Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Overview of Engineering Approaches to Improving Agricultural Animal Welfare

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this essay, we provide an overview of how production systems can be re-engineered to improve the welfare of the animals involved. At least three potential options exist: (1) engineering their environments to better fit the animals, (2) engineering the animals themselves to better fit their environments, and (3) eliminating the animals from the system by growing meat in vitro rather than on farms. The morality of consuming animal products and the conditions under which agricultural animals are maintained remain highly contentious, and when concerns about animal welfare are coupled with concerns about sustainability and global food security, the problem of welfare in animal agriculture constitutes “a wicked problem,” because it is unlikely that any proposed solution will simultaneously address all the issues of concern. In the final section of this essay, we offer some observations on how debate over reforms in animal agriculture could proceed going forward.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter/killing. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment.” OIE definition, adopted May 2008, https://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D5517.PDF, accessed 27 December 2017.

  2. In his contribution to this volume, titled “Is CRISPR an Ethical Game Changer?” Marcus Schultz-Bergin also discusses this point.

  3. See also Shriver’s co-authored contribution to this volume, titled “Genetically Modifying Livestock for Improved Welfare: A Path Forward.”

References

  • Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision. ESA Working paper No. 12-03. Rome: FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Accessed at http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap106e/ap106e.pdf. 16 Jan 2017.

  • Ali, A., & Cheng, K. M. (1985). Early egg production in genetically blind (rc/rc) chickens in comparison with sighted (Rc + /rc) controls. Poultry Science, 64, 789–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltzer, K. (2004). Consumers’ willingness to pay for food quality—The case of eggs. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C, Food Economics, 1, 78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayvel, A. C. D. (2004). The OIE animal welfare strategic initiative—Progress, priorities and prognosis. In Office International des Epizooties (OIE) (Ed.), Proceedings of the global conference on animal welfare: An OIE initiative (pp. 13–17).

  • Blokhuis, H. J., van der Haar, J. W., & Koole, P. G. (1987). Effects of beak trimming and floor type on feed consumption and body weight of pullets during rearing. Poultry Science, 66, 623–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blokhuis, H. J., Van Fiks Niekerk, T., Bessei, W., Elson, A., Van De Weerd, H. A., Guémené, D., et al. (2007). The LayWel project: Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 63(1), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, B., & Van Huik, M. (2007). Pig farmers and animal welfare: A study of beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of pig producers across Europe. In U. Kjaernes, M. Miele & J. Roex (Eds.), Attitudes of consumers, retailers and producers to farm animal welfare. WelfareQuality1 Report No. 2 (pp. 73–124). Cardiff: Cardiff University.

  • Botonaki, A., Polymeros, K., Tsakiridou, E., & Mattas, K. (2006). The role of food quality certification on consumers’ food choices. British Food Journal, 108, 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M. (1991). Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science, 69(10), 4167–4175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, D. F., Lancto, C. A., Kim, E.-S., Walton, M., Sonstegard, T. S., Fahrenkrug, S. C., et al. (2016). Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited cell lines. Nature Biotechnology, 34(5), 479–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centner, T. J. (2010). Limitations on the confinement of food animals in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23, 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, H. (2006). Morphopathological changes and pain in beak trimmed laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 62, 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croney, C., & Anthony, R. (2014). Food animal production, ethics, and quality assurance. In P. B. Thompson & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food and agricultural ethics (pp. 1–10). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, C. L., Wada, N., Rosegrant, M. W., Meijer, S., & Ahmed, M. (2003). Fish to 2020: Supply and demand in changing global markets. Washington, Malaysia: International Food Policy Research Institute, WorldFish Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorsherst, B. (2014). Half of Holstein heifer calves could be polled by 2034. Progressive Dairyman, 17 Jan. Accessed at http://www.progressivedairy.com/topics/a-i-breeding/half-of-holstein-heifer-calves-could-be-polled-by-2034. 1 Jan 2018.

  • Duncan, I. (1996). Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A—Animal Science Supplementum, 27, 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H. (2001). The pros and cons of cages. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 57, 381–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H., Seawright, E., & Breward, J. (1989). Behavioral consequences of partial beak amputation (beak trimming) in poultry. British Poultry Science, 30, 479–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, J. L., Ni, J.-Q., Hill, B. E., Henry, M. L., Heber, A. J., et al. (2003). Odor nuisance potential and pig performance of a conventional and a high rise™ swine farrowing barns. In H. Keener (Ed.), Proceedings of Air Pollution from Agricultural Operations III (pp. 303–310). Research Triangle Park, NC: Oct 12–15.

  • Gonyou, H. W. (2005). Experience with alternative methods of sow housing. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 226(8), 1336–1340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandin, T. (2006). Progress and challenges in animal handling and slaughter in the US. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100(1), 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, G. C., & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104, 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, A., Duffield, T. F., Lissemore, K. D., & Millman, S. T. (2010). The effect of meloxicam on behavior and pain sensitivity of dairy calves following cautery dehorning with a local anesthetic. Journal of Dairy Science, 93(6), 2430–2457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hester, P. Y., & Shea-Moore, M. (2003). Beak trimming egg-laying strains of chickens. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 59(4), 458–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, B. O., & Gentle, M. J. (1995). Beak trimming of poultry: Its implications for welfare. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 51(1), 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeling, L. J. (2005). Healthy and happy: Animal welfare as an integral part of sustainable agriculture. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 34(4), 316–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knenzel, W. J. (2007). Neurological basis of sensory perception: Welfare implications of beak trimming. Poultry Science, 86, 1273–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laestadius, L. I., & Caldwell, M. A. (2015). Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutrition, 18(13), 2457–2467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lay, D. C., Fulton, R. M., Hester, P. Y., Karcher, D. M., Kjaer, J. B., Mench, J. A., et al. (2011). Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science, 90(1), 278–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. Y., & Craig, J. V. (1991). Beak trimming effects on behavior patterns, fearfulness, feathering, and mortality among three stocks of White Leghorn pullets in cages or floor pens. Poultry Science, 70, 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlone, J. (1993). What is animal welfare? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 6(Suppl 2), 26–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGlone, J. J. (2013). The future of pork production in the world: Towards sustainable, welfare-positive systems. Animals, 3(2), 401–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlone, J., Ford, S., Mitloehner, F., Grandin, T., Ruegg, P., Stull, C., et al. (2010). Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in agricultural research and teaching. Champaign, IL: Federation of Animal Science Societies.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGlone, J. J., Salak-Johnson, J. (2008). Changing from sow gestation crates to pens: Problem or opportunity? 2008 Manitoba swine seminar. In Proceedings of the Manitoba swine seminar (pp. 47–53). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Manitoba Pork Council.

  • Mench, J. A., Sumner, D. A., & Rosen-Molina, J. T. (2011). Sustainability of egg production in the United States—The policy and market context. Poultry Science, 90(1), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, A. D., Wood-Gush, D. G. M., & Hughes, B. O. (1985). Genetic analysis of strain differences in pre-laying behavior in battery cages. British Poultry Science, 26, 182–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, C. J., Croney, C. C., & Widmar, N. J. O. (2016). Exploring relationships between ethical consumption, lifestyle choices, and social responsibility. Advances in Applied Sociology, 6(5), 199–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir, W. M. (1996). Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: Selection program and direct responses. Poultry Science, 75, 447–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir, W. M. (2003). Indirect selection for improvement of animal well-being. In W. M. Muir & S. Aggrey (Eds.), Poultry genetics breeding and biotechnology (pp. 247–256). Cambridge: CABI Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Muir, W. M., & Cheng, H. (2004). Breeding for productivity and welfare. In G. Perry (Ed.), Welfare of the laying hen (pp. 123–138). Cambridge: CABI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir, W. M., & Craig, J. V. (1998). Improving animal well-being through genetic selection. Poultry Science, 77, 1781–1788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir, W. M., & Schinckel, A. S. (2002). Incorporation of competitive effects in breeding programs to improve productivity and animal well-being. In Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Breeding (Vol. 32, pp. 35–36).

  • Ni, J.-Q. (2015). Research and demonstration to improve air quality for the US animal feeding operations in the twenty-first century—A critical review. Environmental Pollution, 200, 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, D. L., Wang, H. H., & Widmar, N. J. O. (2014). Welfare and market impacts of food safety measures in China: Results from urban consumers’ valuation of product attributes. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 13(6), 1404–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, M. J. (2014). An alternative animal protein source: Cultured beef. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1328(1), 29–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purdue Cooperative Extension Service and Indiana Soil Conservation Service (n.d.). Poultry manure management planning. Document ID-206. Accessed at https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-206.html. 17 Jan 2018.

  • Rahman, S. A. (2004). Animal welfare: A developing country perspective. Proceedings of Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OIE Initiative, 14, 101–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe, P., Hocking, P. M., Förkman, B., Haldane, K., Kristensen, H. H., & Palmer, C. (2014). The blind hens’ challenge: Does it undermine the view that only welfare matters in our dealings with animals? Environmental Values, 23(6), 727–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, L. L., & Tonsor, G. T. (2015). The US gestation stall debate. Choices, 30(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shriver, A. (2009). Knocking out pain in livestock: Can technology succeed where morality has stalled? Neuroethics, 2(3), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-009-9048-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P., & Mason, J. (2006). The ethics of what we eat: Why our food choices matter. Emmaus: Rodale Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, R., Cheng, K. M., & Silversides, F. G. (2009). Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poultry Science, 88(2), 256–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, K. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2011). Addressing the pain associated with disbudding and dehorning in cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 135(3), 226–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, R. R., Inglis, S. F., Keener, H., & Elwell, D. (2001). Ammonia emissions and hydrogen sulfide levels during handling of manure-laden drying bed material in a high-rise™ hog facility. In no editor, ASAE Annual International Meeting, St. Joseph, Michigan. Sacramento, CA: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

  • Swanson, J. C., Lee, Y., Thompson, P. B., Bawden, R., & Mench, J. A. (2011). Integration: Valuing stakeholder input in setting priorities for socially sustainable egg production. Poultry Science, 90(9), 2110–2121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, J. C., Mench, J. A., & Iarcher, D. (2015). The coalition for sustainable egg supply project: An introduction. Poultry Science, 94(3), 473–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester, S. P., Stafford, K. J., Mellor, D. J., Bruce, R. A., & Ward, R. N. (1998). Acute cortisol responses of calves to four methods of dehorning by amputation. Australian Veterinary Journal, 76, 123–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B. (1997). Ethics and the genetic engineering of food animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 10(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B. (2008). The opposite of human enhancement: Nanotechnology and the blind chicken problem. NanoEthics, 2, 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B. (2010). Why using genetics to address welfare may not be a good idea. Poultry Science, 89, 814–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, N. M., Widmar, N. O., Schutz, M. M., Cole, J. B., & Wolf, C. A. (2017). Economic considerations of breeding for polled dairy cows versus dehorning in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science, 100, 4941–4952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonsor, G. T., Wolf, C., & Olynk, N. (2009). Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates. Food Policy, 34, 492–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental Science and Technology, 45, 6117–6123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuyttens, F. A. M., Van Gansbeke, S., & Ampe, B. (2011). Survey among Belgian pig producers about the introduction of group housing systems for gestating sows. Journal of Animal Science, 89(3), 845–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Weele, C., & Driessen, C. (2013). Emerging profiles for cultured meat: Ethics through and as design. Animals, 3(3), 647–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bock, B., & Roe, E. (2008). European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113, 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Marcu, A., Rutsaert, P., Gaspar, R., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., et al. (2015a). Would you eat cultured meat? Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. Meat Sciences, 102, 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Sans, P., & Van Loo, E. J. (2015b). Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., & Viaene, J. (1999). Consumer attitude to beef quality labels and associations with beef quality labels. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness, 10(3), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesilind, P. A. (2010). Continental drift: Agricultural trade and the widening gap between European Union and United States animal welfare laws. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, Vermont Law School Research Paper No. 10-50. Accessed at https://ssrn.com/abstract=1679361. 12 Jan 2018.

  • Walker, P., Rhubart-Berg, P., McKenzie, S., Kelling, K., & Lawrence, R. S. (2005). Public health implications of meat production and consumption. Public Health Nutrition, 8(4), 348–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., Wu, L., Zhu, D., Wang, H., & Xu, L. (2014). Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork. In 2014 Annual Meeting, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Minneapolis, MN: July 27–29. No 165639.

  • Weaver, S., & Morris, M. (2004). Science, pigs, and politics: A New Zealand perspective on the phase-out of sow stalls. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17, 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J. (2011). Husbandry and animal welfare. In J. Webster (Ed.), Management and welfare of farm animals: The UFAW handbook (5th ed., pp. 1–30). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, C. A., Lambton, S. L., & Williams, A. G. (2016). Implications for welfare, productivity and sustainability of the variation in reported levels of morality for laying hen flocks kept in different housing systems: A meta-analysis of ten studies. PLoS ONE, 11(1), e0146394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, K. P., & Thompson, P. B. (2012). Ideas for how to take wicked problems seriously. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(4), 441–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widmar, N. J. O., & Ortega, D. L. (2014). Comparing consumer preferences for livestock production process attributes across products, species, and modeling methods. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 46(3), 375–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilks, M., & Phillips, C. J. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLoS ONE, 12(2), e0171904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirsenius, S., Azar, C., & Berndes, G. (2010). How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030? Agricultural Systems, 103(9), 621–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood-Gush, D. G. M. (1972). Strain differences in response to suboptimal stimuli in the fowl. Animal Behaviour, 20(1), 72–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xin, H., Gates, R. S., Green, A. R., Mitloehner, F. M., Moore, P. A., & Wathes, C. M. (2011). Environmental impacts and sustainability of egg production systems. Poultry Science, 90(1), 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Animal Welfare Science, Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine, 625 Harrison Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Candace Croney

  2. Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    William Muir

  3. Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Ji-Qin Ni

  4. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Nicole Olynk Widmar

  5. Department of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-4237, USA

    Gary Varner

Authors
  1. Candace Croney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William Muir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ji-Qin Ni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicole Olynk Widmar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gary Varner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Candace Croney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Croney, C., Muir, W., Ni, JQ. et al. An Overview of Engineering Approaches to Improving Agricultural Animal Welfare. J Agric Environ Ethics 31, 143–159 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9716-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9716-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation