Page 117 - The Welfare of Cattle

94 the WeLfare of CattLe

table 10.1 Chronological history of approaches employed to Measure and Define animal Welfare
Year approach to Welfare Defining Characteristics of approach
1965 five freedoms 1. freedom from thirst and hunger
brambell (1970) 2. freedom from discomfort
3. freedom from pain, injury, and disease
4. freedom to express normal behavior
5. freedom from fear and distress
1986 ability to cope the animal’s state as regards its attempts to cope with
broom (1986) its environment
1991 Cognition & emotion dependent solely on the cognitive needs of the animal
duncan and Petherick (1991) concerned
1994 five domains 1. nutrition
Mellor and reid (1994) 2. environment
3. health
4. behavior
5. Mental state
2003 two questions 1. Is the animal physically healthy?
dawkins (2003) 2. does it have what it wants?
2008 three circles 1. basic health and functioning
fraser (2008) 2. affective states
3. natural living
2010 Welfare quality 1. Good feeding
Quality (2009) 2. Good housing
3. Good health
4. appropriate behavior
2016 Quality of life 1. a good life
Mellor (2016) 2. a life worth living
3. Point of balance
4. a life worth avoiding
5. a life not worth living

The parameters set forth by the Brambell Committee (e.g., The Five Freedoms) highlighted
outcome-based targets for agricultural animals, but they did not set clear definitions regarding how
best to meet those targets from the animal’s perspective. As our scientific knowledge regarding
biological, physiological, and neurological functioning has increased, so has our ability to quantify
the affective state—thus providing scientists the opportunity to quantify, and subsequently empha-
size, animal emotion (or the behavioral proxies of emotion) in the metrics evaluated during welfare
assessment. As such, the positive emotional state of the animal has increasingly become an integral
component of animal welfare assessment to the point at which animals are expected to experience
pleasure—not simply have an absence of pain and suffering—in order to have a “life worth liv-
ing.” Because animal welfare addresses the intersection between science and ethics, having a solid
scientific foundation with which to make ethical choices is imperative to sustainable management
of these animals.
Today, the World Animal Health Organization (OIE) defines animal welfare as
…how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of
welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able
to express innate behavior, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and
distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and appropriate veterinary treatment,
shelter, management and nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter or killing. Animal
welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other
terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment. (OIE, 2016)
This definition put forth by the OIE provides a definition in which objective metrics (e.g., the
capacity for an animal to cope) are propelling us toward a quantifiable metric of animal welfare.