Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T14:48:49.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical control points in the delivery of improved animal welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

J Webster
J Webster*
Affiliation:
Old Sock Cottage, Mudford Sock, Yeovil BA22 8EA, UK
*
email: john.webster@bris.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes the implementation and simultaneous promotion of an action plan designed to ensure animal welfare standards on-farm that exceed the requirements for acceptability in law. The approach is based on two action cycles, the producer and retailer cycles, The producer cycle, involving welfare audit and the implementation of an action plan for welfare has four stages: self-assessment; independent audit; creation of an action plan based on identification of principal hazards and critical control points; review; and revision of the action plan depending upon assessment of outcomes. The retailer cycle is designed to set quality standards for animal welfare, demonstrate compliance, promote proven high welfare products and reward producers. The paper reviews some incentives and constraints to action for both farmers and retailers and presents encouraging examples of the extent to which both producers and retailers have responded to increased public demand for high welfare products.

Keywords

animal welfarefarmer motivation and rewardquality assuranceself-assessmentVirtuous BicycleWelfare quality®
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Making animal improvements: Economic and other incentives and constraints’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , May 2012 , pp. 117 - 123
Copyright
© 2012 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

Algers, B and Berg, C 2001 Monitoring animal welfare on commercial broiler farms in Sweden. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica. Section A Animal Science supplement 30: 88–92Google Scholar
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the Animal Index (ANI) for assessment of animal's well-being in housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00067-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, NJ, Bell, MJ, Knowles, TG, Whay, HE, Main, DCJ and Webster, AJF 2009 The development, implementation and testing of a lameness-control programme based on HACCP principles and designed for heifers on dairy farms. The Veterinary Journal 180: 178–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.05.020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier, I 2003 Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: 445–455Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, L 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228Google Scholar
Duncan, I 2012 The Global Animal Partnership 5-Step Animal Welfare Standards: a welfare labelling scheme that allows for continuous improvement. Animal Welfare 21(S1): 113–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1993 Second report on Priorities for Research and Development in Farm Animal Welfare. FAWC: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Broom, DM 1990 Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare CAB International: Wallingford, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Guy, J 2012 Evaluation of high welfare indoor farrowing systems for pigs. Animal Welfare 21(S1): 19–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on dairy cattle welfare. Veterinary Record 197: 227–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.153.8.227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manske, T 2002 The effect of claw trimming on the hoof health of Swedish dairy cattle. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 54: 113–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(02)00020-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AJF 2001 Animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free market. The Veterinary Journal 161: 229–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/tvjl.2000.0563CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AJF 2005 Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden pp 287. Blackwell Publications: Oxon, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470751107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 2009 The Virtuous Bicycle: a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 141–148Google Scholar
Webster, AJF, Main, DCJ and Whay, HR 2004 Welfare assessment: indices from clinical observation. Animal Welfare 13: S93–S98Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Leeb, C, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2007a Preliminary assessment of finishing pig welfare using animal-based measurements. Animal Welfare 16: 209–211Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003a Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205–217Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003b Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements, direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 153: 197–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.1537.197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE, Heaven, G, Howell, H, Morgan, M, Pearson, A and Webster, AJF 2007b Assessment of the behaviour and welfare of laying hens on free-range units. Veterinary Record 161: 119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar