Animal welfare is becoming a major issue in the US and Canada, and North America is generally thought to be behind Europe and Australia in these issues. The 5 freedoms were developed and modified by the UK Farm Animal Welfare Commision...what do you think?
Assessment of Animal Welfare: the Five Freedoms
In 1965, when the British government first reviewed the welfare of farm animals in intensive husbandry systems they proposed that all farm animals should have the freedom to 'stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs'. These minimal standards became know as the five freedoms.
In 1993, the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council agreed that the original definitions concentrated too much on space requirements and on one aspect of behavior (comfort seeking) to the exclusion of everything else that might contribute to good animal welfare, like good food, good health and security.
The five freedoms now read:
1. Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.
2. Freedom from discomfort - by providing a suitable environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to express normal behavior - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animals own kind.
5. Freedom from fear and distress - by ensuring conditions that avoid mental suffering.
According to Dr. John Webster: (The researcher who helped develop the Five Freedoms, and Professor of Animal Husbandry, University of Bristol) -
"When put to work by comparing different housing systems, the five freedoms are an attempt to make the best of a complex situation. Absolute attainment of all five freedoms is unrealistic. By revealing that all commercial husbandry systems have their strengths and weaknesses, the five freedoms make it, on one hand, more difficult to sustain a sense of absolute outrage against any particular system such as cages for laying hens or stalls for sows and easier to plan constructive, step by step, routes towards its improvement."
Farmers have a responsibility to consider the welfare advantages and disadvantages of new technologies. Explore the following example: sometimes when considering the quality of life of an animal, there are certain trade-offs that need to be considered. Take, for example, laying hens that are raised to produce eggs. They are kept in wire cages that can restrict movement and other natural behavior, like nesting, perching and dust bathing. There is evidence that this lead to frustration.
However, before domestication, hens lived in social groups of about six hens with one rooster. During the day they would shelter under bushes to seek protection from predators. Staying in small groups and in a small area allowed hens to know their companions and know where to find shelter when faced with a threat.
Research in Europe and Canada has proven that with four to six birds in each cage, each hen gets the food and water it needs without having to fight for it. When birds are in large, open aviary or free-range flocks, disease and cannibalism is a serious problem. In the cage systems with mesh floors, waste falls away from the birds. This means clean birds, clean eggs and a cleaner barn. A clean environment makes it tough for disease and parasites to live. The birds are provided with a stable environment with clean food and water. They are protected from predators, disease, parasites and fighting.
Currently, researchers are looking at the development of enriched cages, that take advantage of the benefits of cages (small group sizes, food safety and hygiene) and combining these with the benefits of open housing by adding nest boxes and dust bath locations.
Because of this recent work, countries like Sweden that had banned the use of cages, has now rescinded the ban in favor of enriched cages. (from the Alberta Farm Animal Care([/b]
Assessment of Animal Welfare: the Five Freedoms
In 1965, when the British government first reviewed the welfare of farm animals in intensive husbandry systems they proposed that all farm animals should have the freedom to 'stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs'. These minimal standards became know as the five freedoms.
In 1993, the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council agreed that the original definitions concentrated too much on space requirements and on one aspect of behavior (comfort seeking) to the exclusion of everything else that might contribute to good animal welfare, like good food, good health and security.
The five freedoms now read:
1. Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor.
2. Freedom from discomfort - by providing a suitable environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to express normal behavior - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animals own kind.
5. Freedom from fear and distress - by ensuring conditions that avoid mental suffering.
According to Dr. John Webster: (The researcher who helped develop the Five Freedoms, and Professor of Animal Husbandry, University of Bristol) -
"When put to work by comparing different housing systems, the five freedoms are an attempt to make the best of a complex situation. Absolute attainment of all five freedoms is unrealistic. By revealing that all commercial husbandry systems have their strengths and weaknesses, the five freedoms make it, on one hand, more difficult to sustain a sense of absolute outrage against any particular system such as cages for laying hens or stalls for sows and easier to plan constructive, step by step, routes towards its improvement."
Farmers have a responsibility to consider the welfare advantages and disadvantages of new technologies. Explore the following example: sometimes when considering the quality of life of an animal, there are certain trade-offs that need to be considered. Take, for example, laying hens that are raised to produce eggs. They are kept in wire cages that can restrict movement and other natural behavior, like nesting, perching and dust bathing. There is evidence that this lead to frustration.
However, before domestication, hens lived in social groups of about six hens with one rooster. During the day they would shelter under bushes to seek protection from predators. Staying in small groups and in a small area allowed hens to know their companions and know where to find shelter when faced with a threat.
Research in Europe and Canada has proven that with four to six birds in each cage, each hen gets the food and water it needs without having to fight for it. When birds are in large, open aviary or free-range flocks, disease and cannibalism is a serious problem. In the cage systems with mesh floors, waste falls away from the birds. This means clean birds, clean eggs and a cleaner barn. A clean environment makes it tough for disease and parasites to live. The birds are provided with a stable environment with clean food and water. They are protected from predators, disease, parasites and fighting.
Currently, researchers are looking at the development of enriched cages, that take advantage of the benefits of cages (small group sizes, food safety and hygiene) and combining these with the benefits of open housing by adding nest boxes and dust bath locations.
Because of this recent work, countries like Sweden that had banned the use of cages, has now rescinded the ban in favor of enriched cages. (from the Alberta Farm Animal Care([/b]