Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:50:14.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare science into practice: a successful case example of working with industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

S Mullan ,
SA Edwards ,
A Butterworth ,
M Ward ,
HR Whay  and
DCJ Main
S Mullan*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, Somerset BS40 5DU, UK
SA Edwards
Affiliation:
Newcastle University, School of Agriculture Food & Rural Development, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
A Butterworth
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, Somerset BS40 5DU, UK
M Ward
Affiliation:
British Pig Executive, Stoneleigh Park, Warwickshire CV8 2LZ, UK
HR Whay
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, Somerset BS40 5DU, UK
DCJ Main
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, Somerset BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Siobhan.mullan@bris.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Close collaboration between science and industry is essential for the formulation of evidence-based welfare policies. However, there is a need to recognise and manage potential challenges that may arise during collaborative projects. An applied animal welfare science project evaluating the inclusion of welfare outcome measures into UK pig farm assurance, with a view to industry implementation, is used as a case example to illustrate potential challenges. This project encountered difficulties associated with differences in understanding and expectations, discussion of controversial welfare issues, challenges to personal values and conflict between academic and industry outcomes. With the assistance of an independent review conducted during the project, potential solutions were developed and successfully implemented. It is proposed that similar science-industry partnerships should allow sufficient time for dialogue, distinguish between experimental and applied science, ensure sufficient involvement from interested parties and use facilitation techniques to develop consensus.

Keywords

animal welfarefarm assuranceindustrypigsresearchscience
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 597 - 601
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, CB, Johnsrud, MT, Crismon, ML, Rosenheck, R and Woods, SW 2003 Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. British Journal of Psychiatry 183: 498–506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, BB and van Huik, MM 2007 Pig farmers and animal welfare: a study of beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of pig producers across Europe. In: Kjaernes, U, Miele, M and Roex, J (eds) Attitudes of Consumers, Retailers and Producers to Farm Animal Welfare, Welfare Quality Report No 2 pp 73–124. Lelystad: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2006 A user's guide to animal welfare science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 77–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EFSA 2007 The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. The EFSA Journal 611: 1–13Google Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Lawrence, AB 2008 Applied animal behaviour science: past, present and future prospects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 115: 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, G and Mendl, M 1993 Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare 2: 301–319Google Scholar
MRC 2005 Good Research Practice pp 3–4. Medical Research Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S 2009 An evaluation of including some welfare outcome measures within UK pig farm assurance schemes. PhD Thesis, University of Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2009a Interdependence of welfare outcome measures and potential confounding factors on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121: 25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2011 A pilot investigation of possible positive system descriptors in finishing pigs. Animal Welfare 20: 439–449Google Scholar
Mullan, S, Browne, WJ, Edwards, S, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2009b The effect of sampling strategy on the estimated prevalence of welfare outcome measures on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR, Edwards, SA and Main, DCJ 2010 Consultation of pig farmers on the inclusion of some welfare outcome assessments within UK farm assurance. Veterinary Record 166: 678–680CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 Regulations. Office of Public Sector Information: London, UKGoogle Scholar