normal behaviour but also sub-cli- and using their natural adaptations. This nical disease. Or it may be healthy and phy- approach may be very fascinating and close siologically normal, but is performing ste- to the natural environment where animals reotypies (Terlow et al., 1991). Although in developed through the natural evolution some cases physiological and psychological process. Many consumers and politicians aspects of welfare do not agree, this does not tend to identify animals’ welfare with their imply that the animal’s mental state has to natural lives in the natural environment. be underestimated. In fact animals are de- However, from the scientific side, domestic fined as ‘sentient.’ According to Duncan animals differ in many ways from their co- (2002), their welfare corresponds also to the specifics in nature due to the domestication absence of “negative subjective emotional process (Price, 1984). Thus it may be very states, usually called suffering,” and proba- difficult to evidence the implications for bly with the presence of “positive subjective welfare of not living according to the natu- emotional states, usually called pleasure.” ral features in animals differing from their Following these considerations, it is possible wild ancestors. that the presence of the physiological state More recently Dockès and Kling-Eveillard of stress does not indicate reduced welfare, (2006) have proposed a more comprehensive nor does the absence of a stress response approach to animal welfare, stressing that always mean good welfare (Colborn et al., it should be viewed according to four main 1991; Terlow et al., 1991; Duncan, 2005). issues: The main problem in considering animal 1) biological and technical definitions, welfare as the expression of how the orga- which stress the fundamental needs of ani- nism ‘feels’ is that feelings are impossible mals and the freedoms they should be given, to be directly measured because subjective as well as the possibilities to cope with the experiences are not available for scienti- environmental challenges; fic investigation. In any case it is possible, 2) regulation approaches, which recogni- knowing the biological needs of animals, to se the animal as a sensitive being and as maintain a scientific approach in research, such it has to be put in conditions ‘compati- studying the links between these biological ble with the biological needs of the species.’ needs and the consequences for the organi- This leads to translate the concepts into sm, of fulfilling or not them. In this respect, laws; it is however necessary to maintain a criti- 3) philosophical approaches, which consi- cal viewpoint about the meaning of biologi- der the “animal’s status” and its role in the cal needs, avoiding anthropomorphic inter- human society; pretations (Morton et al., 1990). 4) communication between man and ani- More recently, the ‘functional’ approach mal, which give much importance to the is moving closer to the ‘feelings’ approach farmer-animal interaction and its effects on (Broom, 1998) because both of them stress industrial breeding systems. the importance of considering the organi- The four issues may represent the whole sm’s biological functioning in a ‘holistic’ ap- meaning of animal welfare and its impli- proach. cations for animal husbandry. In fact they

26 Ital.J.Anim.Sci. vol. 8 (Suppl. 1), 21-30, 2009

01_VERGA.indd 26 8-04-2009 16:50:32 Welfare concept and definition

include the key points in defining animal probably be irrelevant or useless in the case welfare involving body and mind, as well as of the positions taken by some very well its consequences for humans in order to un- known authors theorising ‘animal libera- derstand how to treat animals, also at the tion’ and, consequently, the impossibility to legislative level. Moreover, they stress the rear animals for whatever aim (for example importance of including animals in the hu- Regan, 1983). man social environment, giving them a role In spite of these oppositions, the lack of both for ethical and for practical reasons. communication between ethicists and scientists should be avoided, as well as extreme Welfare and ethics views both from the mechanistic and from the welfarist side. In fact, in order to address Although “the assessment of welfare can ethical concerns about the treatment of ani- be carried out in a scientific way without mals, the scientists need ethical reflection the involvement of moral considerations” to complement their empirical information; (Fraser and Broom, 1997), the whole con- and the ethicists need to base their argumen- cept of animal welfare and its assessment ts in sound knowledge about animals and may involve values and judgements and the animal use practices. A rather comprehen- ethical decisions about how animals ought sive approach to the possible links between to be treated. Thus the scientific approach animal welfare and ethics may be found in to animal welfare may be connected, althou- Fraser (1999), who underlines the need for gh not necessarily, to the ethical viewpoints collaboration between scientists and philo- in an increasing convergence of science and sophers, integrating the two cultures which philosophy. In fact ethicists began to look only together may contribute to advance in at empirical research to solve ethics issues, explaining human-animal interaction. while animal welfare science started to re- From the ethics viewpoint, some que- cognise the importance of subjective expe- stions have been identified, such as “what is riences (Lund et al., 2006). the baseline standard for morally accepta- Scientists studying animal welfare and ble animal welfare? What is a good animal philosophers writing about animal ethics life? What farming purposes are legitimate? have basically two distinct cultures, althou- What kind of compromises are acceptable gh both work to understand and articula- in a less-than-perfect world?” (Sandoe et al., te man’s proper relationship to animals of 2003). The possibility to answer these dif- other species (Fraser, 1999). Philosophers ficult questions relies also on science, whi- tend “to focus only at the level of the indi- ch has to go on in understanding the basic vidual, advocating single ethical principles and applied meaning of animal welfare. The and seeking solutions through ethical theory advances in knowledge may make it possi- with little recourse to empirical knowledge. ble to improve animals’ quality of life in the On the other hand, scientists were at first perspective of including both human beings stressing that suffering and other subjective and all the other animals in the whole natu- experiences of animals are beyond scientific ral environment where they live. How this enquiry, and that science could ‘‘measure’’ knowledge may affect each one depends on animal welfare (Fraser, 1999). Thus some the results of the interaction between man positions can be seen as totally opposite. and the other species. Animals show to us For example the efforts to understand ani- their welfare level through their physiologi- mal welfare, mainly in farm animals, could cal and behavioural reactions to treatment

Ital.J.Anim.Sci. vol. 8 (Suppl. 1), 21-30, 2009 27

01_VERGA.indd 27 8-04-2009 16:50:33 Carenzi - Verga

by humans, and these reactions can be mea- husbandry, because human beings have to sured and evaluated. Taking these responses care about the animals they rear. Thus it into account implies that it is unavoidable has an important role from the technical to consider the importance of the concept of side, because animal production is directly welfare and its complex implications in the related to the possibility for animals to posi- human-animal interaction. tively adapt as much as possible to the environment in order also to better produce. Conclusions Ethics may help in giving a basis for how animals have to be treated and used, and In conclusion, the broadest definition should be related to science, because the of animal welfare should include the com- scientific knowledge may affect ethicists’ prehensive state of the organism, conside- viewpoint and scientists may be affected by ring body and mind together along with eve- ethical values. rything that links them. Moreover, the interaction among diffe- Taking into account all the complex as- rent disciplines is needed in order to carry pects involved in the concept of welfare, it on studies on animal welfare. These disci- could be stated, according to Webster (1994), plines include social science, due to the role that “the welfare of an animal is determi- that animals play in the human society and ned by its capacity to avoid suffering and the fact that human attitudes towards ani- sustain fitness.” This means that the wel- mals and their products affect consumers. fare of organisms depends on many factors The role of all the living organisms in the linked to the environment where they live natural and social world has, however, to be and to their biological role and position. considered in a biologically comprehensive Animal welfare has always to maintain view, avoiding extreme positions, which only a scientific position in order to gain an in- create confusion. creasingly precise role in animal science. The research on animal welfare may be In fact welfare level, which depends on the considered as a tool to improve knowledge individual’s coping ability and varies from regarding animals, especially as respects very poor to very good, can be scientifically their physical and mental aspects. This tool assessed. The methodology utilised has to is a dynamic one evolving with human so- be validated and to find its roots mainly in ciety and the changes in the biological wor- applied ethology, which makes it possible ld and it may offer advantages for both ani- to obtain the more comprehensive view of mals’ quality of life as well as for humans the whole organism and of its coping abili- who rear animals and rely on their perfor- ty and success. mance, but who also have to care for ani- Animal welfare directly involves animal mals themselves.

REFERENCES under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK. Baxter, M.R., 1988. Needs – behavioural or psycholo- Broom, D.M., 1986. Indicators of poor welfare. Br. gical?. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.19:345-348. Vet. J. 142:524-526. Brambell Report, 1965. Report of the Technical Com- Broom, D.M., 1988. Needs, freedoms and the assessment mittee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept of welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 19:384-386.

28 Ital.J.Anim.Sci. vol. 8 (Suppl. 1), 21-30, 2009

01_VERGA.indd 28 8-04-2009 16:50:33 Welfare concept and definition

Broom, D.M., 1991. Animal welfare: concepts and FAWC, 1993. Second Report on Priorities for Resear- measurement. J. Anim. Sci. 69:4167-4175. ch and Development in Farm Animal welfare. Broom, D.M., 1998. Welfare, stress and the evolution MAFF Publ., Tolworth, London, UK. of feelings. Adv. Stud. Behav. 27:371-403. Fraser, D., 1998. Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Broom, D.M., Johnson, K.G., 1993. Stress and Ani- Animal Welfare. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, mal Welfare. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. USA. Colborn, D.R., Thompson, D.L., Roth, T.L., Capehart, Fraser, D., 1999. Animal ethics and animal welfare J.S., White, K.L., 1991. Responses of cortisol and science: bridging the two cultures. Appl. Anim. prolactin to sexual excitement and stress in stal- Behav. Sci. 65:171-189. lions and geldings. J. Anim. Sci. 69:2556-2562. Fraser, A.F., Broom, D.B., 1997. Farm animal behaviour Cooper, J.J., 2004. Consumer demand under com- and welfare. CAB International, London, UK. mercial husbandry conditions: practical advice Grandin, T., 1993. Livestock Handling and Tran- on measuring behavioural priorities in captive sport. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, animals. Anim. Welfare 13:47-56. UK. Dawkins, M.S., 1980. Animal Suffering, the Science Griffin, D., 1976. The Question of Animal Awareness. of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall, London, Rockefeller, New York, NY, USA. UK. Hemsworth, P.H., Coleman, G.J., 1998. Human–li- Dawkins, M., 1990. From an animal‘s point of view: vestock interactions. The stockperson and the motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behav. productivity and welfare of intensively farmed Brain Sci. 13:1-61. animals. CAB International, Bristol, UK. Dawkins, M.S., 1993. Through Our Eyes Only? The Hewson, C.J., 2003. What is animal welfare? Com- Search for Animal Consciousness. Freeman, mon definitions and their practical consequences. Oxford, UK. Can. Vet. J. 44:496-499. Désiré, L., Boissy, A., Veissier, I., 2002. Emotions in Hughes, B.O., 1976. Behaviour as index of welfa- farm animals: a new approach to animal welfare re. pp. 1005-1018 in Proc. 5th Eur. Poultry Conf., in applied ethology. Behav. Process. 60:165-180. Malta. Dockès, A.C., Kling-Eveillard, F., 2006. Farmers’ and Hughes, B.O., Duncan, I.H.J., 1988. Behavioural advisers’ representations of animals and animal needs: can they be explained in terms of moti- welfare. Livest. Sci. 103: 243-249. vational models? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 20:352- Duncan, I.J.H., 2002. Poultry welfare: science or su- 355. bjectivity? Brit. Poultry Sci. 43:643-652. Lund, V., Coleman, G., Gunnarsson, S., Appleby, Duncan, I.J.H., 2005. Science-based assessment M.C., Karkinen, K., 2006. Animal welfare science- of animal welfare: farm animals. Rev. Sci. Tech. Working at the interface between the natural and OIE. 24:483-492. social sciences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 97:37-49. Duncan, I.J.H., 2006. The changing concept of ani- Millman, S.T., Duncan, I.J.H., Stauffacher, M., Stoo- mal sentience. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.100: 11-19. key, J.M., 2004. The impact of applied ethologists Duncan, I.J.H., Dawkins, M.S., 1983. The problem and the International Society for Applied Etho- of assessing ‘well-being’ and ‘suffering’ in farm logy in improving animal welfare. Appl. Anim. animals. In: D. Smidt (ed.) Indicators relevant to Behav. Sci. 86:299-311. farm animal welfare. Martinus Nijhoff, The Ha- Moberg, G.P., Mench, J.A., 2000. Biology of Animal gue, The Netherlands, pp 13-24. Stress: Implications for Animal Welfare. CAB In- EFSA, 2006. The risks of poor welfare in intensive ternational, Wallingford, Oxon, UK. calf farming systems. An update of the Scientific Morton, D.B., Burghardt, G., Smith, J.A., 1990. Veterinary Committee Report on the Welfare of Critical Anthropomorphism, Animal Suffering Calves. EFSA Journal 366:1-36. and the ecological context. Hasting’s Center Re-

Ital.J.Anim.Sci. vol. 8 (Suppl. 1), 21-30, 2009 29

01_VERGA.indd 29 8-04-2009 16:50:33 Carenzi - Verga

port Spring Issue on Animals. Ethics. Sci. Med. Watson, J.B., 1928. Behaviorism. Routledge and 20(3):13-19. Keegan Paul, London, UK. Odendaal, J.S.J., 1998. Animal Welfare in practice. Weber, R.E.F., Zarate, A.V., 2005. Welfare in farm Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 5:93-99. animal husbandry – current definitions and con- Price, E.O., 1984. Behavioral aspects of animal do- cepts as basis for practical oriented research with mestication. Q. Rev. Biol. 59:1-32. focus on fattening pig husbandry. Arch. Tierzu- Regan, T., 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Univer- cht. 48:475-489. sity of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA. Webster, J., 1994. Animal Welfare - A cool eye towar- Rushen, J., Wdowski, T., Mench, J., 2003. Changing ds eden. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK. concepts of farm animal welfare: bridging the gap Webster, J., 2006. Animal sentience and animal wel- between applied and basic research. Appl. Anim. fare: What is it to them and what is it to us? Appl. Behav. Sci. 81:199-214. Anim. Behav. Sci. 100: 1-3. Sandoe, P., Christiansen, S.B., Appleby, M.C., Web- WHO, 1946. Preamble to the Constitution of the ster, A.J.F., Main, D.C.J., 2003. Farm animal wel- World Health Organization as adopted by the In- fare: the interaction of ethical questions and ani- ternational Health Conference, New York, June mal welfare science. Anim. Welfare 12:469-478. 19-22, 1946. Official Records of the World Health Skinner, B.F., 1938. The Behavior of Organisms: An Organization, no. 2. Experimental Analysis. Appleton-Century-Crof- Wiepkema, P.R., 1987. Behavioural aspects of stress. ts, New York, NY, USA. In: P.R. Wiepkema and P.W.M. Van Adrichem Terlouw, E.M.C., Lawrence, A.B., Ladewig, J., de (eds.) Biology of Stress in Farm Animals: An In- Passillé, A.M.B., Rushen, J., Schouten, W., 1991. tegrative Approach. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, A relationship between stereotypies and cortisol The Netherlands, pp 113-133. in sows. Behav. Process. 25:133-153. Wood-Gush, D.G.M., Duncan, I.J.H., Fraser, D., 1975. Tinbergen, N., 1951. The Study of Instinct. Claren- Social stress and welfare problems in agricultu- don Press, Oxford, UK. ral animals. In: E.S.E. Hafez (ed.) The Behaviour Toates, F., 1986. Motivational Systems. Cambridge of Domestic Animals. Tindall and Cassell, Lon- Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. don, UK, pp 182-200.

30 Ital.J.Anim.Sci. vol. 8 (Suppl. 1), 21-30, 2009

01_VERGA.indd 30 8-04-2009 16:50:34