A Simple Value-Distinction Approach Aids Transparency in Farm Animal Welfare Debate

  • Karel De Greef
  • Frans Stafleu
  • Carolien De Lauwere


Public debate on acceptable farm animal husbandry suffers from a confusion of tongues. To clarify positions of various stakeholder groups in their joint search for acceptable solutions, the concept of animal welfare was split up into three notions: no suffering, respect for intrinsic value, and non-appalling appearance of animals. This strategy was based on the hypothesis that multi-stakeholder solutions should be based on shared values rather than on compromises. The usefulness of such an artificial value distinction strategy was tested in a small series of experiments. The results demonstrate that the chosen concept to distinguish between values is effective in a stakeholder context. Farmers’ views on doing good to animals appeared to be largely based on their value to prevent suffering and predominantly focused on the provision of regular care. Their priority for this value is clearly shared with other stakeholders, providing a basis for joint solutions. The concept of intrinsic value does not play a discernable role in farmers’ considerations. Based on the varying views on welfare, it can be inferred that there is a gradual rather than a principal difference between government legislation and farmers’ values, whereas public perception and acceptance of farm practices remains complicated. Distinction between value groups and focusing on a selected notion (such as no suffering) proved to be effective in bringing representatives of stakeholder groups together, but is unlikely to bridge the emotional gap between commercial farm practices and public ideals.


Animal welfare farmer ethics interactive design intrinsic value stakeholder views 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anonymous2001“Scientists’ Assessment of the Impact of Housing and Management on Animal Welfare”Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science4152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broom, D. M. (1999), “Animal Welfare: The Concept of the Issues,” in F. L. Dolins (ed.), Attitudes to Animals, Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–142.Google Scholar
  3. Beekman, V., J. C. Dagevos, C. N. van der Weele, and K. H. de Greef (2003), “Diergericht ontwerpen. Consumentenwensen rond dierenwelzijn,” [Animal Oriented Design. Consumer Desires Regarding Animal Welfare] Wageningen-UR, Report ID03/3557.Google Scholar
  4. Bracke, M. B. M., (2001), Modeling of Animal Welfare: The Development of a Decision Support System to Assess the Welfare Status of Pregnant Sows, PhD Thesis, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  5. Bracke, M. B. M., Greef, K. H., Hopster, H. 2004“Qualitative Stakeholder Analysis for the Development of Sustainable Monitoring Systems for Farm Animal Welfare”Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics182756Google Scholar
  6. de Greef, K. H., F. R. Stafleu, and S. Dudink (2004), “A Note on Actor Views on Animal Welfare: Are Respect for Animals and Animal Welfare Full Synonyms for Farmers?” in J. de Tavernier and S. Aerts (eds.), Science, Ethics and Society, 5th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, CABME, Leuven.Google Scholar
  7. de Greef, K. H., W. G. P. Schouten, C. M. Groenestein, R. G. ten Hoope, and M. de Jong (2003), “Husbandry Systems from the Animal’s Point of View: Pigs,” in Y. van der Honing (ed.), Book of Abstracts of the 54th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, EAAP/Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Grin, J., Felix, F., Bos, A. P., Spoelstra, S. F. 2004“Practices for Reflexive Design: Lessons from a Dutch Programme on Sustainable Agriculture”International Journal on Foresight and Innovation Policy1126149Google Scholar
  9. Stafleu, F. R., C. C. de Lauwere, and K. H. de Greef (2004), “Respect for Functional Determinism. A Farmers Interpretation of Respect for Animals,” in J. de Tavernier and S. Aerts (eds.), Science, Ethics and Society, 5th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, CABME, Leuven.Google Scholar
  10. Tavernier, J. de (2001), “Visies op dierenwelzijn,” in G. Cazaux, (ed.), Mensen en andere dieren. Hun onderlinge relaties meervoudig bekeken, Garant, Apeldoorn, pp. 77–91.Google Scholar
  11. Verhoog, H. (2000), “Defining Positive Welfare and Animal Integrity,” in M. Hovi and R. Garcia Trujillo (eds.), Diversity of Livestock Systems and Definition of Animal Welfare, Proceedings of the Second AHWOA Workshop Cordoba, 8–11 January 2000.Google Scholar
  12. Wemelsfelder, F. (1999), “The Problem of Animal Subjectivity and its Consequences for the Scientific Measurement of Animal Welfare,” in F. L. Dolins (ed.), Attitudes to Animals, Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–53.Google Scholar
  13. Welfare quality (2004), Integration of Animal Welfare in the Food Quality Chain: From Public Concern to Improved Welfare and Transparent Quality. EU, Framework program 6, running project, April 2005.

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karel De Greef
    • 1
  • Frans Stafleu
    • 2
  • Carolien De Lauwere
    • 1
  1. 1.Animal Sciences Group of Wageningen URLelystadThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Ethics InstituteUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations