Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:33, 17 October 2013

Animal welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of animals. Animal welfare science uses measures such as longevity, disease, immunosuppression, behavior, physiology, and reproduction, although there is debate about which of these indicators provide the best information.

Systematic concern for animal welfare can be based on awareness that non-human animals are sentient and that consideration should be given to their well-being, especially when they are used by humans. These concerns can include how animals are killed for food, how they are used for scientific research, how they are kept (as pets, in zoos, farms, circuses, etc.), and how human activities affect the survival of wild species.

Animal welfare was a concern of some ancient civilizations but began to take a larger place in Western public policy in 19th-century Britain. Today it is a significant focus of interest in science, ethics, and animal welfare organizations.

There are two forms of criticism of the concept of animal welfare, coming from diametrically opposite positions. One view, dating back centuries, asserts that animals are not consciously aware and hence are unable to experience poor welfare. The other view is based on the animal rights position that animals should not be regarded as property and any use of animals by humans is unacceptable. Some authorities thus treat animal welfare and animal rights as two opposing positions. Accordingly, some animal rights proponents argue that the perception of better animal welfare facilitates continued and increased exploitation of animals. Others see the increasing concern for animal welfare as incremental steps towards animal rights. The most widely-held position in the western world is a mid-way utilitarian point-of-view; the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that adverse effects on animal welfare are minimized as far as possible.

Definitions

Animal welfare generally refers to a utilitarian attitude towards the well-being of nonhuman animals. It believes the animals can be exploited if the animal suffering and the costs of use is less than the benefits to humans. There are different definitions of animal welfare.

Positive conditions

Animal welfare are often defined by a list of positive conditions. Definitions using this approach include five freedoms, the three principles of John Webster, and the JM Welfare Index of Jenia Meng.

John Webster defines animal welfare by three positive conditions:

• living a natural life
• fit and healthy
• happy

In the Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, animal welfare is defined as "the avoidance of abuse and exploitation of animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation, feeding and general care, the prevention and treatment of disease and the assurance of freedom from harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain."

Other approaches

Donald Broom defines the welfare of an animal as "its state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment. This state includes how much it is having to do to cope, the extent to which it is succeeding in or failing to cope, and its associated feelings." He states that "welfare will vary over a continuum from very good to very poor and studies of welfare will be most effective if a wide range of measures is used." John Webster criticized this definition for making "no attempt to say what constitutes good or bad welfare."

Yew-Kwang Ng defines animal welfare in terms of welfare economics: "Welfare biology is the study of living things and their environment with respect to their welfare (defined as net happiness, or enjoyment minus suffering). Despite difficulties of ascertaining and measuring welfare and relevancy to normative issues, welfare biology is a positive science."

Professor Ian Duncan and Professor Marian Dawkins, focus more on the feelings of the animal. This approach indicates the belief that animals should be considered as sentient beings. Duncan wrote, "Animal welfare is to do with the feelings experienced by animals: the absence of strong negative feelings, usually called suffering, and (probably) the presence of positive feelings, usually called pleasure. In any assessment of welfare, it is these feelings that should be assessed." Dawkins wrote, "Let us not mince words: Animal welfare involves the subjective feelings of animals."

Animal welfarism

Animal welfarism, also known simply as welfarism or animal welfare, is the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that adverse effects on animal welfare are minimized as far as possible, short of not using the animals at all. An example of welfarist thought is Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's meat manifesto. Point three of eight is:

Think about the animals that the meat you eat comes from. Are you at all concerned about how they have been treated? Have they lived well? Have they been fed on safe, appropriate foods? Have they been cared for by someone who respects them and enjoys contact with them? Would you like to be sure of that? Perhaps it's time to find out a bit more about where the meat you eat comes from. Or to buy from a source that reassures you about these points.

Robert Garner describes the welfarist position as the most widely-held in modern society. He states that one of the best attempts to clarify this position is given by Robert Nozick:

Consider the following (too minimal) position about the treatment of animals. So that we can easily refer to it, let us label this position "utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people." It says: (1) maximize the total happiness of all living beings; (2) place stringent side constraints on what one may do to human beings. Human beings may not be used or sacrificed for the benefit of others; animals may be used or sacrificed for the benefit of other people or animals only if those benefits are greater than the loss inflicted.

Welfarism is often contrasted with the animal rights and animal liberation positions, which hold that animals should not be used by humans, and should not be regarded as their property. However, it has been argued that both welfarism and animal liberation only make sense if you assume that animals have "subjective welfare." There is some evidence that the observed difference between human belief in animal welfare and animal rights originates from two distinct attitudes towards animals: attitudes towards suffering, and reverence for animals.

JM welfare index

The difference between animal welfare and animal rights can be quantified by the JM Welfare Index and the JM Rights Index. The indexes were created by Dr Jenia Meng at the University of Queensland; scores on the indices range from 0 to 100. The greater the score, the more endorsement or support people have for animal welfare or animal rights. Factor analysis and mathematical models were used to develop the indices. The indices show that major determining factors of animal welfare are (in decreasing order of importance) rest deprivation, experiencing pain during slaughter, food and water deprivation, slaughtering young animals, pet-keeping, removal of body parts, and use for entertainment or sports. Pet-keeping is a negative factor for animal rights but a positive factor for animal welfare; people who are in favour of pet-keeping are more likely to support an animal welfare position than an animal rights position.

Motivation

Motivations to improve the welfare of animals may stem from many factors including sympathy, empathy, utility, genes (inherited traits), and memes (cultural factors). Motivations can be based on self-interest. For example, animal producers might improve welfare in order to meet consumer demand for products from high welfare systems. Typically, stronger concern is given to animals that are useful to humans (farm animals, pets etc.) than those that are not (pests, wild animals etc.). The different level of sentience that various species possess, or the perception of such differences, also creates a shifting level of concern. Somewhat related to this are size and appearance, with larger or more aesthetically pleasing animals being favored.

There is some evidence to suggest that empathy is an inherited trait (genetic). Multiple studies have found women have greater concern for animals than men, possibly the result of it being an evolutionarily beneficial trait in societies where women take care of domesticated animals while men hunt. More women also have animal phobias than men, but animal phobias are at least partly genetically determined, and this indicates that attitudes towards animals have a genetic component. Also, children exhibit empathy for animals at a very early age, when external influences cannot be an adequate explanation.

Laws punishing cruelty to animals tend to not just be based on welfare concerns but the belief that such behavior has repercussions toward the treatment of other humans by the animal abusers. Another argument against animal cruelty is based on aesthetics. Within the context of animal research, many scientific organisations believe that improved animal welfare will provide improved scientific outcomes. If an animal in a laboratory is suffering stress or pain it could negatively affect the results of the research.

Cultural factors that affect people's concern for animal welfare include affluence, education, tradition, religious beliefs, and political ideology. Increased affluence in many regions for the past few decades afforded consumers the disposable income to purchase products from high welfare systems. The adaptation of more economically-efficient farming systems in these regions were at the expense of animal welfare and to the financial benefit of consumers, both of which were factors in driving the demand for higher welfare for farm animals. A 2006 survey concluded that a majority (63%) of EU citizens "show some willingness to change their usual place of shopping in order to be able to purchase more animal welfare-friendly products."

Interest in animal welfare continues to grow, with increasing attention being paid to it by the media, governmental and non-governmental organizations. The volume of scientific research on animal welfare has also increased significantly in some countries.

History, principles, practice

Systematic concern for the well-being of other animals probably arose in the Indus Valley Civilization as religious ancestors were believed to return in animal form; therefore animals must be killed with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in the existing religion, Jainism, and in varieties of other Indian religions. Other religions, especially those with roots in the Abrahamic religions, treat animals as the property of their owners, codifying rules for their care and slaughter intended to limit the distress, pain, and fear animals experience under human control.

Since 1822, when British MP Richard Martin brought a bill through Parliament offering protection from cruelty to cattle, horses, and sheep, the welfare approach has had human morality and humane behaviour as its central concerns. Martin was among the founders of the world's first animal welfare organization, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA, in 1824. In 1840, Queen Victoria gave the society her blessing, and it became the RSPCA. The society used members' donations to employ a growing network of inspectors, whose job was to identify abusers, gather evidence, and report them to the authorities.

In the past, many have seen animal welfare chiefly in terms of the body and the physical environment (shelter, feed, etc.): if an animal is healthy and producing well, it is faring well. However, animals can be highly productive despite experiencing apparently poor conditions, e.g. laying hens in battery cages. Significant progress in animal welfare did not take place until the late 20th century. In 1965, the UK government commissioned an investigation—led by Professor Roger Brambell—into the welfare of intensively-farmed animals, partly in response to concerns raised in Ruth Harrison's 1964 book, Animal Machines. On the basis of Professor Brambell's report, the UK government set up the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in 1967, which became the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1979. The committee's first guidelines recommended that animals require the freedoms to "stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs." The guidelines have since been elaborated upon to become known as the five freedoms:

• Freedom from thirst and hunger – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour
• Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area
• Freedom from pain, injury, and disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
• Freedom to express most normal behavior – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind
• Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering

In 2009, Dr Jenia Meng's mathematical models of animal welfare provided scientific evidence of the validity and limits of five freedoms.

A number of animal welfare organisations are campaigning to achieve a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW) at the United Nations. In principle, the Universal Declaration would call on the United Nations to recognise animals as sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain and suffering, and to recognise that animal welfare is an issue of importance as part of the social development of nations worldwide. The campaign to achieve the UDAW is being co-ordinated by the World Society for the Protection of Animals, with a core working group including Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA, and the Humane Society International (the international branch of HSUS).

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has defined animal welfare as: "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." They have offered the following eight principles for developing and evaluating animal welfare policies.

• The responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, recreation, work, education, exhibition, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals, is consistent with the Veterinarian's Oath.
• Decisions regarding animal care, use, and welfare shall be made by balancing scientific knowledge and professional judgment with consideration of ethical and societal values.
• Animals must be provided water, food, proper handling, health care, and an environment appropriate to their care and use, with thoughtful consideration for their species-typical biology and behavior.
• Animals should be cared for in ways that minimize fear, pain, stress, and suffering.
• Procedures related to animal housing, management, care, and use should be continuously evaluated, and when indicated, refined or replaced.
• Conservation and management of animal populations should be humane, socially responsible, and scientifically prudent.
• Animals shall be treated with respect and dignity throughout their lives and, when necessary, provided a humane death.
• The veterinary profession shall continually strive to improve animal health and welfare through scientific research, education, collaboration, advocacy, and the development of legislation and regulations.

Animal welfare science

Animal welfare science is an emerging field that seeks to answer questions raised by the keeping and use of animals, such as whether hens are frustrated when confined in cages, whether the psychological well-being of animals in laboratories can be maintained, and whether zoo animals are stressed by the transport required for international conservation.

Farm animals

A major concern for the welfare of farm animals is factory farming in which large numbers of animals are reared in confinement at high stocking densities. Issues include the limited opportunities for natural behaviors, for example, in battery cages, veal and gestation crates, instead producing abnormal behaviors such as tail-biting, cannibalism, and feather pecking, and routine invasive procedures such as beak trimming, castration, and ear notching. More extensive methods of farming, e.g. free range, can also raise welfare concerns such as the mulesing of sheep, predation of stock by wild animals, and biosecurity.

Farm animals are sometimes artificially selected for production parameters that impinge on the animal's welfare. For example, broiler chickens are bred to be very large to produce the greatest quantity of meat per animal. Broilers bred for fast growth have a high incidence of leg deformities because the large breast muscles cause distortions of the developing legs and pelvis, and the birds cannot support their increased body weight. Therefore, they frequently become lame or suffer from broken legs. The added weight also puts a strain on their hearts and lungs and ascites can develop. In the UK, up to 19 million broilers die in their sheds from heart failure each year.

Another concern about farm animal welfare is the method of slaughter, especially ritual slaughter. While the killing of animals need not necessarily involve suffering, the general public considers that killing an animal reduces its welfare. This leads to further concerns about premature slaughtering such as chick culling by the laying hen industry, in which males are slaughtered immediately after hatching because they are superfluous; this practice occurs in other farm animal industries, raising the same concerns.

United States laws

In the United States, a federal law called the Humane Slaughter Act was designed to decrease suffering of livestock during slaughter.

The Georgia Animal Protection Act of 1986 was a state law enacted in response to the inhumane treatment of companion animals by a pet store chain in Atlanta. The Act provided for the licensing and regulation of pet shops, stables, kennels, and animal shelters, and established, for the first time, minimum standards of care. Additional provisions, called the Humane Euthanasia Act, were added in 1990, and then further expanded and strengthened with the Animal Protection Act of 2000.

In 2002, voters passed (by a margin of 55% for and 45% against) Amendment 10 to the Florida Constitution banning the confinement of pregnant pigs in gestation crates. In 2006, Arizona voters passed Proposition 204 with 62% support; the legislation prohibits the confinement of calves in veal crates and breeding sows in gestation crates. In 2007, the Governor of Oregon signed legislation prohibiting the confinement of pigs in gestation crates and in 2008, the Governor of Colorado signed legislation that phased out both gestation crates and veal crates. Also during 2008, California passed Proposition 2, known as the "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act", which orders new space requirements for farm animals starting in 2015.

European Union laws

European Union legislation regarding farm animal welfare is regularly re-drafted according to science-based evidence and cultural views. For example, in 2009, legislation was passed which aimed to reduce animal suffering during slaughter and on January 1, 2012, the European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC came into act, which means that conventional battery cages for laying hens are now banned across the Union.

Laboratory animals

United States laws

In the US, every institution that uses vertebrate animals for federally-funded laboratory research must have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Each local IACUC reviews research protocols and conducts evaluations of the institution's animal care and use which includes the results of inspections of facilities that are required by law. The IACUC committee must assess the steps taken to "enhance animal well-being" before research can take place. This includes research on farm animals. According to the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, researchers must try to minimize distress in animals whenever possible: "Animals used in research and testing may experience pain from induced diseases, procedures, and toxicity. The Public Health Service (PHS) Policy and Animal Welfare Regulations (AWRs) state that procedures that cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress should be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia, or anesthesia. However, research and testing studies sometimes involve pain that cannot be relieved with such agents because they would interfere with the scientific objectives of the study. Accordingly, federal regulations require that IACUCs determine that discomfort to animals will be limited to that which is unavoidable for the conduct of scientifically valuable research, and that unrelieved pain and distress will only continue for the duration necessary to accomplish the scientific objectives. The PHS Policy and AWRs further state that animals that would otherwise suffer severe or chronic pain and distress that cannot be relieved should be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure, or if appropriate, during the procedure."

The National Research Council's Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals also serves as a guide to improve welfare for animals used in research in the US. The Federation of Animal Science Societies' Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching is a resource addressing welfare concerns in farm animal research. Laboratory animals in the US are also protected under the Animal Welfare Act. The United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) enforces the Animal Welfare Act. APHIS inspects animal research facilities regularly and reports are published online.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the total number of animals used in the U.S. in 2005 was almost 1.2 million, but this does not include rats, mice, and birds which are not covered by welfare legislation but make up approximately 90% of research animals.

United Kingdom laws

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes owners and keepers responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals are met. These include the need: for a suitable environment (place to live), for a suitable diet, to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, to be housed with, or apart from, other animals (if applicable), and to be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease. Anyone who is cruel to an animal, or does not provide for its welfare needs, may be banned from owning animals, fined up to £20,000 and/or sent to prison.

In the UK, the welfare of research animals being used for "regulated procedures" was historically protected by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) which is administrated by the Home Office. The Act defines "regulated procedures" as animal experiments that could potentially cause "pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm" to "protected animals." Initially, "Protected animals" encompassed all living vertebrates other than humans, but in 1993, an amendment added a single invertebrate species, the common octopus. Primates, cats, dogs, and horses have additional protection over other vertebrates under the Act. Revised legislation came into force in January 2013. This has been expanded to protect "...all living vertebrates, other than man, and any living cephalopod. Fish and amphibia are protected once they can feed independently and cephalopods at the point when they hatch. Embryonic and foetal forms of mammals, birds and reptiles are protected during the last third of their gestation or incubation period." The definition of regulated procedures was also expanded: "A procedure is regulated if it is carried out on a protected animal and may cause that animal a level of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm equivalent to, or higher than, that caused by inserting a hypodermic needle according to good veterinary practice." It also includes modifying the genes of a protected animal if this causes the animal pain, suffering, distress, or lasting harm. The ASPA also considers other issues such as animal sources, housing conditions, identification methods, and the humane killing of animals. This legislation is widely regarded as the strictest in the world. Those applying for a license must explain why such research cannot be done through non-animal methods. The project must also pass an ethical review panel which aims to decide if the potential benefits outweigh any suffering for the animals involved.

Criticisms

At one time, many people denied that animals could feel anything, and thus the concept of animal welfare was meaningless. For example, many Cartesians were of this opinion. Descartes wrote that animals act "without consciousness", much like a machine. In addition, there are accounts of Descartes visiting slaughter houses to observe how animals died. Believing that the animals were devoid of sentience, Descartes thought the death throes of animals was akin to "taking apart a spring-driven clock." In the Discourse, published in 1637, Descartes wrote that the ability to reason and use language involves being able to respond in complex ways to all the "contingencies of life", something that animals "clearly cannot do." He argued from this that any sounds animals make do not constitute language, but are simply "automatic responses to external stimuli."

Dr Jenia Meng's JM Rights Index shows major issues of animal rights are killing animals for food or clothing, killing young animals, zoos, animals experiencing pain during slaughter, marking animals, use of animals for entertainment, sports, and work, animal body parts removal and cosmetic decoration of animals (the issues are listed in decreasing order of importance). Animal rights advocates, such as Gary L. Francione and Tom Regan, argue that the animal welfare position (advocating for the betterment of the condition of animals, but without abolishing animal use) is inconsistent in logic and ethically unacceptable. However, there are some animal rights groups, such as PETA, which support animal welfare measures in the short term to alleviate animal suffering until all animal use is ended. According to PETA's Ingrid Newkirk in an interview with Wikinews, there are two issues in animal welfare and animal rights. "If I only could have one thing, it would be to end suffering," said Newkirk. "If you could take things from animals and kill animals all day long without causing them suffering, then I would take it... Everybody should be able to agree that animals should not suffer if you kill them or steal from them by taking the fur off their backs or take their eggs, whatever. But you shouldn't put them through torture to do that."

Abolitionism holds that focusing on animal welfare not only fails to challenge animal suffering, but may actually prolong it by making the exercise of property rights over animals appear less unattractive. The abolitionists' objective is to secure a moral and legal paradigm shift, whereby animals are no longer regarded as property.

Animal welfare organizations

Global

World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE): The intergovernmental organisation responsible for improving animal health worldwide. The OIE has been established "for the purpose of projects of international public utility relating to the control of animal diseases, including those affecting humans and the promotion of animal welfare and animal production food safety."

World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA): Tackles animal cruelty across the globe. WSPA's objectives include helping people understand the critical importance of good animal welfare, encouraging nations to commit to animal-friendly practices, and building the scientific case for the better treatment of animals. They are global in a sense that they have consultative status at the Council of Europe and collaborate with national governments, the United Nations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Organization for Animal Health.

Non-government organizations

Canadian Council on Animal Care: The national organization responsible for overseeing the care and use of animals involved in Canadian Science

Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS): The only national organization representing human societies and SPCAs in Canada. They provide leadership on animal welfare issues and spread the message across Canada.

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association: Brings in veterinary involvement to animal welfare. Their objective is to share this concern of animals with all members of the profession, with the general public, with government at all levels, and with other organizations such as the CFHS, which have similar concerns.

Compassion in World Farming: Founded over 40 years ago in 1967 by a British farmer who became horrified by the development of modern, intensive factory farming. "Today we campaign peacefully to end all cruel factory farming practices. We believe that the biggest cause of cruelty on the planet deserves a focused, specialised approach – so we only work on farm animal welfare."

The Movement for Compassionate Living: Exists to- "Promote simple vegan living and self-reliance as a remedy against the exploitation of humans, animals and the Earth. Promote the use of trees and vegan-organic farming to meet the needs of society for food and natural resources. Promote a land-based society where as much of our food and resources as possible are produced locally."

National Farm Animal Care Council: Their objectives are to facilitate collaboration among members with respect to farm animal care issues in Canada, to facilitate information sharing and communication, and to monitor trends and initiatives in both the domestic and international market place.

National Office of Animal Health: A British organisation that represents its members drawn from the animal medicines industry.

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: A registered charity comprising over 50 communities.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: A well-known animal welfare charity in England and Wales, founded in 1824.

See also

Template:Multicol

• Abandoned pets
• Animal consciousness
• Animal law
• Animal welfare science
• Animal worship
• Behavioral enrichment
• Blood sport
• Cruelty to animals
• Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness

Template:Multicol-break

• Eurogroup for Animals
• Feral cat
• Francis of Assisi
• Hunting
• Intrinsic value (animal ethics)
• List of abnormal behaviours in animals
• List of animal welfare groups
• List of animal welfare parties
• Overpopulation in companion animals
• Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals

Template:Multicol-break

• Pain in animals
• Pain in invertebrates
• Poaching
• Puppy mills
• Whaling
• Women and animal advocacy

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end

Organizations

• Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
• World Organisation for Animal Health

References

1. Hewson, Caroline J. (2003). "What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequences". The Canadian Veterinary Journal,. 44 (6): 496–9. PMC 340178. PMID 12839246.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
2. Broom, D.M., (1991). Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science, 69(10): 4167-75
3. "Draft of the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare" (PDF). media.animalmatter.org.
4. ^ Francione, Gary Lawrence (1996). Rain without thunder: the ideology of the animal rights movement. ISBN 978-1-56639-461-1.
5. Garner, Robert. Animal Ethics. Polity Press, 2005; Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights, University of California Press, 1983.
6. Francione, Gary. Animals, Property, and the Law. Temple University Press, 1995.
7. Linda J. Keeling, Jeff Rushen and Ian Duncan. Understanding animal welfare. Animal Welfare. 2011 Page 13. edited by Michael C. Appleby, Barry O. Hughes, Joy A. Mench
8. Animal Emotions, Animal Sentience, Animal Welfare, and Animal Rights. Marc Bekoff
9. John Webster. Animal Welfare: Limping Towards Eden. 2008. Page 6
10. Animal. medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
11. Broom, D. M. (1996). "Animal welfare defined in terms of attempts to cope with the environment". Acta agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A, Animal science.
12. John Webster. Animal Welfare: Limping Towards Eden. 2008. Page 5
13. Yew-Kwang Ng (1995). "Towards Welfare Biology: Evolutionary Economics of Animal Consciousness and Suffering". Journal Biology and Philosophy. 10 (3). Springer Netherlands: 255–285. doi:10.1007/BF00852469.
14. Duncan, I.J.H., (1996). Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A, Animal Sci. Suppl. 27: 29–35
15. Dawkins M.S. (1980). Animal Suffering: the Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman & Hall, London.
16. Duncan, I.J.H., (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm animals. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 24(2): 483-492
17. Dawkins, M.S., (1990). From an animal's point of view: Motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13:1-61
18. ^ Garner, Robert. Animal Ethics. Polity Press, 2005, pp. 15-16.
19. Bekoff, Marc (2009). "Animal Emotions, Animal Sentience, Animal Welfare, and Animal Rights".
20. ^ Fearnley-Whittingstall, Hugh (2009). "My Meat Manifesto".
21. Garner, Robert. Animal Ethics. Polity Press, 2005, pp. 72
22. Nozick, Robert (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
23. Garner 2005, p. 15; also see Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation, Random House, 1975; Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights, University of California Press, 1983; Francione, Gary. Animals, Property, and the Law. Temple University Press, 1995; this paperback edition 2007.
24. Taylor, Angus. Animals and Ethics. Broadview Press, 2003, p. 88; Garner 2005, p. 15.
25. ^ Meng, Jenia (2009). 'Origins of Attitudes towards Animals'. Ultravisum, Brisbane.
26. Meng, Jenia. (2009). Origins of attitudes towards animals. Retrieved October 15, 2013.
27. Serpell, J. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare, 13, 145-151.
28. Herzog, H.A. (2007). Gender differences in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoös, 20 (1), 7 – 21.
29. Phillips 2009. The Welfare Of Animals: The Silent Majoritypp 50, 52-53.
30. Understanding Animal Research: The 3Rs Accessed 21.11.2012
31. Phillips 2009. pp 60-63.
32. Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare - European Commission
33. "Hope For Paws". Retrieved 10 October 2011.
34. Phillips 2009. p 60.
35. Hewson, C.J., (2003). What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequences. Canadian Veterinary Journal44:496-499
36. Phillips 2009. p 56.
37. Five Freedoms Farm Animal Welfare Council
38. Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare Compassion in World Farming
39. ^ "What is Animal Wefare". American Veterinary Medical Association. Retrieved 2 April 2013.
40. Sherwin, C.M., Richards, G.J and Nicol, C.J., (2010). Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science, 51: 488-499
41. Fraser, David. (2008). Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. John Wiley and Sons, p. 8.
42. Laws, N., Ganswindt, A., Heistermann, M., Harris, M., Harris, S. and Sherwin, C., (2007). A case study: fecal corticosteroid and behavior as indicators of welfare during relocation of an asian elephant. Journal of Applied Animal Wlfare Science, 10: 349-358. doi:10.1080/10888700701555600
43. "Compassion in World Farming – Meat chickens – Welfare issues". Ciwf.org.uk. Retrieved 2011-08-26.
44. Phillips 2009. p 10.
45. "United States Code". Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 2011-01-07. Archived from the original on 8 July 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-30. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
46. "Animal Protection - Ga Dept of Agriculture". Agr.georgia.gov. Retrieved 2012-10-16.
47. "Georgia Humane Euthansia Act, O.C.G.A. §4-11-5.1". Animal Law Coalition. Retrieved 2012-10-16.
48. "Georgia Animal Protection Act". Animallaw.info. Retrieved 2012-10-16.
49. "PorkNet Newsletter". MetaFarms.com, Inc. 2002-11-07. Retrieved 2008-07-03. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
50. "Back door activists gain momentum". Learfield Communications, Inc. 2007-07-05. Retrieved 2008-07-03. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
51. "Farm Sanctuary Applauds Colorado for Passing Legislation Phasing out Veal and Gestation Crates". Reuters. 2008-05-14. Retrieved 2008-07-03. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
52. "Farm Animal Welfare Measure Becomes Law". Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). 2008-05-14. Archived from the original on 15 June 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-03. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
53. "European Commission" (PDF). Official Journal of the European Union. 2009-11-18. Retrieved 2011-06-30.
54. "Research Regulations". Retrieved 2012-10-22.
55. ^ ftp://ftp.grants.nih.gov/IACUC/GuideBook.pdf
56. "Research Animals | Animal Welfare Information Center". Awic.nal.usda.gov. 1985-11-20. Retrieved 2012-10-16.
57. "AGGuideCovers2010.indd" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-10-16.
58. http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/CustomerSearch.jspx
59. "2005 Report on Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act" (PDF). U.S. Department of Agriculture.
60. The humane care and treatment of laboratory animals. National Association of Biomedical Research
61. Trull, F. L. (1999). "More Regulation of Rodents". Science. 284 (5419): 1463. Bibcode:1999Sci...284.1463T. doi:10.1126/science.284.5419.1463.
63. "The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act(Amendment) Order 1993". August 23, 1993. Retrieved February 22, 2013.
64. "Draft guidance on the Operation of the Animals 1 (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (as amended)" (PDF). Home Office (UK). 2013. Retrieved July 18, 2013.
65. "Regulations". Retrieved 2012-11-20.
66. Midgley, Mary (May 24, 1999). "Descartes Prisoners". The New Statesman.
67. Descartes, René. Discourse on the Method. First published 1637, cited in Cottingham, John. "Descartes, René" in Honderich, Ted. (ed.) The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 188-192.
68. Interview with Ingrid Newkirk, David Shankbone, Wikinews, November 20, 2007.
69. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). (2011). Retrieved 11/07, 2011, from http://www.oie.int/about-us/
70. Who we are. Retrieved 11/07, 2011, from http://www.wspa-international.org/whoarewe/Default.aspx
71. ^ Animal welfare canada. (2010). Retrieved 11/07, 2011, from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/trans/infrae.shtml
74. "Ontario SPCA". Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Retrieved 20 March 2013.

External links

• Animal Kill Counter
• Animal Welfare Index: JM Welfare Index
• Animal Welfare Science Centre
• Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs page on animal welfare legislation
• Careers Helping Animals
• Chesley V. Morton v. Georgia Department of Agriculture and Tommy Irvin in his Official Capacity as Commissioner
• Farm Animal Welfare: Philosophical Aspects from the Encyclopedia of Animal Science
• Humane Education Past, Present, and Future from The State of the Animals II: 2003
• Temple Grandin's Web Page

• Animal welfare
• Human–animal interaction