Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does Organic Farming Face Distinctive Livestock Welfare Issues? – A Conceptual Analysis

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recent development and growth oforganic livestock farming and the relateddevelopment of national and internationalregulations has fueled discussions amongscientists and philosophers concerning theproper conceptualization of animal welfare.These discussions on livestock welfare inorganic farming draw on the conventionaldiscussions and disputes on animal welfare thatinvolve issues such as different definitions ofwelfare (clinical health, absence of suffering,sum of positive and negative experiences,etc.), the possibility for objective measuresof animal welfare, and the acceptable level ofwelfare. It seems clear that livestock welfareis a value-laden concept and that animalwelfare science cannot be made independent ofquestions of values and ethics. The questioninvestigated here is whether those values thatunderpin organic farming, in particular, alsoaffect the interpretation of livestock welfare,and, if so, how. While some of the issuesraised in connection with organic farming arerelatively uncontroversial, others are not. Theintroduction of organic farming values seems tointroduce new criteria for what counts as goodanimal welfare, as well as a different ethicalbasis for making moral decisions on welfare.Organic farming embodies distinctive systemicor communitarian ethical ideas and the organicvalues are connected to a systemic conceptionof nature, of agriculture, of the farm, and ofthe animal. The new criteria of welfare arerelated to concepts such as naturalness,harmony, integrity, and care. While the organicvalues overlap with those involved in theconventional discussion of animal welfare, someof them suggest a need to set new prioritiesand to re-conceptualize animal welfare – forexample, with respect to ``naturalness,'' inrelation to the possibilities for expression ofnatural behavior and in relation to animalintegrity as a concept for organismic harmony.The organic perspective also seems to suggest awider range of solutions to welfare problemsthan changes in farm routines or operations onthe animals. The systemic solutions include thechoice and reproduction of suitable breeds,changes in the farm structure, and changes inthe larger production and consumption system – including consumer perceptions andpreferences. But the organic values may alsocall for sacrifices of individual welfare in aconventional sense in order to advance welfarefrom the perspective of organic farming.Whether this is good or bad cannot be decidedwithout entering into an inquiry and discussionof the values and ethics involved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Alrøe, H. F. and E. S. Kristensen, “Towards a Systemic Ethic. In Search of an Ethical Basis for Sustainability and Precaution.” Forthcoming in Environmental Ethics (2000a).

  • Alrøe, H. F. and E. S. Kristensen, “Towards a Systemic Research Methodology in Agriculture: Rethinking the Role of Values in Science.” Forthcoming in Agriculture and Human Values (2000b).

  • Appleby, M. C., “Tower of Babel: Variation in Ethical Approaches, Concepts of Welfare and Attitudes to Genetic Manipulation,” Animal Welfare 8 (1999), 381-390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M., “Animal Welfare Defined in Terms of Attempts to Cope with the Environment,” Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 27 (1996), 22-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callicott, J. B., “Animal Liberation. A Triangular Affair,” Environmental Ethics 2 (1980), 311-338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constanza, R., B. G. Norton, and B. D. Haskell (eds.), Ecosystem Health. New Goals for Environmental Management (Island Press, Washington, DC, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H., “Animal Welfare Defined in Terms of Feelings,” Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 27 (1996), 29-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enevoldsen, C. and Y. T. Gröhn, “A Methodology for Assessment of the Health-Production Complex in Diary Herds to Promote Welfare,” Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 27 (1996), 86-90.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU, Council Directive no. 1804/1999 of 19th July 1999. Official Journal of the European Communities 222 (1999), 1-28.

  • Fraser, D., “Animal Ethics and Animal Welfare Science: Bridging the Two Cultures,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65 (1999), 171-189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. and I. J. H. Duncan, “‘Pleasures’ ‘Pains’ and Animal Welfare: Toward a Natural History of Affect,” Animal Welfare 7 (1998), 383-396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D., D. M. Weary., E. A. Pajor, and B. N. Milligan, “A Scientific Conception of Animal Welfare that Reflects Ethical Concerns,” Animal Welfare 6 (1997), 187-205.

    Google Scholar 

  • FØJO, Analyse af det ø kologiske regelsæ t vedr. husdyrsundhed og husdyrvelfæ rd. Analysis of the organic regulations of livestock health and welfare. Udarbejdet til Det Økologiske Fø devarerå d / Strukturdirektoratet af Forskningscenter for Økologisk Jordbrug (2000).

  • Goodpaster, K. E., “From Egoism to Environmentalism,” in K. E. Goodpaster and K. M. Sayre (eds.), Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, 1979), pp. 21-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • IFOAM, Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing, International Federation for Organic Agriculture Movements, Mar del Plata, Argentina. [Excerpts on-line at http://www.ifoam.org] (1998).

  • Jensen, K. K. and P. Sandøe, “Animal Welfare: relative or Absolute?” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54 (1997): 33-37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, P. and F. M. Toates, “Who Needs ‘behavioural Needs’? Motivational Aspects of the Needs of Animals,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37 (1993), 161-181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, E. S. and S. M. Thamsborg (eds.), Sundhed, dyrevelfæ rd og medicinanvendelse ved omlæ gning til ø kologisk mæ lkeproduktion Health, animal welfare and the use of medicine upon conversion to organic milk production. FØJO-rapport nr. 6, Forskningscenter for Økologisk Jordbrug, Foulum (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, H., “Ecosystem Health as a Moral Requirement,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (2000), 305-317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, M., Animals and Why They Matter (University of Georgia Press, Athens, USA, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Husdyrvelfæ rd og husdyrproduktion. En rapport om forskning i velfæ rd for husdyr Animal welfare and animal production. A report on research in the welfare of livestock Forskningssekretariatet, Landbrugs-og Fiskeriministeriet, Kø benhavn (1995).

  • Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Aktionsplan II-Økologi i udvikling Action Plan II-Developments in Organic Farming Strukturdirektoratet, Ministeriet for Fø devarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Kø benhavn. [English summary on-line at http://www.dffe.dk/publikationer/Actionplan-II-UK/actindex.htm] (1999).

  • Munksgaard, L. and M. B. Jensen, “The Use of “open Field” Tests in the Assessment of Welfare of Cattle,” Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 27 (1996), 82-85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, R. F., The Rights of Nature. A History of Environmental Ethics (The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Röcklinsberg, H. and V. Lund, “Is Well-Being all that Matters in Animal Ethics? Some Comments on the Relation between Welfare and Dignity in Animal Ethics in Relation to Organic Farming,” in P. Robinson (ed.), Two Systems-One World, Proc. of EurSafe 2000 Congress on Agricultural and Food Ethics. Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen. [Online at http://www.husdyr.kvl.dk/htm/psa/eursafe.htm] (2000), pp. 227-229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. E., “Ideology, ‘Value-Free Science’ and Animal Welfare,” Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 27 (1996), 5-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe, P., M. Hagelsø , and L. L. Jeppesen, “Concluding Remarks and Perspectives,” Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 27 (1996a), 109-115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe, P., N. Holtug, and H. B. Simonsen, “Ethical Limits to Domestication,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9(2) (1996b), 114-122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe, P., L. Munksgaard, N. P. Bådsgård, and K. H. Jensen, “How to Manage the Management Factor-Assessing Animal Welfare at the Farm Level,” in J. T. Sø rensen (ed.), Livestock Farming Systems. More than Food Production. Proc. of the 4th int. Symp. on Livestock Farming systems. EAAP Publication No. 89 (Waageningen Pers, Waageningen, The Netherlands, 1997), pp. 221-230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe, P., B. L. Nielsen, L. G. Christensen, and P. Sø rensen, “Staying Good while Playing God-The Ethics of Breeding Farm Animals,” Animal Welfare 8 (1999), 313-328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonsen, H. B., “Assessment of Animal Welfare by a Holistic Approach: Behaviour, Health and Measured Opinion,” Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 27 (1996), 91-96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sø rensen, P., “Avlsmateriale til ø kologisk fjerkræ production,” in Økologisk æ gproduktion. “Breeding Material for Organic Poultry Production,” in Organic Egg-production SH Beretning nr. 729. Statens Husdyrbrugsforsø g, Foulum (1996), pp. 81-90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, J., “Ethics and Animal Welfare: The Inextricable Connection,” J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 198(8) (1991), 1360-1376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thamsborg, S. M., M. Hovi, and T. Baars, “What to Do about Animal Welfare in Organic Farming? A Report on the Animal Welfare,” fiscussion at the 2nd NAHWOA Workshop. In: The Diversity Of Livestock Systems And Definition Of Animal Welfare. Proc. of The 2nd NAHWOA Workshop, Có rdoba, Spain, 8-11 January 2000 [Online at http://www.veeru.reading.ac.uk/organic/proceedings.htm] (2000), pp. 161-165.

  • Thompson, P. B., “Sustainability as a Norm,” Society for Philosophy & Technology 2(2) (1996), 75-93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B., “The Varieties of Sustainability in Livestock Farming,” in J. T. Sø rensen (ed.), Livestock Farming Systems. More than Food Production. Proc. of the 4th int. Symp. on Livestock Farming Systems. EAAP Publication No. 89 (Waageningen Pers, Waageningen, The Netherlands, 1997), pp. 5-15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaarst, M. and E. S. Kristensen, “Muligheder for Forbedringer” Options for improvement, in E. S. Kristensen and S. M. Thamsborg (eds.), Sundhed, dyrevelfæ rd og medicinanvendelse ved omlæ gning til ø kologisk mæ lkeproduktion FØJO-rapport nr. 6. Forskningscenter for Økologisk Jordbrug, Foulum (2000), pp. 135-144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaarst, M., L. Alban, M. Bak, and L. Mogensen “Sundhed og velfæ rd hos kalve og opdræ t “Health and welfare amongst calves and heifers, in E. S. Kristensen and S. M. Thamsborg (eds.), Sundhed, dyrevelfæ rd og medicinanvendelse ved omlæ gning til ø kologisk mæ lkeproduktion. FØJO-rapport nr. 6. Forskningscenter for Økologisk Jordbrug, Foulum (2000a), pp. 93-107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaarst, M., H. F. Alrøe, V. Lund, T. Baars, and H. Verhoog, “Identifying Animal Welfare in the Context of Organic Farming,” in P. Robinson (ed.), Two Systems-One World, Proc. of EurSafe 2000 Congress on Agricultural and Food Ethics, Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen. [Online at http://www.husdyr.kvl.dk/htm/psa/eursafe.htm] (2000b), pp. 29-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H., “Genetic Modification of Animals: Should Science and Ethics be Integrated?” The Monist 79(2) (1996), 247-263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H., “Morality and the ‘Naturalness’ of Transgenic Animals,” Animal Issues 2(2) (1998), 1-16. Verhoog, H., “Defining Positive Welfare and Animal Integrity,” in The Diversity of Livestock Systems and Definition of Animal Welfare, Proc. of The 2nd NAHWOA Workshop, Có rdoba, Spain, 8-11 January 2000 [Online at http://www.veeru.reading.ac.uk/organic/ proceedings.htm] (2000a), pp. 108-119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H., “Animal Integrity: Aesthetic or Moral Value?” in P. Robinson (ed.), Two Systems-One World, Proc. of EurSafe 2000 Congress on Agricultural and Food Ethics. Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen. [Online at http://www.husdyr.kvl.dk/htm/psa/eursafe.htm] (2000b), pp. 269-272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorstenbosch, J., “The Concept of Integrity. Its Significance for the Ethical Discussion on Biotechnology and Animals,” Livest. Prod. Sci. 36 (1993), 109-112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, L., D. Flemming, and H. Vogtman, "Reflections on the Past, Outlook for the Future,” in Troels V, Østergaard (ed.), Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture, Proc. of The 11th IFOAM International Scientific Conference, August 11-15, 1996, Vol. 1. IFOAM, Copenhagen, Denmark (1996), pp. 259-270.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming, P.O. Box 50, Foulum, DK-8830, Tjele

    Hugo Fjelsted Alrøe, Mette Vaarst & Erik Steen Kristensen

Authors
  1. Hugo Fjelsted Alrøe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mette Vaarst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erik Steen Kristensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alrøe, H.F., Vaarst, M. & Kristensen, E.S. Does Organic Farming Face Distinctive Livestock Welfare Issues? – A Conceptual Analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14, 275–299 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012214317970

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012214317970

Search

Navigation