Search

Animal agriculture employs approximately one-eighth of world's human population and results in the slaughter of over 160 billion animals annually, representing perhaps the most extensive intertwining of human and animal lives on the planet. In principle, close, intersubjective relationships (involving shared attention and mental states) between humans and the animals in agriculture are possible, though these are infrequently studied and are unlikely to be achieved in farming, given systemic constraints (e.g. housing and management). Much scientific research on human-animal relationships within agriculture has focused upon a fairly restricted range of states (e.g. reducing aversive human-animal interactions within standard systems, toward improving productivity and reducing injuries to workers). Considering human-animal relations along a continuum, we review scholarship supporting the rationale for expanding the range of relationships under consideration in animal welfare research, given the impacts these relationships can have on both animals and stockpersons, increasing consumer demand for humane food products, and the goal of providing animals under our care with good lives. Looking toward traditions that encourage taking the perspective of, and learning from non-humans, we provide entry points to approaches that can enable animal welfare research to expand to investigate a broader range of human-animal relationship states. By showing the potential for close mutually beneficial human-animal relationships, this line of research highlights pathways for understanding and improving the welfare of animals used in agriculture., Competing Interests: None., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Understanding the views of those working along the value chain reliant on livestock is an important step in supporting the transition towards more sustainable farming systems. We recruited 31 delegates attending the Pig Welfare Symposium held in the United States to participate in one of six focus group discussions on the future of pig farming. Each of these six group discussions was subjected to a thematic analysis that identified four themes: (1) technical changes on the farm; (2) farm and industry culture; (3) the farm-public interface; and (4) sustainability. The results of this study illustrate the complexity and diversity of views of those working along the associated value chain within the swine industry. Participants spent the majority of their time discussing current challenges, including technical challenges on the farm and public perception of pig farms. Participants were more hesitant to discuss future issues, but did engage on the broader issue of sustainability, focusing upon economic and environmental aspects., Competing Interests: None., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Veterinarians and animal scientists can provide leadership on issues relevant to farm animal welfare, but perceptions of these stakeholders regarding societal expectations for welfare are underexplored. This study involved five focus groups of veterinarians and animal scientists (n = 50 in total), recruited at a European meeting focused on cattle welfare. Participants were invited to discuss topics related to cattle welfare and were prompted with questions to elicit their perspectives of public concerns and how the participants felt public input should be included when developing solutions. Discussions were moderated by trained facilitators, audio-recorded and transcribed, and transcripts analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Ultimately, four primary themes were developed: (1) The public as concerned; (2) The public as ignorant; (3) The public as needing education; and (4) The public as helper or hindrance. Groups identified specific farming practices viewed as concerning to the public, including lack of pasture access, behavioural restriction, and painful procedures. Discussions about these concerns and the role of the public were often framed around the assumption that the public was ignorant about farming, and that this ignorance needed to be rectified through education. Participants were generally ambivalent in their beliefs regarding public contributions to solutions for farm animal welfare but suggested that consumers should pay more for products to help shoulder any costs of welfare improvements., Competing Interests: None., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Philosophers have used thought experiments to examine contentious examples of genetic modification. We hypothesised that these examples would prove useful in provoking responses from lay participants concerning technological interventions used to address welfare concerns. We asked 747 US and Canadian citizens to respond to two scenarios based on these thought experiments: genetically modifying chickens to produce blind progeny that are less likely to engage in feather-pecking (BC); and genetically modifying animals to create progeny that do not experience any subjective state (i.e. incapable of experiencing pain or fear; IA). For contrast, we assessed a third scenario that also resulted in the production of animal protein with no risk of suffering but did not involve genetically modifying animals: the development of cultured meat (CM). Participants indicated on a seven-point scale how acceptable they considered the technology (1 = very wrong to do; 7 = very right to do), and provided a text-based, open-ended explanation of their response. The creation of cultured meat was judged more acceptable than the creation of blind chickens and insentient animals. Qualitative responses indicated that some participants accepted the constraints imposed by the thought experiment, for example, by accepting perceived harms of the technology to achieve perceived benefits in reducing animal suffering. Others expressed discomfort with such trade-offs, advocating for other approaches to reducing harm. We conclude that people vary in their acceptance of interventions within existing systems, with some calling for transformational change., Competing Interests: None., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Institutions using animals for research typically have a veterinarian who is responsible for the veterinary care programme and compliance with regulatory obligations. These veterinarians operate at the interface between the institution's animal research programme and senior management. Veterinarians have strong public trust and are well positioned to share information about animals used for scientific purposes, but their perspectives on sharing information with the public are not well documented and their perceptions of transparency may influence how institutional policies are developed and applied. The objective of our study was to analyse the perceptions of institutional transparency among laboratory animal veterinarians working at different universities. Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were used to describe perceptions of 16 attending veterinarians relating to animal research transparency. Three themes were drawn from the interviews: (i) reflections on transparency; (ii) reflections on culture; and (iii) reflections on self. Veterinarians reflected on their personal priorities regarding transparency and when combined with barriers to change within the institutions, sometimes resulted in reported inaction. For example, sometimes veterinarians chose not to pursue available opportunities for change at seemingly willing universities, while others had their initiatives for change blocked by more senior administrators. The sharing of information regarding the animals used for scientific purposes varied in how it was conceptualised by attending veterinarians: (i) true transparency; communication of information for the sake of openness; (ii) strategic transparency; attempt to educate people about animal research because then they will support it; (iii) agenda-driven transparency; selective release of positive stories to direct public opinion; and (iv) fearful non-transparency; not communicating any information for fear of negative opposition to animal research. Transparency was not perceived as an institutional priority by many of the veterinarians and a cohesive action plan to increase transparency that involves multiple universities was identified as a promising avenue to overcome existing barriers., Competing Interests: None., (© The Author(s) 2023.)