- Email: [email protected]
Animal Welfare: Ethical Aspects and Practical Considerations12
WORLD'S POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION INVITED LECTURE Animal Welfare: Ethical Aspects and Practical Considerations 1,2 J. F. HURNIK Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario NIG 2W1, Canada (Received for publication August 9, 1990) ABSTRACT The concern for food animal well-being is one of several serious issues facing intensive animal agriculture. This paper focuses on ethical concepts relevant to the treatment of farm animals and discusses the reasons for social attractiveness of animal welfare philosophy. It defines animal quality of life to be a function of satisfaction of animal needs and proposes longevity studies to assess how efficiently these needs are being satisfied in various production systems. (Key words: animal welfare, ethical aspects, production systems, animal needs, longevity)
INTRODUCTION
The topic of welfare of animals raised for production of human food is both challenging and complex. It includes intricate questions raised by those who advocate redefinition of traditional principles for treatment of nonhuman sentient organisms. Animal welfarists call for extension of the range of human concepts of justice and fairness beyond the boundaries of human society and question the assumption that procedures employed in animal production should be determined on economic grounds alone. It is an issue mat in several countries has gained significant social attention. It is also an issue that is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. It is an ethical issue that strongly depends on value judgments and, thus, is inherently predisposed to cultural and historical biases and vulnerable to emotional interpretation and subjectivism. The concern for food animal well-being is only one of several serious issues facing technologically advanced, intensive agricultural production practices. New scientific discoveries in agriculture during the past few decades have significantly increased me productivity of plants and animals. Contemporary crop yields per hectare and production per animal have bypassed levels that were consid-
1 A lecture sponsored by the United States and Canadian Branches of the World's Poultry Science Association and presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Poultry Science Association, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, August 9, 1990. Portions of this lecture have been taken from a published paper by Hurnik and Lehman (1988).
ered to be unachievable just one or two human generations ago. This development has had a positive impact on food affordability, at least in those countries able to apply such scientific and technological advances. Farmers and agrologists in those countries refer to the ethical value of affordability and unprecedented selection of food available to our modern society with justified pride. Nevertheless, it is equally true that this technological progress also raises some serious ethical questions regarding the impact of technological advancement on the social structure of contemporary farm populations (the gradual disappearance of family farms), on the ecosystem (imbalances due to high concentration of production in small areas), on the perceived quality of animal products by consumers (the use of additives, growth promotants, and antibiotics), and on the production and distribution of food around the globe (overproduction in some countries, starvation in others). With increasing frequency in the last two decades, the question has also been raised regarding what cost farm animals are expected to bear in intensive production systems. I was asked to discuss ethical and practical considerations related to farm animal welfare. I intend to do so, focusing briefly on poultry welfare concerns, animal welfare-related ethical theories, definition of animal well-being, and the complexity of assessing the quality of animal life. ANIMAL WELFARE CONCERNS
The first significant criticisms of the historically firmly rooted subordination of farm
1827
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
1990 Poultry Science 69:1827-1834
1828
HURNDC
It has been strongly argued (Rollin, 1981) that it is valid to consider sentient animals as worthy of our moral concern. Because of
neurophysiological and behavioral similarities between humans and animals, rational human beings now accept this position without any reservation. If animals are worthy of moral concern regarding their well-being, it stands to reason that humans, on an ethical basis, cannot be oblivious to the suffering they impose on animals. Accepting the position that 1) animals can suffer, 2) their suffering may be unnecessary in some circumstances, and 3) they are worthy of moral concern, we have to be prepared to recognize that there may be some animal production practices that may be ethically unacceptable because they cause suffering to animals, which is morally unjustifiable. In an open, democratic society, it is legitimate for people who are not involved in animal production practices to express their concern for animal welfare. There are several positive aspects of human nature that seem to reinforce strong interest in animal well-being, particularly: 1) protection of those who cannot effectively protect themselves; 2) prevention of preventable suffering; and 3) appbcation of moral standards to action that falls within the sphere of personal responsibility. All three tendencies in themselves are admirable, and in ethically advanced societies, broadly accepted as valid moral principles. Many people consider farm animals to be appropriate subjects for application of such principles. Furthermore, the extension of fair or equal consideration of interests beyond the human species to all sentient organisms is seen by some as a new, logical step in the evolution of human ethics. The existence of the animal welfare movement can, therefore, be taken as a sign of society's strive for ethical maturity. It should also be realized that a significant animal welfare movement does not exist in societies that do not practice strong respect for human rights and in societies that, for whatever reason, are unable to provide a selection of affordable food for their people. The most commonly mentioned concerns of animal welfarists regarding well-being of birds in modern poultry production systems can be listed as follows: 1. Insensitive treatment of culled, day-old chicks and live embryos. 2. Unrestricted use of elective surgeries (beak trimming, toe-clipping, and dewattling).
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
animal interests to human objectives occurred in the book Animal Machines by Ruth Harrison (1964). The political action of the United Kingdom Parliament in forming the Technical Committee to inquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Husbandry Systems (Brambell, 1965) was instigated essentially in response to the social attention that this book received. The formation of this Technical Committee represented a benchmark in the history of animal husbandry by de facto acknowledgment that animal welfare is an issue of valid social concern, reaching beyond the corresponding agricultural commodities or producers' organizations and providing political credence to the welfare movement. In the 1970s, the ethical intricacies and economic complexities of the animal welfare issue attracted several philosophers and scientists. Singer (1975) and others introduced "speciesism", principally defined as an attitude biased in favor of human interests and against animal interests. During the same time, new institutions were established to promote scientific interests in animal welfare and methodical research in this field. Scientific conferences were organized to outline the seriousness of the animal welfare issue and to assess its potential impact on animal agriculture and society. In the 1980s, intellectual attention to the animal welfare issue has continued with further publications by scientists and philosophers (e.g., Dawkins, 1980; Frey, 1980; Regan, 1983; Pluhar, 1988). Scientific meetings have been held in Western countries to discuss the animal welfare issue and search for solutions (e.g., The First and Second Symposia on Poultry Welfare held in Kopenhagen, Denmark and Celle, W. Germany, in 1981 and 1985, respectively). At the same time, the proponents of animal welfare have become more informed regarding agricultural production systems and more specific and accurate in their criticisms (e.g., Mason and Singer, 1980). In many countries, the last decade has also been a period of significant social action. Political lobbying groups have been formed and laws dealing with animal welfare have been considered and enacted in several nations. Li Western Europe, international cooperative efforts have been instigated to reach agreements for protection of farm animals.
WORLD'S POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION INVITED LECTURE
Traditionally, animal production systems have been, and in many cases still are, mutually compared on economic grounds only. Ethical considerations require us to include "costs" commonly ignored in traditional economic analysis, for example, loss of family farms, decline of consumer trust in health safety of food, loss of arable land, damage to water quality, reduced genetic diversity, or compromised well-being of animals. However, the negative aspects of modem production systems should not be unilaterally overemphasized. There have also been significant benefits, for example, inexpensive food for consumers, reduced seasonality of marketed products, better animal protection against adverse weather conditions and predators, and improvements in animal disease prevention and veterinary treatment. An important aspect of ethical costs or benefits requiring further investigation has to do with the social and economic changes that may occur if action is taken with regard to animal welfare. What if changing a production system results in an improvement in animal well-being but also results in a decrease in human well-being? Up to the present time, these aspects seem to be mostly ignored by animal welfarists. Animal welfare is closely linked to human welfare. Unilateral interpretation of benefits in the case of negative correlation between human and animal welfare would not lead to ethically satisfactory solutions. The challenge facing farmers, agricultural scientists, veteri-
narians, and all those concerned with farm animal well-being is to search for animal production technologies that maximize benefits for both interacting partners. ANIMAL WELFARE-RELATED THEORIES
There are, in essence, four distinct ethical theories commonly used in serious farm animal welfare discussions: divine command, rational egoism, utilitarianism, and animal rights. Each of these theoretical positions has important advantages and also serious limitations; all have a large number of followers in contemporary societies. People on both sides of the animal welfare controversy refer to these theories in their argumentation. Divine Command The position of divine command is derived from a supernatural authority as expressed in and understood from scriptures. Interpretation of these documents is very central to traditional understanding of "rights" and "wrongs". Regardless of its historical influence on human behavior, in its application to the animal welfare issue, this theory has serious weaknesses. For those who do not believe in the existence of such supernatural auuiority or in the revelation of its commands, the guiding principles may be irrelevant; and there is no consensus among believers as to what actions constitute "human domination" over animals (e.g., limitless exploitation or stewardship?). Rational Egoism Rational egoism stresses that the best way to achieve the most good or happiness in a society is to follow individual goals and desires. Those who emphasize producers' self interest in animal well-being, as a prerequisite for profitability, often have this concept in mind. If applied to human treatment of animals, weakness of this position is that: it does not provide reliable protection of animals if such protection is in conflict with producer's interest; and classification of interests is set arbitrarily in favor of self interests. Utilitarianism The theory of utilitarianism emphasizes the need to assess each of our actions according to
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
3. Inadequacy of battery cage environment (wire floor, lack of nest, and restricted space). 4. Overcrowding (large groups and high density of housing). 5. Permanent indoor confinement of birds. 6. Inadequate ventilation. 7. Inappropriate light intensity and unnatural lighting regimen. 8. Inadequate environmental complexity, leading to boredom and boredom-related vices. 9. Overfeeding and overproduction stress. 10. Stressful forced-molting. 11. Insufficient health care. 12. Inadequate supervision. 13. Inappropriate handling of birds during catching and loading. 14. Transport deficiencies. 15. Stressful slaughtering methods.
1829
1830
HURNIK TABLE 1. A comparison of the utilitarian and animal rights theories regarding various human actions directed towards animals^
Type of human action directed towards animals
Utilitarian theory
Animal rights theory
Killing in self defense Killing for other purposes Harming2 but not killing in self defense Harming2 but not killing for other purposes Using but not killing or harming
Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable
Adapted from Hurnik and Lehman (1988). Includes deprivation, overstimulation, aversive stimulation, or any other situation that causes suffering. Conditional acceptability, only if positive consequences of given action for humans and animals outweigh, as much as possible, the overall negative consequences. ''it would violate the basic animalrightsdemand that animals that are able to control their own lives must have therightto do so. 2
risks. The ethical weight and attractiveness of animal welfare arguments should not be underestimated, particularly not in free and prosperous societies. DEFINITION OF FARM ANIMAL WELL-BEING
A major problem in addressing the animal welfare issue is lack of objective information. Animal Rights Although a large number of experiments have The animal rights theory emerged to over- been conducted in the last decade, significant come the most serious weakness of utilitarian- progress has not been made in animal welfare ism, namely, the protection of an individual science overall. One of the reasons is that these against die potential abuse in the name of experiments were conducted focusing mainly on a single behavioral or physiological trait "greater good". Also, this theory has very rather than using a more complex criterion. serious problems if used as a guideline for Techniques for operant conditioning or animal animal treatment: 1) the concept of "inherent choice studies usually account for interesting value" of animals, on which this approach experiments, but generalization of the results is stands, is unclear, and 2) it does not provide often seriously handicapped by the fact that methodology to resolve conflicts between rights such responses change or interact with genoof individuals. type, age, reproduction stage, health status, enThe last two theories, utilitarianism and vironmental experiences, social circumstances, animal rights, predominate in the contemporary physical surroundings, motivational state, or animal welfare movement. Generally, those who many other factors. Determining what productake the position of utilitarianism define them- tion system is morally acceptable is not a selves as animal welfarists; the others as animal simple matter. We lack a clear analysis of die rightists. Although both groups are promoting concept of animal well-being. Further, we lack well-being of animals, mere is a deep difference an objective method of measuring animal wellin their views regarding treatment of animals. being. Only when we are clear on these Table 1 compares their respective positions on a matters can we engage in objective evaluation few arbitrary examples. of production alternatives. A methodical apTo deal with the animal welfare issue proach to animal welfare issues therefore diligently and effectively, the philosophical requires addressing the following three conposition on which animal welfare stands should secutive questions: be understood; otherwise, the risk of oversimplification or misconception is relatively high. 1. what constitutes "quality of animal life"? For moral, social, and economic reasons, I think 2. how can we reliably measure "quality of animal agriculture cannot afford to take such animal life"?
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
the principle of how much "harm" or "benefit" these actions generate. An action is morally acceptable if benefit outweighs harm. The serious flaws related to this theory are that it is often very difficult to quantify "harms" and "benefits"; and benefits to majority may be achieved at the cost of an individual or minority.
WORLD'S POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION INVITED LECTURE
3. can we rank animal production systems with respect to "quality of animal life"?
1. adequate air, water, and feed supply, according to their biological requirements; 2. safe housing and a sufficient amount of
space to prevent injuries or atrophies and ensure normal growth; 3. appropriate level of environmental complexity to prevent harmful deprivation and boredom or aversive stimulation and fear, 4. regular daily supervision and effective health care to minimize undetected accidents, injuries, or illness and to initiate prompt assistance; and 5. sensible handling in all stages of their life to avoid unnecessary suffering. Animal well-being is an important factor for moral acceptability of a given production system. Moral acceptability, however, cannot afford to ignore the productivity of animals raised in such a system. The inclusion of "animal productivity" among relevant moral criteria deserves clarification. It is true that productivity alone cannot be used as a generally valid indicator of farm animal wellbeing. In some circumstances, productivity of a single animal or an animal operation may be negatively related to the well-being of farm animals. The use of force-feeding to produce "fatty livers" in geese or overcrowding of laying hens to achieve highest productivity per housing unit serve as examples of such a relationship. Some production traits could be positively correlated with animal well-being, as is usually the case in animal reproduction, maternal care, or animal health. We cannot afford to ignore productivity when discussing issues related to animal farming. Doing so would carry the danger that some alternative production systems may not generate enough income to be implemented by the fanners. As long as the income of occupational animal fanners depends on marketed animals or animal products, productivity of farm animals cannot be disregarded from the set of criteria assessing moral acceptability of various animal production systems. The third important criterion of moral acceptability of a given production system is its impact on the ecology. Large animal operations, particularly those separated from their natural land base, often have serious difficulties in achieving sustainable ecological integration. ASSESSMENT OF FARM ANIMAL WELL-BEING
Criticisms raised by welfarists regarding the quality of life of farm animals have been
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
In order to establish some common ground, let me start with the simplest definition of animal well-being with which most people, I hope, would agree: "Animal well-being is a condition of physical and psychological harmony between the organism and its surroundings" (Hurnik et al, 1985). The difficulty with this metaphoric definition lies with the term "harmony". Although the basic concept of harmony in music, art, or nature is understood, interpretations of what constitutes "harmony" between the farm animal and its surroundings may differ. The animal producer will probably accentuate the productiveness of the enterprise as the key criterion for assessment of harmony, stressing that the respectable harmony between his or her animals and their surroundings is achieved if the productivity of the operation is very high. Animal or poultry scientists, however, tend to use the highest individual performance per animal to identify harmony between the animal and its environment. Veterinarians will probably stress good health. Animal welfarists and utilitarians will agree only if they are convinced that any suffering imposed on animals by humans is, as much as possible, outweighed by the overall beneficial consequences. Animal rights proponents will deny any harmony between an animal and its surroundings if the life of the animal is artificially terminated to suit human goals. From these few examples, it seems obvious that in order to generate a useful discussion among welfarists, producers, and other interested groups, we need to overcome differences and professional biases in the definition of "harmony". One possible and promising way would be to accept a guiding moral principle that every sentient, living organism subjected to full, direct human control should have an opportunity to experience an environment for which its own genotype is predisposed in order to develop into a physically and psychologically healthy organism. This would mean that all farm animals should have the benefits of
1831
1832
HURNTK TABLE 2. Generalized comparison of three types of housing systems for poultry
Welfare criteria
Traditional
Battery cages
Aviary
Air quality Water quality Quality of diet Thermal control Predator protection Detection of health problems Administration of medical treatment Control of parasites Ease of disinfection Contact with excreta Space for ambulation and exercise Environmental complexity Access to outdoors and sun rays Opportunity for sand bathing, floor scratching, nesting, and roosting Opportunity for social interaction Opportunity to escape or avoid perceived danger Likelihood of cannibalism, despotism, and hysteria Use of preventive surgeries (beak trimming, and dubbing)
+
-
-
-
+ + + + + + + + +
+ + + +
-
+ +
-
+ + +
-
Compared according to relatively better (+) or poorer (-) satisfaction of the listed poultry welfare criteria.
generating political and economic pressure on the animal agricultural industries in some countries to introduce changes or discontinue some existing production systems. In Switzerland, poultry battery cage systems are being gradually replaced with large colony cages, floor pens, or aviaries by requirement of law. Although this process may be welcomed by animal welfarists, some serious questions remain to be answered. Many welfarists focus on deprivation of liberty. However, sufficient liberty is only one factor contributing to animal well-being. In some cases, increasing liberty could adversely affect the animal. Also in this context is a need to exercise care to avoid emotional tendencies by considering only characteristics that may be of specific concern to some welfarists or some producers but that are secondary to the overall quality of animal life. Technological changes in animal agriculture during the last few decades affected poultry more than other farm animal species. For predominantly economic reasons, poultry operations developed from traditional, small-scale systems into mechanized, capital-intensive battery cages or large-scale floor operations. Now, with the concern for poultry welfare, poultry scientists are developing aviaries characterized by housing densities similar to battery cages but with more freedom for comfort movement and ambulation. As shown in Table 2, each housing system has its own special, welfare-
related advantages and problems. How can we resolve which of the three housing systems is superior with respect to birds' quality of life when each of these criteria could significantly relate to poultry well-being? Meaningful attempts to answer such a question requires the brief introduction of the concept of animal needs. This concept stands on the assumptions that 1) animals can have either a better or poorer quality of life; 2) the quality of life of animals is directly related to the satisfaction of animal needs; and 3) needs differ in weight or importance to the animal; that is, satisfaction of some needs has a greater effect on the animal's well-being than does satisfaction of other needs. The term "need" can be defined as "any requirement of the organism necessary for its normal development and maintenance of physical and psychological health" (Hurnik et al, 1985). Satisfaction of needs necessitates acquisition of beneficial and avoidance of harmful events or stimuli. The satisfaction of needs is not necessarily identical with the satisfaction of animal desires. The term "desire" can be defined as: "a motivation of an organism to acquire control or to experience some feature of its environment" (Hurnik et al., 1985). Desires are interpreted operationally from observed behavior and may or may not be indications of underlying needs. The distinction between these two terms, need and desire, can be understood if we consider that an
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
+ + + + + + + +
-
WORLD'S POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION INVITED LECTURE
The three oudined categories of needs provide some guidelines that can be applied to avoid the mistake of incidentally focusing on needs of lower priority by neglecting those that are of more urgent significance to animals. Nevertheless, some serious problems still remain. Perhaps some health-sustaining needs are three times as important as some comfortsustaining needs, but perhaps the former are four times as important as the latter. Furthermore, perhaps it is a mistake to think of needs as having weight in some absolute sense. Perhaps the contribution that satisfaction of a
need makes to an animal's well-being varies in relation to which other needs are satisfied and how well they are satisfied. How can such questions be answered? Arbitrary answers could be given, but if that is done, then why should someone who disagrees with the outcome of the decision accept it? If the answers to these questions can only be given by making arbitrary assignments of numbers, then any one could manipulate die decision process to favor the outcome he or she personally prefers. Is there some way to avoid making this assignment of weights to needs arbitrary? An attempt to answer this question rests on the assumption that there is a direct correlation between an organism's overall well-being and its life span or longevity. The more adequate the organism's needs are satisfied, the longer it may be expected to live. Thus, it has been suggested (Hurnik and Lehman, 1988) that longevity be used as an indicator of how well the organism's needs are being satisfied. Longevity then may serve as an indicator of quality of life indirectly. It combines cumulative influences of harm and benefit experienced by the animal. It is a broadly based variable, which provides relevant weights to satisfaction of important and less important needs and avoids potential serious inaccuracies in human interpretation of animal needs and animal desires. Longevity is an objectively measurable parameter mat offers an immediate application to compare different production systems. Furthermore, longevity studies will provide an opportunity to monitor behavioral and physiological aberrations indicative of welfare problems (such as stereotypies, vacuum activities, and displacement activities) and measure the productivity of animals, thus broadening the objective base for comparative assessment of various production systems. Longevity studies would obviously be timeconsuming and probably also expensive. Nevertheless, such an effort appears to be unavoidable in order to obtain reliable information for methodical and productive approach to improvement of the welfare of farm animals. In conclusion, scientific endeavor is often defined as a methodical search for objective information about the world around us, and some scientists consider ethical questions and ethical criticism as an emotional interference in their work. After all, these scientists may
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
animal may desire to behave in ways that harm its health or endanger its life. The animal, for example, might have a desire to eat something poisonous. Needs, however, are always life-, health-, and comfort-promoting biological requirements. Because some desires could obviously result in self-inflicted harm or harm to group mates, it is safer to assume that animal welfare is regarded rather as a function of satisfaction of animal needs than as a function of satisfaction of animal desires. As indicated earlier, animal needs can be divided into three categories. In the first category are needs that, if not satisfied, lead to rapid or immediate death of the organism. These needs can be classified as "life-sustaining needs", which, due to their critical proximity to the death of living organisms are assumed to have the greatest weight for the animal. In the second category are needs that, if not satisfied, lead to illness, progressive deterioration and eventual death of the animal. These needs are called "health-sustaining needs", and their satisfaction has great weight for the animal, because if only one of the needs is not satisfied, the quality of animal life will be relatively poor. In the third category are needs for the essential comfort of the animal. Failure to satisfy "comfort-sustaining needs" results in occurrence of behavioral aberrations (often called nonfunctional behaviors) and undesirable behaviors, harmful to animal health, normal development, or reproduction. However, the judgment concerning relative weight of the needs must be understood only as a generalization, which is true for the most part. Persistent, long-term failure to satisfy comfort-sustaining needs may have consequences that are worse for the individuals affected than temporary failure to satisfy health-sustaining needs. This is an area that requires much more attention from researchers.
1833
1834
HURNIK
of animals in animal agriculture and research but, at the same time, offers new opportunities for our creativity and personal ethical satisfaction. REFERENCES Brambell, F.W.R., 1965. Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive husbandry systems. Doc. 2836, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, England. Dawkins, M. S., 1980. Animal Suffering. The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall, London, England. Frey, R. G., 1980. Interests and Rights-The Case Against Animals. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England. Harrison, R., 1964. Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry. Vincent Stuart Ltd., London, England. Hurnik, J. F., and H. Lehman, 1988. Ethics and farm animal welfare. J. Agric. Ethics 1:305-318. Hurnik, J. F., A. B. Webster, and P. B. Siegel, 1985. Dictionary of Farm Animal Behaviour. University of Guelph Publishing, Guelph, Ontario, Can. Mason, J., and P. Singer, 1980. Animal Factories. Crown Publ. Inc., New York, NY. Pluhar, E., 1988. Is there a morally relevant difference between human and animal nonpersons? J. Agric. Ethics 1:59-68. Regan, T., 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. Rollin, B. E., 1981. Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus Books, New York, NY. Singer, P., 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. Avon Books, New York, NY.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
say, scientific information, a scientific fact, cannot be identified as "good" or "bad" in itself. But, is it really so simple if the work of a scientist can be used to generate well-being or suffering to humans and animals and benefit or harm to the world around us? The search for scientific information is not free of value judgments, as some scientists, perhaps for their own comfort, would like to believe. A scientist makes choices, moral choices, prior, during, and after his or her research is accomplished. Scientists, therefore, carry a heavy load of responsibility for the consequences of their discoveries. Galileo, Nobel, Oppenheimer, and Sacharov felt this responsibility and showed personal courage in order to subject their discoveries to morally acceptable goals. At a smaller scale, the same responsibility is expected from us in our search for prosperous, ecologically sound, and welfare-respecting animal agriculture. Farm Animal Welfare is an issue of growing moral and social significance. Concern for reduction or prevention of suffering and promotion of well-being to the broadest possible range of sentient organisms is perceived by increasing the number of people as a new but logical step in the evolution of human ethics and sign of ethical maturity. The farm animal welfare issue is challenging to all farm animal scientists. It sets new limits for the use
INTRODUCTION
The topic of welfare of animals raised for production of human food is both challenging and complex. It includes intricate questions raised by those who advocate redefinition of traditional principles for treatment of nonhuman sentient organisms. Animal welfarists call for extension of the range of human concepts of justice and fairness beyond the boundaries of human society and question the assumption that procedures employed in animal production should be determined on economic grounds alone. It is an issue mat in several countries has gained significant social attention. It is also an issue that is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. It is an ethical issue that strongly depends on value judgments and, thus, is inherently predisposed to cultural and historical biases and vulnerable to emotional interpretation and subjectivism. The concern for food animal well-being is only one of several serious issues facing technologically advanced, intensive agricultural production practices. New scientific discoveries in agriculture during the past few decades have significantly increased me productivity of plants and animals. Contemporary crop yields per hectare and production per animal have bypassed levels that were consid-
1 A lecture sponsored by the United States and Canadian Branches of the World's Poultry Science Association and presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Poultry Science Association, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, August 9, 1990. Portions of this lecture have been taken from a published paper by Hurnik and Lehman (1988).
ered to be unachievable just one or two human generations ago. This development has had a positive impact on food affordability, at least in those countries able to apply such scientific and technological advances. Farmers and agrologists in those countries refer to the ethical value of affordability and unprecedented selection of food available to our modern society with justified pride. Nevertheless, it is equally true that this technological progress also raises some serious ethical questions regarding the impact of technological advancement on the social structure of contemporary farm populations (the gradual disappearance of family farms), on the ecosystem (imbalances due to high concentration of production in small areas), on the perceived quality of animal products by consumers (the use of additives, growth promotants, and antibiotics), and on the production and distribution of food around the globe (overproduction in some countries, starvation in others). With increasing frequency in the last two decades, the question has also been raised regarding what cost farm animals are expected to bear in intensive production systems. I was asked to discuss ethical and practical considerations related to farm animal welfare. I intend to do so, focusing briefly on poultry welfare concerns, animal welfare-related ethical theories, definition of animal well-being, and the complexity of assessing the quality of animal life. ANIMAL WELFARE CONCERNS
The first significant criticisms of the historically firmly rooted subordination of farm
1827
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
1990 Poultry Science 69:1827-1834
1828
HURNDC
It has been strongly argued (Rollin, 1981) that it is valid to consider sentient animals as worthy of our moral concern. Because of
neurophysiological and behavioral similarities between humans and animals, rational human beings now accept this position without any reservation. If animals are worthy of moral concern regarding their well-being, it stands to reason that humans, on an ethical basis, cannot be oblivious to the suffering they impose on animals. Accepting the position that 1) animals can suffer, 2) their suffering may be unnecessary in some circumstances, and 3) they are worthy of moral concern, we have to be prepared to recognize that there may be some animal production practices that may be ethically unacceptable because they cause suffering to animals, which is morally unjustifiable. In an open, democratic society, it is legitimate for people who are not involved in animal production practices to express their concern for animal welfare. There are several positive aspects of human nature that seem to reinforce strong interest in animal well-being, particularly: 1) protection of those who cannot effectively protect themselves; 2) prevention of preventable suffering; and 3) appbcation of moral standards to action that falls within the sphere of personal responsibility. All three tendencies in themselves are admirable, and in ethically advanced societies, broadly accepted as valid moral principles. Many people consider farm animals to be appropriate subjects for application of such principles. Furthermore, the extension of fair or equal consideration of interests beyond the human species to all sentient organisms is seen by some as a new, logical step in the evolution of human ethics. The existence of the animal welfare movement can, therefore, be taken as a sign of society's strive for ethical maturity. It should also be realized that a significant animal welfare movement does not exist in societies that do not practice strong respect for human rights and in societies that, for whatever reason, are unable to provide a selection of affordable food for their people. The most commonly mentioned concerns of animal welfarists regarding well-being of birds in modern poultry production systems can be listed as follows: 1. Insensitive treatment of culled, day-old chicks and live embryos. 2. Unrestricted use of elective surgeries (beak trimming, toe-clipping, and dewattling).
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
animal interests to human objectives occurred in the book Animal Machines by Ruth Harrison (1964). The political action of the United Kingdom Parliament in forming the Technical Committee to inquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Husbandry Systems (Brambell, 1965) was instigated essentially in response to the social attention that this book received. The formation of this Technical Committee represented a benchmark in the history of animal husbandry by de facto acknowledgment that animal welfare is an issue of valid social concern, reaching beyond the corresponding agricultural commodities or producers' organizations and providing political credence to the welfare movement. In the 1970s, the ethical intricacies and economic complexities of the animal welfare issue attracted several philosophers and scientists. Singer (1975) and others introduced "speciesism", principally defined as an attitude biased in favor of human interests and against animal interests. During the same time, new institutions were established to promote scientific interests in animal welfare and methodical research in this field. Scientific conferences were organized to outline the seriousness of the animal welfare issue and to assess its potential impact on animal agriculture and society. In the 1980s, intellectual attention to the animal welfare issue has continued with further publications by scientists and philosophers (e.g., Dawkins, 1980; Frey, 1980; Regan, 1983; Pluhar, 1988). Scientific meetings have been held in Western countries to discuss the animal welfare issue and search for solutions (e.g., The First and Second Symposia on Poultry Welfare held in Kopenhagen, Denmark and Celle, W. Germany, in 1981 and 1985, respectively). At the same time, the proponents of animal welfare have become more informed regarding agricultural production systems and more specific and accurate in their criticisms (e.g., Mason and Singer, 1980). In many countries, the last decade has also been a period of significant social action. Political lobbying groups have been formed and laws dealing with animal welfare have been considered and enacted in several nations. Li Western Europe, international cooperative efforts have been instigated to reach agreements for protection of farm animals.
WORLD'S POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION INVITED LECTURE
Traditionally, animal production systems have been, and in many cases still are, mutually compared on economic grounds only. Ethical considerations require us to include "costs" commonly ignored in traditional economic analysis, for example, loss of family farms, decline of consumer trust in health safety of food, loss of arable land, damage to water quality, reduced genetic diversity, or compromised well-being of animals. However, the negative aspects of modem production systems should not be unilaterally overemphasized. There have also been significant benefits, for example, inexpensive food for consumers, reduced seasonality of marketed products, better animal protection against adverse weather conditions and predators, and improvements in animal disease prevention and veterinary treatment. An important aspect of ethical costs or benefits requiring further investigation has to do with the social and economic changes that may occur if action is taken with regard to animal welfare. What if changing a production system results in an improvement in animal well-being but also results in a decrease in human well-being? Up to the present time, these aspects seem to be mostly ignored by animal welfarists. Animal welfare is closely linked to human welfare. Unilateral interpretation of benefits in the case of negative correlation between human and animal welfare would not lead to ethically satisfactory solutions. The challenge facing farmers, agricultural scientists, veteri-
narians, and all those concerned with farm animal well-being is to search for animal production technologies that maximize benefits for both interacting partners. ANIMAL WELFARE-RELATED THEORIES
There are, in essence, four distinct ethical theories commonly used in serious farm animal welfare discussions: divine command, rational egoism, utilitarianism, and animal rights. Each of these theoretical positions has important advantages and also serious limitations; all have a large number of followers in contemporary societies. People on both sides of the animal welfare controversy refer to these theories in their argumentation. Divine Command The position of divine command is derived from a supernatural authority as expressed in and understood from scriptures. Interpretation of these documents is very central to traditional understanding of "rights" and "wrongs". Regardless of its historical influence on human behavior, in its application to the animal welfare issue, this theory has serious weaknesses. For those who do not believe in the existence of such supernatural auuiority or in the revelation of its commands, the guiding principles may be irrelevant; and there is no consensus among believers as to what actions constitute "human domination" over animals (e.g., limitless exploitation or stewardship?). Rational Egoism Rational egoism stresses that the best way to achieve the most good or happiness in a society is to follow individual goals and desires. Those who emphasize producers' self interest in animal well-being, as a prerequisite for profitability, often have this concept in mind. If applied to human treatment of animals, weakness of this position is that: it does not provide reliable protection of animals if such protection is in conflict with producer's interest; and classification of interests is set arbitrarily in favor of self interests. Utilitarianism The theory of utilitarianism emphasizes the need to assess each of our actions according to
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
3. Inadequacy of battery cage environment (wire floor, lack of nest, and restricted space). 4. Overcrowding (large groups and high density of housing). 5. Permanent indoor confinement of birds. 6. Inadequate ventilation. 7. Inappropriate light intensity and unnatural lighting regimen. 8. Inadequate environmental complexity, leading to boredom and boredom-related vices. 9. Overfeeding and overproduction stress. 10. Stressful forced-molting. 11. Insufficient health care. 12. Inadequate supervision. 13. Inappropriate handling of birds during catching and loading. 14. Transport deficiencies. 15. Stressful slaughtering methods.
1829
1830
HURNIK TABLE 1. A comparison of the utilitarian and animal rights theories regarding various human actions directed towards animals^
Type of human action directed towards animals
Utilitarian theory
Animal rights theory
Killing in self defense Killing for other purposes Harming2 but not killing in self defense Harming2 but not killing for other purposes Using but not killing or harming
Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable
Adapted from Hurnik and Lehman (1988). Includes deprivation, overstimulation, aversive stimulation, or any other situation that causes suffering. Conditional acceptability, only if positive consequences of given action for humans and animals outweigh, as much as possible, the overall negative consequences. ''it would violate the basic animalrightsdemand that animals that are able to control their own lives must have therightto do so. 2
risks. The ethical weight and attractiveness of animal welfare arguments should not be underestimated, particularly not in free and prosperous societies. DEFINITION OF FARM ANIMAL WELL-BEING
A major problem in addressing the animal welfare issue is lack of objective information. Animal Rights Although a large number of experiments have The animal rights theory emerged to over- been conducted in the last decade, significant come the most serious weakness of utilitarian- progress has not been made in animal welfare ism, namely, the protection of an individual science overall. One of the reasons is that these against die potential abuse in the name of experiments were conducted focusing mainly on a single behavioral or physiological trait "greater good". Also, this theory has very rather than using a more complex criterion. serious problems if used as a guideline for Techniques for operant conditioning or animal animal treatment: 1) the concept of "inherent choice studies usually account for interesting value" of animals, on which this approach experiments, but generalization of the results is stands, is unclear, and 2) it does not provide often seriously handicapped by the fact that methodology to resolve conflicts between rights such responses change or interact with genoof individuals. type, age, reproduction stage, health status, enThe last two theories, utilitarianism and vironmental experiences, social circumstances, animal rights, predominate in the contemporary physical surroundings, motivational state, or animal welfare movement. Generally, those who many other factors. Determining what productake the position of utilitarianism define them- tion system is morally acceptable is not a selves as animal welfarists; the others as animal simple matter. We lack a clear analysis of die rightists. Although both groups are promoting concept of animal well-being. Further, we lack well-being of animals, mere is a deep difference an objective method of measuring animal wellin their views regarding treatment of animals. being. Only when we are clear on these Table 1 compares their respective positions on a matters can we engage in objective evaluation few arbitrary examples. of production alternatives. A methodical apTo deal with the animal welfare issue proach to animal welfare issues therefore diligently and effectively, the philosophical requires addressing the following three conposition on which animal welfare stands should secutive questions: be understood; otherwise, the risk of oversimplification or misconception is relatively high. 1. what constitutes "quality of animal life"? For moral, social, and economic reasons, I think 2. how can we reliably measure "quality of animal agriculture cannot afford to take such animal life"?
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
the principle of how much "harm" or "benefit" these actions generate. An action is morally acceptable if benefit outweighs harm. The serious flaws related to this theory are that it is often very difficult to quantify "harms" and "benefits"; and benefits to majority may be achieved at the cost of an individual or minority.
WORLD'S POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION INVITED LECTURE
3. can we rank animal production systems with respect to "quality of animal life"?
1. adequate air, water, and feed supply, according to their biological requirements; 2. safe housing and a sufficient amount of
space to prevent injuries or atrophies and ensure normal growth; 3. appropriate level of environmental complexity to prevent harmful deprivation and boredom or aversive stimulation and fear, 4. regular daily supervision and effective health care to minimize undetected accidents, injuries, or illness and to initiate prompt assistance; and 5. sensible handling in all stages of their life to avoid unnecessary suffering. Animal well-being is an important factor for moral acceptability of a given production system. Moral acceptability, however, cannot afford to ignore the productivity of animals raised in such a system. The inclusion of "animal productivity" among relevant moral criteria deserves clarification. It is true that productivity alone cannot be used as a generally valid indicator of farm animal wellbeing. In some circumstances, productivity of a single animal or an animal operation may be negatively related to the well-being of farm animals. The use of force-feeding to produce "fatty livers" in geese or overcrowding of laying hens to achieve highest productivity per housing unit serve as examples of such a relationship. Some production traits could be positively correlated with animal well-being, as is usually the case in animal reproduction, maternal care, or animal health. We cannot afford to ignore productivity when discussing issues related to animal farming. Doing so would carry the danger that some alternative production systems may not generate enough income to be implemented by the fanners. As long as the income of occupational animal fanners depends on marketed animals or animal products, productivity of farm animals cannot be disregarded from the set of criteria assessing moral acceptability of various animal production systems. The third important criterion of moral acceptability of a given production system is its impact on the ecology. Large animal operations, particularly those separated from their natural land base, often have serious difficulties in achieving sustainable ecological integration. ASSESSMENT OF FARM ANIMAL WELL-BEING
Criticisms raised by welfarists regarding the quality of life of farm animals have been
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
In order to establish some common ground, let me start with the simplest definition of animal well-being with which most people, I hope, would agree: "Animal well-being is a condition of physical and psychological harmony between the organism and its surroundings" (Hurnik et al, 1985). The difficulty with this metaphoric definition lies with the term "harmony". Although the basic concept of harmony in music, art, or nature is understood, interpretations of what constitutes "harmony" between the farm animal and its surroundings may differ. The animal producer will probably accentuate the productiveness of the enterprise as the key criterion for assessment of harmony, stressing that the respectable harmony between his or her animals and their surroundings is achieved if the productivity of the operation is very high. Animal or poultry scientists, however, tend to use the highest individual performance per animal to identify harmony between the animal and its environment. Veterinarians will probably stress good health. Animal welfarists and utilitarians will agree only if they are convinced that any suffering imposed on animals by humans is, as much as possible, outweighed by the overall beneficial consequences. Animal rights proponents will deny any harmony between an animal and its surroundings if the life of the animal is artificially terminated to suit human goals. From these few examples, it seems obvious that in order to generate a useful discussion among welfarists, producers, and other interested groups, we need to overcome differences and professional biases in the definition of "harmony". One possible and promising way would be to accept a guiding moral principle that every sentient, living organism subjected to full, direct human control should have an opportunity to experience an environment for which its own genotype is predisposed in order to develop into a physically and psychologically healthy organism. This would mean that all farm animals should have the benefits of
1831
1832
HURNTK TABLE 2. Generalized comparison of three types of housing systems for poultry
Welfare criteria
Traditional
Battery cages
Aviary
Air quality Water quality Quality of diet Thermal control Predator protection Detection of health problems Administration of medical treatment Control of parasites Ease of disinfection Contact with excreta Space for ambulation and exercise Environmental complexity Access to outdoors and sun rays Opportunity for sand bathing, floor scratching, nesting, and roosting Opportunity for social interaction Opportunity to escape or avoid perceived danger Likelihood of cannibalism, despotism, and hysteria Use of preventive surgeries (beak trimming, and dubbing)
+
-
-
-
+ + + + + + + + +
+ + + +
-
+ +
-
+ + +
-
Compared according to relatively better (+) or poorer (-) satisfaction of the listed poultry welfare criteria.
generating political and economic pressure on the animal agricultural industries in some countries to introduce changes or discontinue some existing production systems. In Switzerland, poultry battery cage systems are being gradually replaced with large colony cages, floor pens, or aviaries by requirement of law. Although this process may be welcomed by animal welfarists, some serious questions remain to be answered. Many welfarists focus on deprivation of liberty. However, sufficient liberty is only one factor contributing to animal well-being. In some cases, increasing liberty could adversely affect the animal. Also in this context is a need to exercise care to avoid emotional tendencies by considering only characteristics that may be of specific concern to some welfarists or some producers but that are secondary to the overall quality of animal life. Technological changes in animal agriculture during the last few decades affected poultry more than other farm animal species. For predominantly economic reasons, poultry operations developed from traditional, small-scale systems into mechanized, capital-intensive battery cages or large-scale floor operations. Now, with the concern for poultry welfare, poultry scientists are developing aviaries characterized by housing densities similar to battery cages but with more freedom for comfort movement and ambulation. As shown in Table 2, each housing system has its own special, welfare-
related advantages and problems. How can we resolve which of the three housing systems is superior with respect to birds' quality of life when each of these criteria could significantly relate to poultry well-being? Meaningful attempts to answer such a question requires the brief introduction of the concept of animal needs. This concept stands on the assumptions that 1) animals can have either a better or poorer quality of life; 2) the quality of life of animals is directly related to the satisfaction of animal needs; and 3) needs differ in weight or importance to the animal; that is, satisfaction of some needs has a greater effect on the animal's well-being than does satisfaction of other needs. The term "need" can be defined as "any requirement of the organism necessary for its normal development and maintenance of physical and psychological health" (Hurnik et al, 1985). Satisfaction of needs necessitates acquisition of beneficial and avoidance of harmful events or stimuli. The satisfaction of needs is not necessarily identical with the satisfaction of animal desires. The term "desire" can be defined as: "a motivation of an organism to acquire control or to experience some feature of its environment" (Hurnik et al., 1985). Desires are interpreted operationally from observed behavior and may or may not be indications of underlying needs. The distinction between these two terms, need and desire, can be understood if we consider that an
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
+ + + + + + + +
-
WORLD'S POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION INVITED LECTURE
The three oudined categories of needs provide some guidelines that can be applied to avoid the mistake of incidentally focusing on needs of lower priority by neglecting those that are of more urgent significance to animals. Nevertheless, some serious problems still remain. Perhaps some health-sustaining needs are three times as important as some comfortsustaining needs, but perhaps the former are four times as important as the latter. Furthermore, perhaps it is a mistake to think of needs as having weight in some absolute sense. Perhaps the contribution that satisfaction of a
need makes to an animal's well-being varies in relation to which other needs are satisfied and how well they are satisfied. How can such questions be answered? Arbitrary answers could be given, but if that is done, then why should someone who disagrees with the outcome of the decision accept it? If the answers to these questions can only be given by making arbitrary assignments of numbers, then any one could manipulate die decision process to favor the outcome he or she personally prefers. Is there some way to avoid making this assignment of weights to needs arbitrary? An attempt to answer this question rests on the assumption that there is a direct correlation between an organism's overall well-being and its life span or longevity. The more adequate the organism's needs are satisfied, the longer it may be expected to live. Thus, it has been suggested (Hurnik and Lehman, 1988) that longevity be used as an indicator of how well the organism's needs are being satisfied. Longevity then may serve as an indicator of quality of life indirectly. It combines cumulative influences of harm and benefit experienced by the animal. It is a broadly based variable, which provides relevant weights to satisfaction of important and less important needs and avoids potential serious inaccuracies in human interpretation of animal needs and animal desires. Longevity is an objectively measurable parameter mat offers an immediate application to compare different production systems. Furthermore, longevity studies will provide an opportunity to monitor behavioral and physiological aberrations indicative of welfare problems (such as stereotypies, vacuum activities, and displacement activities) and measure the productivity of animals, thus broadening the objective base for comparative assessment of various production systems. Longevity studies would obviously be timeconsuming and probably also expensive. Nevertheless, such an effort appears to be unavoidable in order to obtain reliable information for methodical and productive approach to improvement of the welfare of farm animals. In conclusion, scientific endeavor is often defined as a methodical search for objective information about the world around us, and some scientists consider ethical questions and ethical criticism as an emotional interference in their work. After all, these scientists may
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
animal may desire to behave in ways that harm its health or endanger its life. The animal, for example, might have a desire to eat something poisonous. Needs, however, are always life-, health-, and comfort-promoting biological requirements. Because some desires could obviously result in self-inflicted harm or harm to group mates, it is safer to assume that animal welfare is regarded rather as a function of satisfaction of animal needs than as a function of satisfaction of animal desires. As indicated earlier, animal needs can be divided into three categories. In the first category are needs that, if not satisfied, lead to rapid or immediate death of the organism. These needs can be classified as "life-sustaining needs", which, due to their critical proximity to the death of living organisms are assumed to have the greatest weight for the animal. In the second category are needs that, if not satisfied, lead to illness, progressive deterioration and eventual death of the animal. These needs are called "health-sustaining needs", and their satisfaction has great weight for the animal, because if only one of the needs is not satisfied, the quality of animal life will be relatively poor. In the third category are needs for the essential comfort of the animal. Failure to satisfy "comfort-sustaining needs" results in occurrence of behavioral aberrations (often called nonfunctional behaviors) and undesirable behaviors, harmful to animal health, normal development, or reproduction. However, the judgment concerning relative weight of the needs must be understood only as a generalization, which is true for the most part. Persistent, long-term failure to satisfy comfort-sustaining needs may have consequences that are worse for the individuals affected than temporary failure to satisfy health-sustaining needs. This is an area that requires much more attention from researchers.
1833
1834
HURNIK
of animals in animal agriculture and research but, at the same time, offers new opportunities for our creativity and personal ethical satisfaction. REFERENCES Brambell, F.W.R., 1965. Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive husbandry systems. Doc. 2836, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, England. Dawkins, M. S., 1980. Animal Suffering. The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall, London, England. Frey, R. G., 1980. Interests and Rights-The Case Against Animals. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England. Harrison, R., 1964. Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry. Vincent Stuart Ltd., London, England. Hurnik, J. F., and H. Lehman, 1988. Ethics and farm animal welfare. J. Agric. Ethics 1:305-318. Hurnik, J. F., A. B. Webster, and P. B. Siegel, 1985. Dictionary of Farm Animal Behaviour. University of Guelph Publishing, Guelph, Ontario, Can. Mason, J., and P. Singer, 1980. Animal Factories. Crown Publ. Inc., New York, NY. Pluhar, E., 1988. Is there a morally relevant difference between human and animal nonpersons? J. Agric. Ethics 1:59-68. Regan, T., 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. Rollin, B. E., 1981. Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus Books, New York, NY. Singer, P., 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. Avon Books, New York, NY.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Oakland University on June 3, 2015
say, scientific information, a scientific fact, cannot be identified as "good" or "bad" in itself. But, is it really so simple if the work of a scientist can be used to generate well-being or suffering to humans and animals and benefit or harm to the world around us? The search for scientific information is not free of value judgments, as some scientists, perhaps for their own comfort, would like to believe. A scientist makes choices, moral choices, prior, during, and after his or her research is accomplished. Scientists, therefore, carry a heavy load of responsibility for the consequences of their discoveries. Galileo, Nobel, Oppenheimer, and Sacharov felt this responsibility and showed personal courage in order to subject their discoveries to morally acceptable goals. At a smaller scale, the same responsibility is expected from us in our search for prosperous, ecologically sound, and welfare-respecting animal agriculture. Farm Animal Welfare is an issue of growing moral and social significance. Concern for reduction or prevention of suffering and promotion of well-being to the broadest possible range of sentient organisms is perceived by increasing the number of people as a new but logical step in the evolution of human ethics and sign of ethical maturity. The farm animal welfare issue is challenging to all farm animal scientists. It sets new limits for the use