Search results

Ethical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory within the EU and other countries. However, the evaluation process has been subject to criticism, e.g., that the committees are not balanced or democratic enough and that the utilitarian weighting of harm and benefit that is normally prescribed is difficult to carry out in practice. In this study, members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) completed a survey aiming to further investigate the decision-making process. We found that researchers and animal laypersons make significantly different ethical judgments, and hold disparate views on which ethical aspects are the most relevant. Researchers were significantly more content than laypersons with the functioning of the committees, indicating that the ethical model used suited their preferences better. We argue that in order to secure a democratic and proper ethical evaluation, the expectations of a scientific discourse must be acknowledged, while giving room for different viewpoints. Further, to fulfil the purpose of the project evaluations and meet public concern, the functions of the different AEC member categories need to be clarified. We suggest that one way of achieving a more thorough, balanced and inclusive ethical evaluation is to allow for more than one model of ethical reasoning.

Conflicts between different goals can obstruct progress in sustainability, but interests may also coincide. We evaluated relationships between environmental quality and animal welfare on Swedish farms with grazing livestock, using publicly available databases. Data were collected from 8700 official animal welfare inspections on 5808 cattle farms and 2823 inspections on 2280 sheep farms in 2012–2017. Compliance with three animal-based checkpoints was modeled using logistic regression, including a random farm effect to account for repeated inspections. Compliance was regressed on semi-natural grassland area, participation in the National Meadow and Pasture Inventory, Agri-Environmental Scheme (AES) grassland payments, presence of indicator plant species, and the presence of Natura 2000 habitats. Cattle farms complied more often if they received AES payments for grasslands of special values compared with if they did not apply for them (OR = 1.55–1.65; p ≤ 0.0001) and there was a similar tendency for cattle farms that applied for but were denied such payments (OR = 1.29; p = 0.074). There was also a strong tendency for Natura 2000 habitats on cattle farms to be associated with higher compliance (OR = 1.36; p = 0.059). These results suggest a direct or indirect causal effect of biodiversity on cattle welfare. The same associations could not be shown in sheep.

Conflicts between different goals can obstruct progress in sustainability, but interests may also coincide. We evaluated relationships between environmental quality and animal welfare on Swedish farms with grazing livestock, using publicly available databases. Data were collected from 8700 official animal welfare inspections on 5808 cattle farms and 2823 inspections on 2280 sheep farms in 2012-2017. Compliance with three animal-based checkpoints was modeled using logistic regression, including a random farm effect to account for repeated inspections. Compliance was regressed on semi-natural grassland area, participation in the National Meadow and Pasture Inventory, Agri-Environmental Scheme (AES) grassland payments, presence of indicator plant species, and the presence of Natura 2000 habitats. Cattle farms complied more often if they received AES payments for grasslands of special values compared with if they did not apply for them (OR = 1.55-1.65; p <= 0.0001) and there was a similar tendency for cattle farms that applied for but were denied such payments (OR = 1.29; p = 0.074). There was also a strong tendency for Natura 2000 habitats on cattle farms to be associated with higher compliance (OR = 1.36; p = 0.059). These results suggest a direct or indirect causal effect of biodiversity on cattle welfare. The same associations could not be shown in sheep.

Determining welfare status in a population is the first step in efforts to improve welfare. The primary objective of this study was to explore a new epidemiological approach for analysis of data from official competent authorities that pertain to compliance with animal welfare legislation. We reviewed data already routinely collected as part of Swedish official animal welfare inspections for 2010-13, using a checklist containing 45 checkpoints (CPs). These covered animal-, resource- and management-based measures of equine welfare. The animal-based CPs were measures that directly related to the animal and included social contact, body condition, hoof condition and cleanliness. Non-compliance with one or more of the animal-based CPs was used as a binary outcome of poor equine welfare; 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using the exact binomial distribution. Associations were determined using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for clustering on premises. Resource- and management-based CPs (model inputs) were reduced by principal component analysis. Other input factors included premises characteristics (e.g. size, location) and inspection characteristics (e.g. type of inspection). There were 30 053 premises with horses from 21 counties registered by the Swedish Board of Agriculture. In total 13 321 inspections of premises were conducted at 28.4% (n = 8532) of all registered premises. For random inspections, the premises-prevalence of poor equine welfare was 9.5% (95% CI 7.5, 11.9). Factors associated with poor equine welfare were non-compliance with requirements for supervision, care or feeding of horses, facility design, personnel, stable hygiene, pasture and exercise area maintenance, as well as the owner not being notified of the inspection, a previous complaint or deficiency, spring compared with autumn, and not operating as a professional equine business. Horses at premises compliant with stabling and shelter requirements had significantly better welfare if they also complied with documentation requirements. We present a novel approach for analysis of equine welfare data from regulatory inspections by the official competent authorities, and propose on-going analyses and benchmarking of trends in animal-based measures over time. We also suggest how such a database could be further improved to facilitate future epidemiological analyses of risk factors associated with poor equine welfare. The study has implications for other competent authorities and researchers collaborating in the area of animal welfare epidemiology.

Simple SummaryThe increased consumer demand for high levels of farm animal welfare (FAW) have prompted debates about the costs of achieving higher FAW. Yet, little is known about the economic consequences of improvements in FAW, especially in cow-calf operations. This study contributes to the literature by investigating the relationship between farm profitability and improved FAW measure in terms of increased space allowance in Swedish cow-calf operations. We found that a 0.5 m(2) increase in space allowance per calf (achieved by a corresponding reduction of herd size) was associated with a 6.9 to 18.7% reduction in farm-level contribution margins in the short term. Our results suggest that FAW improvements can be costly for farms and these costs should be considered while taking policy decisions regarding improvements in FAW standards.The societal demand for good farm animal welfare (FAW) has increased over time. Yet, very little is known about the economic consequences of improvements in FAW in cow-calf operations. This study investigates on-farm economic consequences of improved FAW measures in cow-calf operations. It uses a stochastic partial budgeting approach to examine the relationship between contribution margins and improvements in FAW in terms of increased space allowance for a typical Swedish cow-calf operation, as compared to current practices. In the current practice, a cow should be given at least 5 m(2) and the calf 2.2 m(2). We found that a 0.5 m(2) increase in space allowance per calf (achieved by a corresponding reduction of herd size) was associated with a 6.9 to 18.7% reduction in contribution margins in the short term. Our analysis does not include possible indirect gains like decrease in disease incidence and enhanced non-use or 'soft' values associated with increased FAW. However, our analysis indicates that high FAW standards can be costly and careful cost-benefit analysis should be a part of decision-making processes regarding FAW standards. Our results also suggest a need for government support payments and/or the development of market mechanisms to stimulate farmers to continue producing livestock-based foods with high FAW.