tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/humane-slaughter-9472/articlesHumane slaughter – The Conversation2018-03-04T21:50:29Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/927132018-03-04T21:50:29Z2018-03-04T21:50:29ZBeyond beasts of burden: How to reward our animals for their work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208567/original/file-20180301-152552-jhlsy4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C104%2C697%2C344&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A Polish cow who escaped while on her way to the slaughterhouse is seen here with her new companions, a herd of wild bison. It's time to treat the animals who work so hard for us with humanity and compassion.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Rafal Kowalczyk via AP)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Animals do a lot for us. So what should we do for them?</p>
<p>Dexter, an emotional support peacock, made <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/59w7nq/the-support-peacock-that-couldnt-get-on-a-flight-has-a-fire-instagram-vgtrn">global headlines</a> recently when United Airlines refused to allow him on a flight. </p>
<p>His story is the latest to reanimate the public discussion about the certification and regulation of service animals, and the rights of people with disabilities. But this unusual situation is also an opportunity to reflect on the work we give animals, which species we employ and what our responsibilities are to them.</p>
<p>We have long used the labour of animals — few communities in Canada would have been built without horses’ strength, power and co-operation.</p>
<p>Much like people, today’s animals are less likely to be used for manual labour, and are more often employed in service work. They assist with law enforcement, and even sniff out <a href="https://conservationcanines.org/">endangered species</a>, <a href="https://wd4c.org/zambiaantipoaching.html">smuggled goods</a> and <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/boston-museum-training-puppy-sniff-out-art-chewing-insects-180967804/">insect infestations</a>.</p>
<p>Service animals are typically paired with humans and engaged in full-time, round-the-clock labour. They may physically guide someone, assist with daily tasks or monitor the person’s physical and emotional state, then respond with a warning, an intervention or calming touch.</p>
<p><a href="https://therapytails.ca/">Therapy animals</a> usually work part-time, and either are visited at care farms or are transported to long-term care homes, schools, libraries and detention centres to participate in a range of programs and interactions. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208560/original/file-20180301-152559-1c974wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4741%2C2853&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208560/original/file-20180301-152559-1c974wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208560/original/file-20180301-152559-1c974wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208560/original/file-20180301-152559-1c974wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208560/original/file-20180301-152559-1c974wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208560/original/file-20180301-152559-1c974wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208560/original/file-20180301-152559-1c974wb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A U.S. Army veteran simulates having a panic attack as he works with Jersey, his new support dog, as part of a training session together in October 2017 in Collinsville, Ill.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In Canada, we also now have institutional or facility dogs that comfort and support child witnesses as they participate in court cases.</p>
<p>Animals — whether they are dogs, horses, chickens or rats —are using an intricate combination of their physical, intellectual and emotional abilities in their work for us. </p>
<p>Rats, for example, are now employed in a range of ways, including for <a href="https://www.apopo.org/en">detecting land mines</a> and forewarning people of seizures.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/horses-can-use-symbols-talk-us">Academic research</a> is beginning to reveal the depth and breadth of the cognitive skills, emotional lives and cultural practices of animals of all sizes. When working for us, many animals engage in nuanced communication, they control or suppress their feelings to behave appropriately, and actively assess people and complex environments.</p>
<p>In most cases, particularly when we entrust animals to care for us, we have evolved beyond seeing them simply as beasts of burden. We are more likely to recognize the active roles animals play and the choices they make and see them as subjects, not simply objects. </p>
<p>Yet most animals are still legally positioned as property, and their work lives are ultimately governed by humans. As a result, we have significant responsibilities. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/we-can-treat-animals-humanely-and-still-grow-the-economy/article29648303/">The largest group of domesticated vertebrate animals in Canada</a> — the 700 million farmed creatures who live short, difficult lives, and then are <a href="https://www.cfhs.ca/animal_transportation_regulations">killed to be consumed as food</a> — is an elephant in the room, so to speak. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208571/original/file-20180301-152552-1svqq7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/208571/original/file-20180301-152552-1svqq7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208571/original/file-20180301-152552-1svqq7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208571/original/file-20180301-152552-1svqq7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208571/original/file-20180301-152552-1svqq7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208571/original/file-20180301-152552-1svqq7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/208571/original/file-20180301-152552-1svqq7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pigs are seen at the Mober SENC farm in Saint Hughes, Que., south of Montreal in 2009.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We could view the required and repeated physical production of babies, milk and eggs as a kind of bodily work.</p>
<p>Whether we see farmed animals as working or not, there are <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/farm-animals-deserve-legal-protection-from-death-by-fire/article34150419/">crucial discussions</a> about their living conditions taking place, and whether we should be using animals in this way at all, especially given the expansion of plant-based foods and drinks, and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/01/health/clean-in-vitro-meat-food/index.html">lab-grown “clean meat.”</a></p>
<p>As a labour studies scholar who has been studying work involving animals for a number of years, I have seen the good, the bad, the ugly and the more complicated. A few things are clear, however. </p>
<p>Not all species or individual animals want to work for us, and we ought to recognize this fact. Work should be about collaboration, not coercion. </p>
<p>If some animals are going to work with and for us, we should only offer them <a href="http://journals.lub.lu.se/index.php/pa/article/view/16589">humane jobs</a> and pay careful attention to their work lives in a full sense. This includes their hours of work, their leisure and social opportunities and their lives after their formal jobs have ended. We must prioritize not only animals’ physical health, but also their psychological well-being.</p>
<p>Clearly the world of work is changing for people and animals alike, and it is challenging our conventional ideas and approaches. As a result, we ought to harness the potential of solidarity and reciprocity in our relationships, as well as in our political arenas.</p>
<p>As a start, we should strengthen and expand our antiquated animal cruelty laws, and <a href="https://humanejobs.org/reports/">properly fund their enforcement</a>. </p>
<p>But we also need to create new policies and programs that reflect and genuinely respect the diverse realities of animals’ labour, interests and lives. In other words, it’s time we do more political work for the animals who do so much for us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92713/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kendra Coulter receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>Animals do so much work for humans, from farm animals who die to feed us to service animals helping veterans with PTSD. It’s time we gave back by providing humane living and working conditions.Kendra Coulter, Associate Professor in Labour Studies and Chancellor's Chair for Research Excellence; Member of the Royal Society of Canada's College of New Scholars, Artists and Scientists, Brock UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/244282014-03-18T06:08:40Z2014-03-18T06:08:40ZWe already have the answers to humane religious slaughter<p>With kosher and halal food an increasingly common feature of the British high street, a top vet has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/reform-of-kosher-and-halal-slaughter-practices">called for reform</a> of their slaughter practices, calling them inhumane. </p>
<p>These alternative methods of animal slaughter rightly provoke a heated debate about the welfare of farm animals and the ethics of killing them. But is there a humane way of killing animals at all and, if instituted, what would the effects of a ban be in the UK?</p>
<p>Research has indicated that, from an animal welfare perspective, the most adverse conditions at the time of killing (pain and stress) can be avoided with the stunning of animals prior to their throats being cut. This requires the correct use of restraining methods and good handling of the animals. Most animal welfare scientists <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14779271">seem to agree</a> that the risk of animal suffering is higher in slaughter without stunning.</p>
<p>But there are animal welfare scientists who argue the opposite. <a href="http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html">Temple Grandin</a>, one of the most eminent animal welfare scientists, asserts that the welfare risks in kosher slaughter (which doesn’t allow stunning) can also be reduced with correct restraining and handling methods. </p>
<h2>Rules and regulations</h2>
<p>The recent <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:303:0001:0030:EN:PDF">EU regulation</a> on the protection of animals at the time of killing defines the conditions for “humane killing” for food production. It states that all animals should be made unconscious via stunning before the cut of the throat – with an exemption made for religious slaughter. Currently, the human right of practising religion takes priority over the welfare of animals. </p>
<p>While the stunning of animals before slaughter is incompatible with shechita (the methods approved by Jewish religious authorities), halal slaughter can be performed after the stunning of animals, as long as the stunning is reversible. This is an important distinction because in the UK the demand for halal meat is much bigger than the demand for kosher meat and nearly 80% of all halal certified meat comes from animals that <a href="http://orca.cf.ac.uk/29552/">have been stunned prior the cut of the throat</a>.</p>
<h2>Ways around a ban</h2>
<p>A ban on religious slaughter without stunning in the UK would only mean more animals will be killed without stunning in other countries and imported to the UK. From an animal welfare perspective this option can hardly be seen as an improvement. There are other options that could be explored domestically, such as the imposition of post-cut stunning, or, better, the development of techniques of stunning that are compatible with the Jewish religion. </p>
<p>Stunning methods have their disadvantages, a number of issues can occur in the process, including possible miss-stuns, which can be very painful. There is a need for research to develop alternative, ideally non-invasive, stunning methods. Magnetic stunning is one option. Based on passing a large current through a copper coil by which an intense magnetic field is generated, the coil is placed close to the head of an animal to knock them out. </p>
<p>If fully developed, it is a potential technique for stunning animals that could be accepted both in halal and schechita slaughter and <a href="http://www.eblex.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/slaughter_and_meat_quality_feb_2012-final-report.pdf">could be used in future</a>.</p>
<h2>Bridging the gap</h2>
<p>Another issue is bridging the gap between animal welfare advocates and religious groups. This is the main area where an effort is needed. The recent EU-funded Dialrel project was dedicated to establishing a dialogue between religious minorities in Europe and scientific authorities in animal welfare. After nearly four years of research and exchange, they <a href="http://issuu.com/florencebergeaud-blackler/docs/dialrel-recommandations-final-edited?e=2152254/2596337">listed the best practices</a> for different species that would minimise the stress and pain of animals at time of killing. </p>
<p>These recommendations propose to focus on the most risky aspects of religious slaughter, either performed without stunning or with pre/post-cut stunning. At the end of the project this document was endorsed by a significant number of both Muslim and Jewish religious groups across the continent. It could represent a starting point for further developments in terms of new technologies and better communication between those involved in this debate.</p>
<h2>More pressing issues?</h2>
<p>But this call for a ban on religious slaughter raises questions about relevance and the proportion of attention it’s getting. Is religious slaughter without stunning the most pressing animal welfare issue in the UK? How does it compare with the prolonged suffering of common conditions such as lameness and mastitis in <a href="https://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/cows/dairy_cows/welfare_issues.aspx">dairy cows</a>, feather pecking in <a href="http://vip.vetsci.usyd.edu.au/contentUpload/content_3057/MatildaCraig.pdf">laying hens</a> and <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11681870">tail biting in pigs</a>?</p>
<p>Given the number of animals involved it’s hard to consider religious slaughter as the main animal welfare problem the UK faces. Indeed it is quite remarkable the level of attention that this phenomenon is attracting and, in contrast, the silence surrounding the number of animals in all year round indoor confined systems for food production. While this constantly grows around the world and is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/">expected to more than double between now and 2050</a>, the attention given to religious slaughter without stunning seems somehow out of proportion.</p>
<hr>
<p>Related coverage:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/we-dont-care-how-animals-live-so-why-do-we-care-how-they-die-24296">We don’t care how farm animals live, so why do we care how they die?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://theconversation.com/humane-and-human-dont-mean-the-same-thing-when-it-comes-to-killing-animals-24514">Humane and human don’t mean the same thing when it comes to killing animals</a></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24428/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mara Miele received funding from the European Commission, she was the coordinator of the EU SSA project DIALREL, 2006-10 (<a href="http://www.dialrel.eu">www.dialrel.eu</a> ) and from the Welsh Government (2012-13)</span></em></p>With kosher and halal food an increasingly common feature of the British high street, a top vet has called for reform of their slaughter practices, calling them inhumane. These alternative methods of animal…Mara Miele, Reader, School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/242962014-03-18T06:07:59Z2014-03-18T06:07:59ZWe don’t care about how farm animals live, so why do we care how they die?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44119/original/8bjwykmn-1395077151.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Meat production, halal style</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/epsos/8143138282/sizes/k/">epSos.de</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>John Blackwell, the new head of the British Veterinary Association, recently waded into the ritual slaughter debate by <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2574456/Stop-slashing-animals-throats-ritual-slaughters-halal-kosher-meat-says-new-leader-Britains-vets.html">calling for</a> kosher and halal meat preparation to be banned. </p>
<p>With vets at European level making similar demands, 10 years after the then Labour Government <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/government-backs-down-on-religious-slaughter-ban-6171607.html">decided not to</a> ban the practice, Jewish and Muslim leaders have united in rejecting the basic assumption that the animals suffer greatly in the process. They have suggested that the objections are motivated by incipient anti-Semitism and Islamaphobia. </p>
<p>As an aside, the vets’ demands made a change from critics focusing solely on halal, which in view of the close similarities between the two practices always suggests it is socially easier to criticise Muslim rather than Jewish traditions. But that doesn’t mean the general point is correct either. </p>
<p>In either case, the objection is that a trained individual uses an extremely sharp implement to slit the animal’s throat in a single cut so that it bleeds to death within minutes. In other words, the problem is the animal being “conscious” at the final moment prior to slaughter. </p>
<h2>Narrow definition</h2>
<p>This raises a number of interesting issues. There is seemingly no interest in the other aspects of the slaughter process. Kosher and halal slaughterhouses are usually very small and non-industrial; most other abattoirs are highly industrialised. In the latter, the animals are carried off their feet from narrow pens to a point where a man uses a large nail gun to fire a pencil-sized bolt into their brains. Once stunned in this way, each animal is hoisted up and its throat is slit to bleed out. </p>
<p>Industrial slaughterhouses can process more than 300 animals an hour. Critics of kosher or halal practices rarely consider the distress animals might experience in the half hour before they die during industrial slaughter. So long as there is a “humane” death at the end, society and its veterinary associations are relatively relaxed about the overall system of industrial meat production. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44120/original/ydjknmnz-1395077540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44120/original/ydjknmnz-1395077540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44120/original/ydjknmnz-1395077540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44120/original/ydjknmnz-1395077540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44120/original/ydjknmnz-1395077540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44120/original/ydjknmnz-1395077540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44120/original/ydjknmnz-1395077540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/44120/original/ydjknmnz-1395077540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Down on the regular farm.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/farmsanctuary1/2162852505/sizes/o/">Farm Sanctuary</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It might be harsh to suggest this is subtly disguised anti-Semitism or Islamaphobia, but it does point to a societal disquiet about non-standard production practices in this era where people are very removed from the physical production of food, especially meat. Industrialisation might add a level of distance and comfort, but learn a bit more about the meat production methods and you might also conclude that society’s squeamishness about animal killing does not extend to how the animal is reared, transported, penned and processed beforehand. </p>
<h2>Speaking from experience</h2>
<p>Anyone who has grown up on a farm will recognise a level of hypocrisy here. I grew up in rural parts of the US, catching, killing and cleaning fish. Shooting and cleaning deer was a part of life. A calf was taken each year to the small local abattoir for slaughter and we knew the name of the animal when we ate part of it. </p>
<p>My mother grew up in a world where they slaughtered hogs and steers on site by hand, with local families moving from farm to farm to help. At no point were they (or we) intentionally inhumane and we would all have been horrified by the assembly line and callous processing of animals in modern industrial slaughterhouses.</p>
<p>Likewise, there was no particular glory or superiority in the hands-on aspect of slaughter. Meat was an essential food and animals, which were known and cared for from birth, had been raised for that purpose. Slaughter was a very unpleasant and extremely difficult part of that process. </p>
<p>Kosher and halal rituals are very much rooted in religious practices embedded in that same type of rural culture. The killing is grubby and bloody; and uncomfortable for modern people used to meat in nice packages. </p>
<p>But it is problematic to focus on the distress of an animal at the moment of its death in a very small-scale, hands-on environment while turning a jaded and largely blind eye to slaughterhouses sucking in animals and spitting out meat parcels by their thousands every hour. If those who claim to care about animal rights want to focus on one thing, it should be that. </p>
<hr>
<p>Related coverage:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://theconversation.com/we-already-have-the-answers-to-humane-religious-slaughter-24258">We already have the answers to humane religious slaughter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://theconversation.com/humane-and-human-dont-mean-the-same-thing-when-it-comes-to-killing-animals-24514">Humane and human don’t mean the same thing when it comes to killing animals</a></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24296/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Naphy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>John Blackwell, the new head of the British Veterinary Association, recently waded into the ritual slaughter debate by calling for kosher and halal meat preparation to be banned. With vets at European…William Naphy, Professor, School of Divinity, History and Philosophy , University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/245142014-03-18T06:07:39Z2014-03-18T06:07:39ZHumane and human don’t mean the same thing when it comes to killing animals<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/44123/original/rymgyd97-1395078564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Quality of life is more important than length and produces a better product.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/warmestregards/2790542434/">Ryan Thompson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Animal welfare is a term that frequently pops up in headlines, most recently in the debate over how animals are killed for <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26463064">kosher and halal food</a>. But the concept of animal welfare is often misunderstood, as recently illustrated by the public response to the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/marius-giraffe-killed-copenhagen-zoo-protests">euthanasia of Marius the giraffe</a>. </p>
<p>A simple and widely used definition of animal welfare is that it is the <a href="http://www.ufaw.org.uk/quality-of-life.php">quality of life an animal experiences</a>. The problem is what we mean by quality of life. Even within the same social group, individuals can have very different ideas about this. I, for example, most highly value being able to travel and experience new cultures with my family. Whereas, for others quality of life comes from the security of owning a home and having possessions.</p>
<p>What this tell us is that animal welfare and indeed human welfare are concepts that need to be measured on the individual level: there is no one size that fits all.</p>
<h2>Individual experiences</h2>
<p>To illustrate how difficult it can be to measure animal welfare on an individual level, let us look at an example. I am terrified of rollercoasters. My sister loves them. Imagine my sister and I are sat side-by-side on a scary rollercoaster. If during the ride, someone were to measure our physiological responses, blood pressure and stress hormone release, they would be identical. </p>
<p>Our blood pressures would soar and our adrenal glands would start to release the flight or fight response hormones. At the end of the ride, my sister would be there with her arms in the air wishing to go again, whereas I would be kissing the ground in happiness that I had survived. </p>
<p>This highlights how animal welfare is about how an individual feels about a situation. Thus, simple physiological parameters on their own, such as stress hormones, do not illuminate much about animal welfare. We need also to measure what an animal feels about a situation – this is a significant challenge to science.</p>
<h2>The quest for long life</h2>
<p>There are many misconceptions about animal welfare and some of the most common ones are associated with death and longevity. This should not surprise us since some of the greatest human achievements in the last century have involved increasing human lifespan. The innate fear of death in humans often drives the public to equate well-being with longevity; for example, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/worlds-oldest-person-116-birthday-japan">annually members of the international media celebrate</a> the birthday of the world’s oldest person. </p>
<p>Humans often believe that animals in captivity must live long lives to experience a good level of welfare. But, if I were to offer people the choice of living to 120 years old as a very poor person or 60 years old as a very rich person, most would choose the second option because, in general, wealth equates with quality of life (though not necessarily happiness).</p>
<p>It may shock some people to know that the life of many farm animals is incredibly short, your Sunday roast chicken was only forty something days old and the bacon in your morning sandwich about nine months old when slaughtered. </p>
<p>From an animal welfare perspective, this is not a problem if they had a good quality of life before they died. Why do animal welfare scientists think this way? Because for them, death is not a welfare issue, providing it is humane.</p>
<p>A humane death is one where the animal immediately loses consciousness through either instantaneous death or effective stunning. There is little evidence that species other than humans or, perhaps, apes have a <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2010/04/chimps-grieve-over-dead-relatives">concept of death</a>. I remember watching a video of free-range pigs – highly intelligent social animals – being slaughtered humanely (electrically stunned) in a field and being impressed by how they did not respond to the death of a littermate killed by their side. </p>
<p>The Scottish poet, Robert Burns, captured the problem of the human condition when compared to most animals in his poem “<a href="http://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poetry/poems/mouse">To a mouse</a>”, where he relates the words of a ploughman apologising to a mouse whose home he destroyed:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Still thou are blest, compared wi’ me!<br>
The present only toucheth thee:<br>
But Och! I backward cast my e’e<br>
On prospects drear!<br>
An’ forward, tho’ I cannot see,<br>
I guess an’ fear! </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this last verse, Burns identifies the key point that we should not project human thoughts or feelings on to animals, but accept them as they are. </p>
<p>Not having a concept of death is not necessarily a bad thing for animals, the ability to think about the future leads us humans to think about our own mortality and for many people this a considerable source of angst. Humans are of course able to hold and rationalise apparently incompatible views such as accepting the infanticide on their dinner plate while protesting about the euthanasia of a giraffe.</p>
<p>Why should we be bothered about animal welfare? From an ethical standpoint, society has already determined that we are responsible for animals being in captivity and so we are responsible for their well-being. From an economic perspective, good animal welfare makes sense – it <a href="http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2013/9132.html">enables us to produce better quality meat</a>. Considering more than 50 billion farm animals are slaughtered annually for food production, good animal welfare <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6909e/x6909e00.htm#Contents">makes good business sense</a>, which perhaps goes beyond fulfilling our moral obligations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert John Young does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Animal welfare is a term that frequently pops up in headlines, most recently in the debate over how animals are killed for kosher and halal food. But the concept of animal welfare is often misunderstood…Robert John Young, Professor of Wildlife Conservation, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.