Subject: How much higher standards should animal-welfare oriented research have? From: Olsson@ibmc.up.pt Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:11:31 +0000 To: applied-ethology@usask.ca Dear all, Recently, I've twice been involved in situations of reviewing (project proposal and manuscript for scientific paper) where it has been argued that because this is a study with animal welfare in mind, a certain treatment should not be accepted. I find this intriguing: are scientisst with the words "animal welfare" in their CV only supposed to study animals from the level of acceptable welfare and up? Irrespectively of what the real world looks like in terms of production systems, experimental treatments etc? Best regards, Anna Subject: Re: How much higher standards should animal-welfare oriented research have? From: Stanley Curtis Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:56:42 -0500 (CDT) To: Olsson@ibmc.up.pt, applied-ethology@usask.ca Anna- The spot you find yourself in is not unique- Around the globe, scientists have had similar experiences for many years by now- Unfortuantely, you are dealing with an unenlightened animal care and use committee members- Those people would do well to avail themselves of workshops for animal care and use committee members that are regularly offered by groups such as Scientists Center for Animal Welfare (SCAW), PRIM&R, and AAALAC International in the USA as well as elsewhere- Such a posture makes no sense, regardless of the animal-welfare philosophy of a person- It is impossible, for example, to evaluate the efficacy (as judged by various qualitative and quantitative endpoints) of a proposed new analgesic drug if there is not a control situation against which to make comparison- In the USA, again, experiments involving treatments that are expected to result in unmitigated pain or distress are permitted so long as animals allocated to that/those treatment/s are compared/contrasted with animals in absolute- and sham-control groups- -Stan Curtis ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:11:31 +0000 > >From: Olsson@ibmc.up.pt > >Subject: How much higher standards should animal-welfare oriented research have? > >To: applied-ethology@usask.ca > > > > Dear all, > > > > Recently, I've twice been involved in situations of > > reviewing (project proposal and manuscript for > > scientific paper) where it has been argued that > > because this is a study with animal welfare in mind, > > a certain treatment should not be accepted. > > > > I find this intriguing: are scientisst with the > > words "animal welfare" in their CV only supposed to > > study animals from the level of acceptable welfare > > and up? Irrespectively of what the real world looks > > like in terms of production systems, experimental > > treatments etc? > > > > Best regards, > > Anna Subject: Re: CAST Issue Paper 42 on the welfare of sows in individual accommodations From: Olsson@ibmc.up.pt Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:00:23 +0000 To: securtis@illinois.edu, applied-ethology@usask.ca Dear all, Thanks for posting this link, and no, I haven't had the time to read this paper in detail. But the thoughtful and interesting wording in the last columns made me reflect: "First, one might decide that, be­cause sow welfare is equivalent in ei­ther IGAs or group pens, and because capital and operating costs are less with IGA systems, then IGAs should be scientifically refined to improve sow welfare in systems where sows are kept in IGAs. Alternatively, because sow wel­fare is equivalent in either IGAs or group pens, and because certain consumer/activist views favor group pens, then group keeping systems should be scientifically refined to im­prove sow welfare in systems where sows are kept in groups." The conclusion of that is that, apparently, whatever system is chosen, sows fare equally well (or poorly). This resonates with me, because I've recently had a discussion with a colleague who researches animal issues from the ethical viewpoint. He would argue "animal welfare science also can be used as a mean to gain as much as posible from the animals. Thus shifting the motivation behind the science form one of animal welfare for its own sake to one of animal welfare for the sake of the productivity (broadly understood) of the animal. I know these go hand in hand to some point, but then again. At same point you ust do not go for additional welfare because it does not pay off.". I would say that animal welfare science usually doesn't operate this way, that animal scientists usually manage to figure out how to gain as much as possible without involving animal welfare science. But what is true, and what is made very clear in situations like the one described in the CAST Issue paper, is that animal welfare science operates under the constraints set by current practice, which in turn is constrained by economic considerations. Sows fare equally well in loose-housing systems and in individual crates on present large-scale "operations" where groups are not kept stable and where monitoring of health as well as food intake of individual sows is impractical in loose housing systems. If the market situation would be different (in terms of profit margin and in terms of consumers' demand), these problems could be overcome in loose-housing systems. Maybe some of them can be overcome by technical innovation, as the paper suggests. The main problem of individual crates / tetheres - the lack of freedom to move, exercise and excert control over one's situation - will remain. At least I can't envision a technical innovation approach that would solve it. I believe it is important not to forget that the equivalent welfare of sows in different housing systems (assuming it is equivalent) is not an absolute truth, but one that is given by the present market situation and the present technology available. And the room for improvement seems not to be equivalent between the two systems (nor is, possibly, the risk for deterioriation). Best regards, Anna Olsson PS I'm not the cited Olsson, A in the paper, just in case somebody wonders. From: Stanley Curtis To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Date: 20-03-2009 13:07 Subject: Re: In case you haven't seen the CAST Issue Paper 42 on the welfare of sows in individual accommodations, here is the (long) Elink: http://www.cast-science.org/websiteUploads/publicationPDFs/CAST%20Swine%20Welfare%20Issue%20Paper%2042%20FINAL.pdf Subject: a second look? From: Stanley Curtis Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:36:08 -0500 (CDT) To: applied-ethology network All- In her most recent (as-usual) thoughtful Enote to the network, Anna Olsson at one point wrote: = = = "The main problem of individual crates / tetheres - the lack of freedom to move, exercise and excert control over one's situation - will remain. At least I can't envision a technical innovation approach that would solve it." = = = As some of you know, for over 20 years I have been a proponent of the "turn-around gestation unit" (TAGU) for dry sows and gilts- Observations of thousands of females in commercial production units have shown that, in TAGU, sows do take apparently great advantage of the opportunities to turn around as well as to move in other ways- Moreover, bless them, most sows do apparently behave altruistically to permit neighbors to have "their (temporary) turn" at the extra space available when the sides are swung out of an individual's own zone- An article in the current issue (15 March 2009) of the USA's National Hog Farmer discusses the TAGU- Those interested in sow-keeping accommodations might be interested in reading this article- Here is the (long) Elink to it: http://nationalhogfarmer.com/genetics-reproduction/sow-gilt/0315-turnaround-stall-worth-look/ Stan Curtis Department of Animal Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign