The Ethics and Politics of Animal Welfare in New Zealand: Broiler Chicken Production as a Case Study

Article

Abstract

The cause of poor welfare in broilers is multifactorial, but genotype is a major contributor. Modern broilers have been bred for rapid growth, and this leads to increases in lameness and ascites as the legs and hearts of the heavier birds find it difficult to cope with the extra demands placed on them. Visible lameness indicative of pain is more common in New Zealand than in Europe. The government, however, insists that New Zealand welfare standards are higher than Europe. The government also appears to have a strong antipathy to those demanding better welfare for broilers. Reasons for this antipathy and disparities between government statements and research results are discussed. Government publications reveal that animal welfare is seen as a question of image for market access and that there is little concern with animal welfare as an ethical imperative for its own sake. The Animal Welfare Act in theory makes it an offence to ill treat an animal, but in practice allows exemptions for industrial agriculture. The interests of animals may be better protected by an independent animal welfare advisory service.

Keywords

Broilers Lameness New Zealand Politics Welfare 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anon. (2001). Scientists’ assessment of the impact of housing and management on animal welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4, 3–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagshaw, C. S., & Matthews, L. R. (2001). Broiler welfare: A review of latest research and projects in progress internationally. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  3. Bagshaw, C. S., Matthews, L. R., & Rogers, A. (2006). Key indicators of poultry welfare in New Zealand. Unpublished client report to MAF policy.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, M. G., Sneyd, E., & Wilson, N. A. (2007). Is the major increase in notified campylobacteriosis in New Zealand real? Epidemiology and Infection, 135, 163–170.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, J. L., Hemsworth, P. H., Cronin, G. M., Jongman, E. C., & Hutson, G. D. (2001). A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 52, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, C. (2004). Pododermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens. In C. A. Weeks & A. Butterworth (Eds.), Measuring and auditing broiler welfare (pp. 37–49). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Bessei, W. (2006). Welfare of broilers a review. World’s Poultry Science Association, 62, 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bokkers, E. (2003). Behaviour of fast- and slow growing broilers to 12 weeks of age and the physical consequences. Applied Behavioural Science, 81, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks, M. (2006, October) Meat chicken welfare. FMCG, 26.Google Scholar
  10. Butterworth, A. (1999). Infectious components of broiler lameness; a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 55, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butterworth, A., Knowles, T. G., Whittington, P., Matthews, L., Rogers, A., & Bagshaw, C. S. (2007). Validation of broiler chicken gait scoring training in Thailand, Brazil and New Zealand. Animal Welfare, 16, 177–179.Google Scholar
  12. Castellini, C., Dal Bosco, A., Mugnai, C., & Bernardini, M. (2002). Performance and behaviour of chickens with different growing rate reared according to the organic system. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 1, 291–300.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper-Blanks, B., & Poultry Industry Association of New Zealand (PIANZ). (1999). The New Zealand poultry meat industry: An education and industry resource. Lower Hutt: Enterprise New Zealand Trust.Google Scholar
  14. Compassion in World Farming (CIWF). (2004). Practical alternatives to the factory farming of chickens: Case studies across the European Union. Petersfield: Compassion in World Farming Trust.Google Scholar
  15. Danbury, T. C., Weeks, C. A., Chambers, J. P., Waterman-Pearson, A. E., & Kestin, S. C. (2000). SC, Self-selection of the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. Veterinary Record, 11, 307–311.Google Scholar
  16. Dawkins, M. S., Donnelly, C. A., & Jones, T. A. (2004). Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature, 427, 342–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duncan, I. (2004). Foreword. In C. A. Weeks & A. Butterworth (Eds.), Measuring and auditing broiler welfare (pp. xi–xii). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Eisnitz, G. A. (1997). Slaughterhouse: The shocking story of greed, neglect, and inhumane treatment inside the US meat industry. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  19. Gregory, N. G. (1997). Meat, meat eating and vegetarianism: A review of the facts. Wellington: MAF Policy Technical Paper. Accessed September 2008, from http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/profitability-and-economics/trends/meat-and-vegetarianism/httoc.htm.
  20. Gregory, N. G., & Devine, C. D. (1999). Survey of sow accommodation systems used in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 42, 187–194.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, A. L. (2001). The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behaviour of broiler chickens reared commercially. Animal Welfare, 10, 23–40.Google Scholar
  22. Hall, C., & Sandilands, V. (2007). Public attitudes to the welfare of broiler chickens. Animal Welfare, 16, 499–512.Google Scholar
  23. Haslam, S. M., & Kestin, S. C. (2004). Comparing welfare in different systems. In C. A. Weeks & A. Butterworth (Eds.), Measuring and auditing broiler welfare (pp. 183–195). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Hocking, P. M., Bernard, R., & Maxwell, M. H. (1999). Assessment of pain during locomotion and the welfare of adult male turkeys with destructive cartilage loss of the hip joint. British Poultry Science, I40, 30–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hocking, P. M., & Jones, E. K. M. (2006). On-farm assessment of environmental enrichment for broiler breeders. British Poultry Science, 147, 418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones, T. A., Donnelly, C. A., & Dawkins, M. S. (2005). Environmental and management factors affecting the welfare of chickens on commercial farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark stocked at five densities. Poultry Science, 84, 1–11.Google Scholar
  27. Julian, R. J. (2004). Evaluating the impact of metabolic disorders on the welfare of broilers. In C. A. Weeks & A. Butterworth (Eds.), Measuring and auditing broiler welfare (pp. 51–59). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Kestin, S. C., Knowles, T. G., Tinch, A. E., & Gregory, N. G. (1992). Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record, 131, 190–194.Google Scholar
  29. Maxwell, M. H., & Robertson, G. W. (1997). World broiler ascites survey 1996. Poultry International, 36, 16–30.Google Scholar
  30. McGeown, D., Danbury, T. C., Waterman-Pearson, A. E., & Kestin, S. C. (1999). Effect of carprofen on lameness in broiler chickens. Veterinary Record, 144, 668–671.Google Scholar
  31. Mellor, D. J. (2002). Animal welfare (broilers chickens: fully housed) code of welfare 2002 report. Wellington: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/animal-welfare/req/codes/broiler-chickens/broiler-chickens.pdf.
  32. Mench, J. (2004). Lameness. In C. A. Weeks & A. Butterworth (Eds.), Measuring and auditing broiler welfare (pp. 3–17). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Mench, J. A., Garner, J. P., & Falcone, C. (2001). Behavioural activity and its effects on leg problems in broiler chickens. In Proceedings 6th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Zollikofen, Switzerland (pp. 152–156), September 1–4, 2001.Google Scholar
  34. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). (2006). Research in progress: 2005/2006 operational research objectives. MAF Policy Information Paper 06/02, Wellington.Google Scholar
  35. Mireles, A. J., Kim, S. M., & Klasing, K. C. (2005). An acute inflammatory response alters bone homeostasis, body composition, and the humoral immune response of broilers chickens. Poultry Science, 84, 553–560.Google Scholar
  36. Morris, M. C. (2005). The ethics and politics of the layer hen debate in New Zealand. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pattison, M. (1992). Impacts of bone problems on the poultry meat industry. In C. C. Whitehead (Ed.), Bone biology and skeletal disorders in poultry (pp. 329–338). Aberdeen: Carfax.Google Scholar
  38. Poultry Industry Association of New Zealand (PIANZ). (2001). NAWAC poultry subcommittee meeting held 30 August 2001: PIANZ response—interested parties comments. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  39. Rampton, S., & Stauber, J. (2001). Trust us we’re experts: How industry manipulates science and gambles with your future. New York: Penguin Putman.Google Scholar
  40. Regulations Review Committee. (2006). Final Report on complaint about Animal Welfare (Layer Hens) Code of Welfare 2005. Wellington: House of Representatives. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/AEA9B78E-DC45-4063-870D-B9AD87A1BA42/27428/DBSCH_SCR_3418_35091.pdf.
  41. Rollin, B. E. (1981). Animal rights and human morality. New York: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  42. Rollin, B. E. (2002). An ethicist’s commentary on equating productivity and welfare. Canadian Veterinary Journal, 43, 83.Google Scholar
  43. Roy, E. (1999). House of representatives primary production committee report on the animal welfare bill. Wellington: House of Representatives.Google Scholar
  44. Sankoff, P. (2005). Five years of the “new” animal welfare regime: Lessons learned from New Zealand’s decision to modernize its animal welfare legislation. Animal Law, 11, 2–27.Google Scholar
  45. Sanotra, G. S., Berg, C., & Lund, J. D. (2003). A comparison between leg problems in Danish and Swedish broiler production. Animal Welfare, 12, 677–683.Google Scholar
  46. Sanotra, G. S., Lawson, L. G., & Vestergaard, K. S. (2001). Influence of stocking density on tonic immobility, lameness and tibial dyschondroplasia in broilers. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schlosser, E. (2000). Fast food nation. New York: Houghton Miffin.Google Scholar
  48. Scientific Committee of Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW). (2000). The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  49. Scientific Veterinary Committee (SVC). (1996). Report on the welfare of laying hens. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General for Agriculture.Google Scholar
  50. Scientific Veterinary Committee (SVC). (1997). The welfare of intensively kept pigs. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities Directorate-General for Agriculture.Google Scholar
  51. Shields, S. J., Garner, J. P., & Mench, J. (2004). Dustbathing by broiler chickens: A comparison of preference for four different substrates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 87, 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomas, D. G., Ravidran, V., Thomas, D. V., Camden, B. J., Cottam, Y. H., Morel, P. C. H., & Cook, C. J. (2004). Influence of stocking density on the performance, carcass characteristics and selected welfare indicators of broiler chickens. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 52, 76–81.Google Scholar
  53. Weaver, S. A., & Morris, M. C. (2004). Science, pigs and politics: A New Zealand perspective on the banning of sow stalls. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Webster, J. (2004). Animal welfare: A cool eye towards Eden. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Weeks, C. A., & Butterworth, A. (2004). Measuring and auditing broiler welfare. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Yank, V., Rennie, D. & Bero, L. (2007). Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: Retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal. Accessed September 2008, from www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7631/1202).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marine and Environmental Management, Bay of Plenty PolytechnicTaurangaNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations