Appendix 3. Impact of Antibiotic Use on Animal Health and Welfare
Ruth Harrison presented significant criticism of
intensive food animal production in her book Animal
Machines (1964). In response to the attention the
book received, the United Kingdom formed a committee,
the Brambell Committee, which produced a
report (Brambell 1965) that served as an acknowledgment
that animal welfare is a social concern and
not limited to concerns of producer groups or
individual producers (Hurnik and Lehman 1988;
Keeling 2004).
Developed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in
1993 (Bayvel 2004), the Five Freedoms are perhaps
the most widely cited food animal welfare code and
practice guidelines. The guidelines state that for an
animal’s welfare to remain uncompromised, the
animal must have freedom to express normal
behavior and freedom from hunger, malnutrition,
thirst, discomfort, disease, injury, pain, distress, and
fear (FAWC 1993).
The public perceives intensive food animal production
as involving widespread use of antimicrobials to
treat and prevent disease and promote growth, thus
compromising the welfare of the animals (Gade
2002; Pretty 1998). A perception also exists that use
of large quantities of antimicrobials is an indication
that intensive production systems have inherent
problems that need to be addressed (Fox 1984).
However, no production system provides an ideal
environment for food animals; advantages and
disadvantages exist in both intensive and extensive
production systems. Indoor systems tend to predispose
animals to infectious disease, requiring increased
preventive antimicrobial treatment and
vaccines, which may mask or counteract problems of
animal health and welfare (Rowan and others 1999).
Increased incidence of disease and other indications
of animal suffering may also occur in alternative
animal production systems (for example, free range
and organic) (Sandoe and others 2003). Although
direct comparisons of disease incidence levels in
different housing systems is possible, any apparent
relationship between animal welfare and disease
prevalence must be interpreted with caution because
other factors that vary with stocking conditions may
affect disease incidence. Amidst the debates, there is evidence demonstrating that intensification of animal
production has improved food animal health, with
decreased incidence of infectious disease (Sandoe
and others 2003). Intensive systems that are managed
well may enable higher levels of welfare than
alternative or extensive animal production systems
(Gade 2002; Sandoe and others 2003). Intensification
facilitates access to animals for disease prevention
treatment.
The increasing public support of “disintensification
process of livestock production” will require a
“science and performance-based approach to
appropriate modifications of agricultural practices”
(Fox 2002). The Five Freedoms incorporated the
scientific approach for assessing animal needs and
the value of understanding the provision of good
animal husbandry.
Philosophical debates on individual theories concerning
the ethics of animal health and welfare are
endless (Hurnik and Lehman 1988). Variables such as
disease incidence, growth rate, and premature
mortality can be measured objectively. However,
affective states, such as abnormal behavior, boredom,
and pain and suffering, are subjective measures
that are more open to substantial disagreement upon
observation (Beynen and others 1987). Values
intrude into the assessment of animal welfare in
fundamental ways (Tannenbaum 1991; Sandoe and
Simonsen 1992; Rollin 1993, 1995).
The term “animal welfare” emerged as a concept that
allowed society to express ethical concerns regarding
inhumane treatment of animals (Duncan and Fraser
1997). Although there are differences in attitudes
toward animals, “there is a biological basis for
evaluating animal health and welfare, and widespread
acceptance that decisions about animal welfare
should be based on good scientific evidence” (Kellert
1988). Animal health can be considered as comprising
one aspect of the welfare of animals. While the
concept is widely regarded as very important, a
universally accepted definition of animal welfare does
not exist; interpretation of what animal welfare
means is dependent upon cultural, political, religious,
and scientific perspectives (Bayvel 2004).
One commonly accepted definition is “the welfare of
the individual animal is its state as regards its attempts
to cope with its environment, with attempts to
cope including the functioning of body repair systems,
immunological defenses, the physiological stress
response, and a variety of behavioral responses”
(Broom 1996). More simply, animal welfare is the sum
of positive and negative experiences of an animal
(Simonsen 1993).
In food animal production, the ethics of caring, which
has been an underlying normative force in agriculture,
place empathy and nurture as integral points of
discussion. Interpersonal human-animal relationships
may equate to better care and consideration for farm
animals, promoting both better food animal welfare
and productivity (Anthony 2003). As such, the humananimal
bond explores the values inherent in the
nature of animal husbandry, serves as a reference
point for animal ethics, and focuses on the moral
implications of food animal welfare. Knowledge and
caring provided through animal husbandry are
recognized as essential prerequisites to maximizing
animal welfare (Hemsworth and others 1993).
Increasing public concern for food animal well-being
arises due to acceptance of the technologically driven
intensification of agriculture while society also
considers related conflicting issues such as disappearance
of family farms, effects of agriculture on ecosystems,
nutritional quality, food safety, and food
affordability and distribution (Hurnik and Lehman
1988). What determines fairness for food animals
depends on one’s basic moral viewpoint concerning
relationships between humans and animals (Sandoe
and others 1997). It has become clear that for
morally acceptable treatment of food animals, there is
no point of objectivity or neutrality from which a
baseline can be decided. If a decision is to be made
about what is necessary for food animal production to
provide the animals with morally acceptable conditions,
the decision itself is bound to be relegated to a
moral point of view (Sandoe and others 2003). The
ethical determination of whether the standards are for
morally acceptable food animal welfare is problematic.
Conflict arises because public perception does not
necessarily equate to optimum standards for food
animal health and welfare.
Intensive food animal production systems, however,
deprive the animals of natural sunlight and fresh air
and prevent the natural behavior of animals, potentially
resulting in behavioral problems and stressors
that compromise the immune system. Animal welfare
research has determined that animals are generally
more sensitive and vulnerable to stress and suffering
than was previously believed (Broom and Johnson
1993, Webster 1994). Infectious disease remains
important, and perhaps creates more problems, as
density and herd size increase. While it may be inaccurate to state that increased herd size promotes
disease, it could be accurately said that with increasing
intensification of food animal populations, opportunities
are being missed to decrease and limit the
occurrence and dissemination of infectious disease
(Garry 2004). Intensive large-scale management
systems can improve animal welfare and promote
significant improvement in animal production; however,
herd or flock productivity is not a suitable gauge
for determining animal welfare (Garry 2004).
Management practices that promote high production
sometimes benefit animals, but they also increase the
risk of production-oriented diseases (Alban 1996).
Poor animal health is a major welfare issue, the
consequence of which is diminished production and
often animal death. Therefore, disease is inextricably
linked to economic loss. This reality causes farmers to
focus their constant attention on reducing disease in
their animals, but the effort they put forth in preventing
disease within their animals contains risks and
potential economic consequences that are often
underestimated (Keeling 2004).
The stakes are high for the food animal industry,
pharmaceutical manufacturers, and producers. In
particular, the producer faces ongoing pressure to
improve efficiency and total production amidst
increasing competition. Improving welfare may lead to
reduced profits (Fraser 1999, 2001, 2003). As a
consequence, while animal welfare may be important
to the producer, it is not the motivation for change.
Economics and competitiveness are catalysts for
change while animal welfare remains a secondary
consideration. Overall, most producers view the
current paradigm of intensification as the only viable
approach to maintaining competitiveness (Garry
2004).
Efficiency and productivity are values; concern for
producing economical and plentiful food for consumers
is a moral value, as is tempering productivity for
the goal of food safety and human health. Thus, it
may be possible for food animal production to be
expanded to include moral concern for animals. If so,
the current primacy of efficiency and productivity in
food animal production, as well as the absence of
moral concern for animals not linked to human
welfare, would need to accommodate a dialectical
interchange that would balance the intrinsic value of
animal welfare against productivity and low food cost
(Rollin 1989).
A new context is evolving for food animal production
in which evaluation of beliefs and values toward food
animal welfare require attention to the arguments of
the public and animal welfare advocates. Consumers
in the United States and Europe no longer fully accept
the traditional methods of evaluating food animal
production systems solely on economic bases (Hurnik and Lehman 1988). However, the ethical dilemmas of
public concern, which ignore economic factors, must
not be oversimplified. Improvements to food animal
welfare can only take place within the context of the
forces that drive the free market. The cost to farmers
of regulations that impose higher welfare standards
could be substantial. Therefore, consumers may have
the responsibility to convert an expressed desire for
higher welfare standards into an effective demand for
welfare-based food animal products even at higher
costs (Webster 2001). Producers who modify production
practices to improve animal welfare must not be
placed at a competitive disadvantage (Hurnik and
Lehman 1988).
Antimicrobials are a critical component of the ethics
of veterinary medicine, animal husbandry, and food
animal production in the United States. These drugs
provide benefits related to animal health and welfare,
and economic return for the industry. Table 1 illustrates
a matrix of the routine use of antimicrobial
(and antiparasitic) drugs to sustain intensive animal
husbandry and increase productivity in food animals
(Mepham 1996). The Ethical Matrix serves as an
attempt to create a rational, analytical (that is,
scientific) approach to morality through which ethics
relating to the production of food animal products
could be incorporated into public discourse and
political decisions. Like the Five Freedoms, it can be viewed as a checklist to assess the strengths and
weaknesses of an animal husbandry system (Webster
2001).
What is considered acceptable animal welfare thus
involves not only determining how well off food animals
are in a given production system but also evaluating
the purpose of production. Plentiful amounts of food at
cheap prices and assurance of food safety and animal
well-being are inextricably linked to any paradigm for
food animal production. From all indications, compromises
will have to be made among concerns for the
animals, and economic, political, and social factors.
Ethics are an integral aspect of discussions of food
animal welfare in relation to scientific, socioeconomic,
philosophical, or political debate.
The concern of scientists, welfare activists, and
legislators would appropriately focus on elements of
poor animal welfare that are directly linked to intrinsic
features of the production system. The factors include
increased disease (for example, post-weaning diarrhea
in pigs) through overwhelming exposure to pathogens,
environmental exposure, and diminished immunity. The
level of infectious disease may serve as a source to
evaluate an animal’s welfare, the success of the
animal’s coping with its environment, or ultimately, the
ethical values provided to the animal by society.
References
Alban L. 1996. Assessing and managing welfare in a
Danish dairy herd: problems and a proposal. In:
Sorensen JT, editor. Livestock farming systems: more
than food production, proceedings of the 4th international
symposium, Foulum, Denmark, August 22-23,
1996, Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen Pers.
Anthony R. 2003. The ethical implications of the
human-animal bond on the farm. Anim Welfare
12:505-512.
Bayvel ACD. 2004. Science-based animal welfare
standards: the international role of the Office International
des Épizooties. Anim Welfare 13:S163-169.
Beynen AC, Baumans V, Bertens APMG, Havenaar R,
Hesp APM, and van Zutphen LFM. 1987. Assessment in
discomfort in gallstone-bearing mice: a practical
example of the problems encountered in an attempt to
recognize discomfort in laboratory animals. Lab Anim
21:35-42.
Brambell FWR. 1965. Report of the technical committee
to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under
intensive husbandry systems (Cmnd 2836). London:
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Broom DM. 1996. Animal welfare defined in terms of
attempts to cope with the environment. Acta Agric
Scan Sect A Anim Sci 27:22-28 (Suppl).
Broom DM and Johnson KG. 1993. Stress and animal
welfare. London: Chapman Hall. 228 p.
Duncan IJH and Fraser D. 1997. Understanding animal
welfare. In: Abbleby MC and Hughes BO (eds.) Animal
welfare. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. p. 19-31.
[FAWC] Farm Animal Welfare Council. 1993. Second
report on priorities for research and development in
farm animal welfare. London: Farm Animal Welfare
Council.
Fox MW. 1984. Farm animals: husbandry, behavior,
and veterinary practice. Baltimore: University Park
Press.
Fox MW. 2002. Animal welfare, social progress, and
the veterinary profession. J Am Vet Med Assoc
221(11):1550-1.
Fraser D. 1999. Animal ethics and animal welfare
science: bridging the two cultures. Appl Anim Behav
Sci 65(3):171-189.
Fraser D. 2001. The “new perception” of animal
agriculture and a need for genuine analysis. J Anim
Sci 79:634-641.
Fraser D. 2003. Assessing animal welfare at the farm
and group level: the interplay of science and values.
Anim Welfare 12:433-443.
Gade PB. 2002. Welfare of animal production in
intensive and organic systems with special reference
to Danish organic pig production. Meat Sci 62:353-
358.
Garry FB. 2004. An overview of animal welfare in the
U.S. dairy industry. Bovine Practitioner 38:1-22.
Harrison R. 1964. Animal machines. London: Vincent
Stuart Ltd.
Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, and Coleman GJ. 1993. The human-animal relationship in agriculture and its
consequences for the animal. Anim Welfare 2:33-51.
Hurnick JF and Lehman H. 1988. Ethics and farm
animal welfare. J Agr Ethics 1:305-318.
Keeling L. 2004. Applying scientific advances to the
welfare of farm animals: why is it getting more
difficult? Anim Welfare 13(Suppl):187-190.
Kellert SR. 1988. Human-animal interaction: a review
of American attitudes to wild and domestic animals in
the twentieth century. In: Rowan AM, editor. Animals
and people sharing the world. New Hampshire:
University Press of New England. p. 137-175.
Mepham B. 1996. Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies:
an evaluative framework. In: Mepham B, editor.
Food ethics. London: Routledge. p. 101-119.
Pretty JN (1998) The living land: agriculture, food and
community regeneration in rural Europe. London:
Earthscan. 336 p.
Rollin BE. 1989. Ethical obligations of veterinarians and
animal scientists in animal agriculture. J Agr Ethics
2:225-234.
Rollin BE. 1993. Animal welfare, science and value. J
Agr Environ Ethics 6:44-50 (Suppl 2).
Rollin BE. 1995. Farm animal welfare: social, bioethical,
and research issues. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press. 168 p.
Rowan AN, O’Brien H, Thayer L, and Patronek GJ.
1999. Farm animal welfare: the focus of the protection
in the USA in the 21st century. Grafton, Massachusetts:
Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy. 99 p.
Sandoe P, Munksgaard, L, Bådsgård NP and Jensen KH.
1997. How to manage the management factor -
assessing animal welfare at the farm level. In:
Sorensen JT, editor. Livestock farming systems - more
than food production. EAAP Publication No. 89. p. 221-
230.
Sandoe P, SB Christiansen and MC Appleby. 2003. Farm
animal welfare: the interaction of ethical questions and
animal welfare science. Anim Welfare 12:469-478.
Sandoe P and Simonsen HB. 1992. Assessing animal
welfare: where does the science end and the philosophy
begin? Anim Welfare 1:257-267.
Simonsen HB. 1993. PST treatment and leg disorders
in growing swine: a welfare hazard. Livest Prod Sci
36:67-70.
Tannenbaum J. 1991. Ethics and animal welfare: the
inextricable connection. J Am Vet Med Assoc 198:1360-
1376.
Webster J. 1994. Animal welfare: a cool eye towards
Eden: a constructive approach to the problem of man’s
dominion over the animals. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
273 p.
Webster AJF. 2001. Farm animal welfare: the five
freedoms and the free market. Vet J 161:229-237.