Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Ticking Clock: Addressing Farm Animal Welfare in Emerging Countries

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

Abstract

Over the last decade many emerging economies, and in particular Brazil, have established themselves as major players in global food animal production. Within these countries much of the increase in food animal production has been achieved by the adoption of intensive housing systems similar to those found in most industrialized countries. However, it is now well established that many of these systems are associated with numerous welfare problems, particularly with respect to restriction of movement. Previous work has shown that people living in industrialized’ countries broadly support farm animal welfare reform, and that similar criticisms may be voiced from citizens living in developing countries as they become more aware of confinement housing and potentially contentious husbandry practices. Given the developments that have taken place in other countries, there are lessons that could be learned and applied by emerging economies that would undoubtedly ease or prevent the challenges observed in other countries. Thus, we briefly describe the vehicles used by different countries when addressing animal welfare that may provide insights into identifying possible challenges and potential solutions for Brazil and other emerging economies. Where available we review the associated science and identify gaps where more research is needed. We conclude by providing a possible roadmap on how farm animal welfare reform may be addressed in emerging countries. Solutions will need to be tailored, culturally relevant, and science must play a key role in supporting animal welfare reform in the emerging countries.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appleby, M. C., Cutler, N., Gazzard, J., Goddard, P., Milne, J. A., Morgan, C., et al. (2003). What price cheap food? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(4), 395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayvel, A. C. D. (2004). Science-based animal welfare standards: The international role of the Office International des Epizooties. Animal Welfare, 13(S1), 63–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayvel, A. C. D., Diesch, T. J., & Cross, N. (2012). Animal welfare: A complex international public policy issue: Economic, policy, societal, cultural and other drivers and constraints. A 20-year international perspective. Animal Welfare, 21(S1), 11–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benard, M., & De Cock Buning, T. (2013). Exploring the potential of dutch pig farmers and urban-citizens to learn through frame reflection. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(5), 1015–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonamigo, A., Dos Santos Silva Bonamigo, C. B., & Maiolino Molento, C. F. (2012). Broiler meat characteristics relevant to the consumer: Focus on animal welfare. Revista Brasileira De Zootecnia-Brazilian Journal of Animal Science, 41(4), 1044–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boogaard, B. K., Bock, B. B., Oosting, S. J., Wiskerke, J. S. C., & Van Der Zijpp, A. J. (2011a). Social acceptance of dairy farming: The ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24(3), 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boogaard, B. K., Boekhorst, L. J. S., Oosting, S. J., & Sorensen, J. T. (2011b). Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Science, 140(1–3), 189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., & Bock, B. B. (2008). Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livestock Science, 117(1), 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M. (2011). A history of animal welfare science. Acta Biotheoretica, 59(2), 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantrell, R., Lubben, B., & Reese, D. (2013). Perceptions of food animal welfare in extension: Results of a two-state survey. Journal of Extension, 51(2), 2FEA7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso, C. S., Uller-Gómez, C., & Hötzel, M. J. (2014). Views of family farmers in South Bazil regarding dehorning of dairy calves. In C. F. M. Molento (Ed.), III Brazilian congress of bioethics and animal welfare: Sentience and animal welfareExpanding horizons (pp. 196–198). Curitiba: UFPR.

  • Centner, T. J. (2010). Limitations on the confinement of food animals in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(5), 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, J. H. C., Hötzel, M. J., Longo, C., & Balcao, L. F. (2013). A survey of management practices that influence production and welfare of dairy cattle on family farms in southern Brazil. Journal of Dairy Science, 96(1), 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croney, C. C., & Anthony, R. (2011). Invited review: Ruminating conscientiously: Scientific and socio-ethical challenges for US dairy production. Journal of Dairy Science, 94(2), 539–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Barcellos, M. D., Grunert, K. G., Zhou, Y., Verbeke, W., Perez-Cueto, F. J. A., & Krystallis, A. (2013). Consumer attitudes to different pig production systems: A study from mainland China. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(3), 443–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jonge, J., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (2013). The impact of broiler production system practices on consumer perceptions of animal welfare. Poultry Science, 92(12), 3080–3095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC. (2002). TradeCountres and regions, chile. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/chile/.

  • Eisler, M. C., Tarlton, J. F., Martin, G. B., Beddington, J., Dungait, J. A. J., Greathead, H., et al. (2014). Steps to sustainable livestock. Nature, 507(7490), 32–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer. (2007). Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1—TNS Opinion & Social.

  • FAO. (2009). The state of food insecurity in the world: Economic crisesImpacts and lessons learned 8–12. Rome: FAO.

  • FAO. (2013). Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Rome: FAOSTAT.

  • FAO. (2014). Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations2014 international year of family farming. Retrieved January 30, 2014, from http://www.fao.org/family-farming-2014/en/.

  • FAWC. (2013). Five freedoms. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm.

  • Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2001). The “new perception” of animal agriculture: Legless cows, featherless chickens, and a need for genuine analysis. Journal of Animal Science, 79(3), 634–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2006). Animal welfare assurance programs in food production: A framework for assessing the options. Animal Welfare, 15(2), 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2008a). Animal welfare and the intensification of animal production. In P. B. Thompson (Ed.), Ethics of intensification: Agricultural development and cultural change (pp. 167–189). Rome: FAO.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2008b). Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113(4), 330–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare, 6(3), 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksen, B., Johnsen, A. M. S., & Skuterud, E. (2011). Consumer attitudes towards castration of piglets and alternatives to surgical castration. Research in Veterinary Science, 90(2), 352–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulponi, L. (2006). Private voluntary standards in the food system: The perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Policy, 31(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galford, G. L., Soares-Filho, B., & Cerri, C. E. P. (2013). Prospects for land-use sustainability on the agricultural frontier of the Brazilian Amazon. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 368(1619), 20120171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, T., Appleby, M. C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I. J., Benton, T. G., Bloomer, P., et al. (2013). Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science, 341(6141), 33–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfray, H. C. J., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Nisbett, N., et al. (2010). The future of the global food system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2769–2777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfray, H. C. J., & Garnett, T. (2014). Food security and sustainable intensification. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 369(1639), 20120273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R. (1964). Animal machines: An exposé of “factory farming” and its danger to the public. New York: Ballantines Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D., & Hubbard, C. (2013). Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure. Food Policy, 38, 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrero, M., & Thornton, P. K. (2013). Livestock and global change: Emerging issues for sustainable food systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(52), 20878–20881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HMSO. (1968). Agriculture (miscellaneous provisions) act 1968.

  • HMSO. (1994). The welfare of livestock regulations. In HMSO (Ed.), N2126, UK.

  • Hötzel, M. J. (2014). Improving farm animal welfare: Is evolution or revolution needed in production systems? In M. C. Appleby, D. M. Weary, & P. Sandoe (Eds.), Dilemmas in animal welfare (pp. 67–84). Oxfordshire: CABI.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hötzel, M. J., & Sneddon, J. N. (2013). The role of extensionists in Santa Catarina, Brazil, in the adoption and rejection of providing pain relief to calves for dehorning. Journal of Dairy Science, 96(3), 1535–1548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howse, R., Langille, J., & Sykes, K. (2014). Animal welfare, public morals and trade: The WTO panel report in EC—Seal products. American Society of International Law (ASIL) Insights, 18(2). http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/18/issue/2/animal-welfare-public-morals-and-trade-wto-panel-report-ec-seal-products.

  • HSUS. (2011). HSUS, egg industry agree to promote federal standards for hens. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2011/07/egg_agreement.html.

  • IBGE. (2009). Censo Agropecuário. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/agropecuaria/censoagro/.

  • IBGE. (2012). Perfil dos Municípios Brasileiros 2012IBGE Retrieved January 14, 2014, from www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/perfilmunic/2012.

  • Ingenbleek, P. T. M., & Immink, V. M. (2011). Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: Synthesis and implications. Animal Welfare, 20(1), 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, E., & Enevoldsen, C. (2008). A mixed methods inquiry: How dairy farmers perceive the value(s) of their involvement in an intensive dairy herd health management program. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(50).

  • Lassen, J., Sandoe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty! conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science, 103(3), 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MAPA. (2008). Instrução Normativa Nº 56, 6 de novembro de 2008, Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Diário Oficial da União: Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento.

    Google Scholar 

  • MAPA. (2011). Portaria nº 524. Comissão Técnica Permanente de Bem-Estar Animal—CTBEA. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, Brazil: Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento.

  • MAPA. (2012). Exportação. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://www.agricultura.gov.br/animal/exportacao.

  • Maria, G. A. (2006). Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livestock Science, 103(3), 250–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Meng, X., Hamer, R., Meng, Q., Wang, P., Meng, F., Li, H., et al. (2012). Animal welfare development in China. Science, 338(6111), 1150–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miele, M., Veissier, I., Evans, A., & Botreau, R. (2011). Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare, 20(1), 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millen, D. D., Pacheco, R. D. L., Meyer, P. M., Rodrigues, P. H. M., & Arrigoni, M. D. B. (2011). Current outlook and future perspectives of beef production in Brazil. Animal Frontiers, 1(2), 46–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for Rural Affairs—Government Offices of Sweden. (2009). The animal welfare act—The animal welfare ordinance, ministry for rural affairs—Government offices of Sweden In Jo 09.021, Stockholm, Sweden.

  • National Farm Animal Care Council. (2014). National farm animal care council of Canada. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://www.nfacc.ca/.

  • Nielsen, B. L., & Zhao, R. (2012). Farm animal welfare across borders: A vision for the future. Animal Frontiers, 2(3), 46–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, C. E., & Bayvel, A. C. D. (2012). Challenges to implementing animal welfare standards in New Zealand. Animal Welfare, 21(3), 397–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OIE. (2013). Terrestrial animal health code. Paris: World Organisations for Animal Health.

  • Paranhos Da Costa, M. J. R., Huertas, S. M., Gallo, C., & Dalla Costa, O. A. (2012). Strategies to promote farm animal welfare in Latin America and their effects on carcass and meat quality traits. Meat Science, 92(3), 221–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parliamentary Counsel Office of New Zealand. (1999). Animal welfare act 1999. In 1999 no 142.

  • Poletto, R., & Hötzel, M. J. (2012). The five freedoms in the global animal agriculture market: Challenges and achievements as opportunities. Animal Frontiers, 2(3), 22–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prickett, R. W., Norwood, F. B., & Lusk, J. L. (2010). Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: Results from a telephone survey of US households. Animal Welfare, 19(3), 335–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Retail Council of Canada. (2013). Retail Council of Canada Grocery Members’ Commitment on Sow Housing. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://www.retailcouncil.org/advocacy/retail-council-canada-grocery-members-commitment-sow-housing.

  • Robins, A., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2011). International approaches to the welfare of meat chickens. Worlds Poultry Science Journal, 67(2), 351–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, U. A., Havlik, P., Schmid, E., Valin, H., Mosnier, A., Obersteiner, M., et al. (2011). Impacts of population growth, economic development, and technical change on global food production and consumption. Agricultural Systems, 104(2), 204–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Silva, R., Vallejos, L., & Sepulveda, N. (2009). Consumer willingness to pay for beef meat in a developing country: The effect of information regarding country of origin, price and animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 156–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, R. B. T. R., Nääs, I. A., Broom, D. M., & O’Driscoll, K. (2011). Poultry welfare scenario in South America: Norms and regulations. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 13(2), 83–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smithfield Foods. (2014). Smithfield foods recommends its contract growers convert to group housing for pregnant sows. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://investors.smithfieldfoods.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=817511.

  • Spooner, J. M., Schuppli, C. A., & Fraser, D. (2012). Attitudes of Canadian beef producers toward animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 21(2), 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spooner, J. M., Schuppli, C. A. & Fraser, D. (2014). Attitudes of Canadian pig producers toward animal welfare. Journal Agriculture Environmental Ethics (in press).

  • Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, P., Castle, V., Rosales, M., & De Haan, D. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, P. (2012). European Union legislation on the welfare of farm animals. London: Compassion in World Farming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Te Velde, H., Aarts, N., & Van Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(2), 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B. (1997). Sustainability as a norm. Society for Philosophy and Technology, 2(2), 75–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B., Appleby, M., Busch, L., Kalof, L., Miele, M., Norwood, B. F., et al. (2011). Values and public acceptability dimensions of sustainable egg production. Poultry Science, 90(9), 2097–2109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. K. (2010). Livestock production: Recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2853–2867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk, N. J. (2011). Impacts of animal well-being and welfare media on meat demand. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuyttens, F. A. M., Vanhonacker, F., Langendries, K., Aluwe, M., Millet, S., Bekaert, K., et al. (2011). Effect of information provisioning on attitude toward surgical castration of male piglets and alternative strategies for avoiding boar taint. Research in Veterinary Science, 91(2), 327–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuyttens, F. A. M., Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Quantitative verification of the correspondence between the Welfare Quality (R) operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livestock Science, 131(1), 108–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuyttens, F. A. M., Vanhonacker, F., Verhille, B., De Brabander, D., & Verbeke, W. (2012). Pig producer attitude towards surgical castration of piglets without anaesthesia versus alternative strategies. Research in Veterinary Science, 92(3), 524–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyson Foods. (2014). Tyson foods letter to hog farmers. Retrieved February 20, 2014, from http://www.tysonfoods.com/Media/News-Releases/2014/01/Tyson-Foods-Letter-to-Hog-Farmers.aspx.

  • UBA. (2008). Protocolo de bem-estar para aves poedeiras. São Paulo: União Brasileira de Avicultura.

  • UEP. (2010). Animal husbandry guidelines for U.S. egg laying flocks. Retrieved 2014, from http://www.unitedegg.org/information/pdf/UEP_2010_Animal_Welfare_Guidelines.pdf.

  • USDA. (2013). Livestock and poultry: World markets and trade. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2009). Belgian consumers’ attitude towards surgical castration and immunocastration of piglets. Animal Welfare, 18(4), 371–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science, 116(1–3), 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ventura, B. A., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., Schuppli, C. A., & Weary, D. M. (2013). Views on contentious practices in dairy farming: The case of early cow-calf separation. Journal of Dairy Science, 96(9), 6105–6116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Perez-Cueto, F. J. A., De Barcellos, M. D., Krystallis, A., & Grunert, K. G. (2010). European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science, 84(2), 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., Martin, N. P., Kebreab, E., Knowlton, K. F., Grant, R. J., Stephenson, M., et al. (2013). Invited review: Sustainability of the US dairy industry. Journal of Dairy Science, 96(9), 5405–5425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, R. (2006). China—Pork powerhouse of the world. Advances in Pork Production, 17, 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weary, D. M., Schuppli, C. A., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2011). Tail docking dairy cattle: Responses from an online engagement. Journal of Animal Science, 89(11), 3831–3837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2009). Minding the stock: Bringing public policy to bear on livestock sector development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

  • WTO. (2013). European communitiesMeasures prohibiting the importation and marketing of seal products. Reports of the panel. World Trade Organization.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the members of the Animal Welfare Program (The University of British Columbia), particularly David Fraser, Dan Weary, Jesse Robbins and Erin Ryan for the numerous discussions that helped shape many of the arguments presented in this paper. Marina von Keyserlingk is supported through Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Industrial Research Chair program and Maria J. Hötzel through the National Council of Scientific and Technological Development—CNPq, Brazil. Marina von Keyserlingk thanks CNPq’s Science Without Borders program for the funding provided to facilitate her stay in Brazil and Maria J. Hötzel thanks CNPq for their general support through Grant No. 304123/2012-9.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., Hötzel, M.J. The Ticking Clock: Addressing Farm Animal Welfare in Emerging Countries. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 179–195 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9518-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9518-7

Keywords

Navigation