Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 173–183 | Cite as

The Concept of Animal Welfare at the Interface between Producers and Scientists: The Example of Organic Pig Farming

Regular Article


In organic farming animal welfare is one important aspect included in the internationally agreed organic principles of health, ecology, fairness and care (IFOAM 2006), reflecting expectation of consumers and farmers. The definition of organic animal welfare includes—besides traditional terms of animal welfare—‘regeneration’ and ‘naturalness’. Organic animal welfare assessment needs to reflect this and use complex parameters, include natural behaviour and a systemic view. Furthermore, various parties with seemingly conflicting interests are involved, causing ethical dilemmas, such as the use of nose rings for outdoor sows (impaired animal welfare vs. destruction of humus). Solutions can only be found when foundational concepts are translated and applied to practical situations. On-farm animal welfare assessment and implementation of improvement strategies are increasingly relevant scientific areas. They combine on-farm welfare assessment, identification of key problem areas and connected risk factors. Constant communication between all parties is crucial for success. Animal health and welfare planning is one application of this approach, which was carried out on Austrian organic pig farms as well as organic dairy farms in seven European countries. The projects included welfare assessment, feedback and benchmarking as a tool for communication between farmers, advisors and scientists. Finally goals were set by the farmer and improvement strategies applicable to organic farming were implemented. This included prevention of disease by management strategies instead of routine treatment with pharmaceutical products. It appeared that next to problem structuring, multidisciplinary problem solving demands good communications skills to relate animal welfare science to value reflections.


Animal welfare Ethics Improvement Naturalness Organic Transdisciplinarity 


  1. Alrøe HF, Schmid O, Padel S (2005) Ethical principles and the revision of organic rules. The Org Stand 51:8–11Google Scholar
  2. American Humane Association (2009) American Humane® Certified Documents. Accessed 5 Apr 2011
  3. Atkinson C, Neale M (2007) Animal health planning and animal health plans—concepts, principles and practicalities. In: Proceedings of the 1st CORE organic ANIPLAN workshop, Hellevad/Denmark, 9–12 October 2007: 19–25. Accessed 5 Apr 2011
  4. Baars T (1999) Review of animal health and welfare. In: Isart J, Llerena JJ (eds) Organic farming research in the EU, towards 21st century. ENOF White Book, Barcelona, pp 65–74Google Scholar
  5. Barth K, Brinkmann J (2009) Interdisziplinär betrachtet: Gesundheit- und Leistungsfähigkeit von Milchkühen im Ökologischen Landbau. In: Werte–Wege–Wirkungen: Biolandbau im Spannungsfeld zwischen Ernährungssicherung, Markt und Klimawandel, Proceedings of the 10. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau, ETH Zürich, 11–13 February 2009. Accessed 4 Apr 2011
  6. Bennedsgaard TW, Klaas IC, Vaarst M (2010) Reducing use of antimicrobials–Experiences from an intervention study in organic dairy herds in Denmark. Livest Sci 131:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brinkmann J, March S (2011) Tiergesundheit in der ökologischen Milchviehhaltung—Status quo sowie (Weiter-) Entwicklung, Anwendung und Beurteilung eines präventiven Konzeptes zur Herdengesundheitsplanung. Dissertation, Georg-August-University GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  8. Broom DM (1991) Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. J Anim Sci 69:4167–4175Google Scholar
  9. CEC (2007) Council Regulation on Organic Livestock Production, 834/2007. Committee of the European Communities, Brussels/Belgium. Accessed 5 Apr 2011
  10. CEC (2008) COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 889/2008 Committee of the European Communities, Brussels/Belgium. Accessed 5 Apr 2011
  11. Dippel S, Dolezal M, Brenninkmeyer C, Brinkmann J, March S, Knierim U, Winckler C (2009) Risk factors for lameness in freestall-housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems, and countries. J Dairy Sci 92:5476–5486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duncan IJH (1993) Welfare is to do with what animals feel. J Agric Environ Ethics 6(Suppl 2):8–14Google Scholar
  13. Gratzer E (2011) Animal health and welfare planning in Austrian organic dairy farming. Dissertation, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray D, Hovi M (2001) Animal health plans for organic farms: the UK experience. In: Proceedings of the 5th NAHWOA workshop, Roedding/Denmark, 11–13 November 2001. Accessed 5 Apr 2011
  15. Halberg N, Hermansen JE, Kristensen IS, Eriksen J, Tvedegaard N, Petersen BM (2010) Impact of organic pig production systems on CO2 emission, C sequestration and nitrate pollution. Agron Sustain Dev 30:721–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IFOAM (2006) The IFOAM norms for organic production and processing, Version 2005. Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Germany. G_V4_20090113.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2010
  17. Ivemeyer S, Walkenhorst M, Heil F, Notz C, Maeschli A, Butler G, Klocke P (2009) Management factors affecting udder health and effects of a one year extension program in organic dairy herds. Animal 3:1596–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leach KA, Whay HR, Maggs CM, Barker ZE, Barker ZE, Paul ES, Bell AK, Main DCJ (2010) Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. Res Vet Sci 89:311–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leeb C, Whay HR, Hovi M, Main DCJ (2004) Incorporation of existing animal welfare assessment techniques into organic certification and farming. Final Report of DEFRA Project OF 0314, DEFRA, UK. Accessed 5 Apr 2011
  20. Leeb C, Bernardi F, Winckler C (2010) Einführung und Monitoring von ‘BetriebsEntwicklungsPlänen (BEP) Tiergesundheit und Wohlbefinden’ in österreichischen Bioschweinebetrieben. Final Report Project 100188. Accessed 5 Apr 2011
  21. Lund V (1996) Etik och ekonomi i ekologisk djurhållning. [Ethics and economy in organic farming.] Ekologiskt lantbruk 20, Swedish University of Agriculture, 102–107Google Scholar
  22. Lund V (2002) Ethics and animal welfare in organic animal husbandry—an interdisciplinary approach. Dissertation. University of UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  23. Lund V, Algers B (2003) Research on animal health and welfare in organic farming—a literature review. Livest Prod Sci 80:55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lund V, Röcklingsberg H (2001) Outlining a conception of animal welfare for organic farming systems. J Agric Environ Ethics 14:391–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Main DCJ, Whay HR, Green LE, Webster AJF (2003) Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle. Vet Rec 153:227–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Main DCJ, Whay HR, Leeb C, Webster AJF (2007) Formal animal-based welfare assessment in UK certification schemes. Anim Welfare 16:233–236Google Scholar
  27. Neale M (2008) BWAP–On farm auditing course for animal welfare approved program and whole foods, North Carolina, USA pers. commGoogle Scholar
  28. Röcklinsberg H, Lund V (2000) Is well-being all that matters in animal ethics? Some comments on welfare and dignity in relation to animal ethics within organic farming. In: Robinson P (ed) EurSafe 2000, Preprints Copenhagen, 24–26 August. Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp 227–229Google Scholar
  29. Rollin BE (1993) Animal welfare, science and value. J Agric Environ Ethics 6(Suppl 2):44–50Google Scholar
  30. Rosenfield PL (1992) The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Soc Sci Med 35(11):1343–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. RSPCA (2008) Welfare standards for pigs. RSPCA, Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Sibley R (2000) Planning health care on dairy farms. In Pract 22:405–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future; transmitted to the general assembly as an annex to document A/42/427–Development and international co-operation: environment; our common future, chapter 2: towards sustainable development; paragraph 1’’. United Nations General Assembly. Accessed 5 Apr 2011
  34. Vaarst M, Nissen TB, Østergaard S, Klaas IC, Bennedsgaard TW, Christensen J (2007) Danish stable schools for experiential common learning in groups of organic dairy farmers. J Dairy Sci 90:2543–2554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vaarst M, Gratzer E, Walkenhorst M, Ivemeyer S, Brinkmann J, March S, Whistance LK, Smolders G, Stöger E, Huber J, Leeb C, Roderick S, Winckler C, Henriksen BIF, Nicholas P, Hansen B, Mejdell CM (2010) Farmer groups for animal health and welfare planning in European organic dairy herds. In: Proceedings of the 9th European IFSA Symposium. Vienna, Austria, July 4–7, pp 683–691Google Scholar
  36. Welfare Quality® (2009) Welfare quality assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare quality consortium, Lelystad/Netherlands; ISBN/EAN 978-90-78240-04-4Google Scholar
  37. Wemelsfelder F, Hunter TEA, Mendl MT, Lawrence AB (2001) Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free choice profiling approach. Anim Behav 62(2):209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Whay HR (2007) The journey to animal welfare improvement. Anim Welfare 16:117–122Google Scholar
  39. Whay HR, Main DCJ (2010) Improving animal welfare: practical approaches for achieving change. In: Improving animal welfare: a practical approach. CAB International, Wallingford/United Kingdom, 227–251Google Scholar
  40. Whay HR, Main DCJ, Green LE, Webster AJF (2002) Farmer perception of lameness prevalence. In: Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on lameness in ruminants. Orlando, USA, January 9–13, pp 355–358Google Scholar
  41. Whay HR, Main DCJ, Green LE, Webster AJF (2003) Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigations of farm records. Vet Rec 153:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations