Averós Xavier, Aparicio Miguel A, Ferrari Paolo, Guy Jonathan H, Hubbard Carmen, Schmid Otto, Ilieski Vlatko, Spoolder Hans A M
Departamento de Producción Animal y Ciencia de los Alimentos, Universidad de Extremadura, Avda. de la Universidad s/n Campus Universitario, 10003 Cáceres, Spain.
Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali C.R.P.A. S.p.A., Viale Timavo 43/2, 42121, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Animals (Basel). 2013 Aug 14;3(3):786-807. doi: 10.3390/ani3030786.
Information about animal welfare standards and initiatives from eight European countries was collected, grouped, and compared to EU welfare standards to detect those aspects beyond minimum welfare levels demanded by EU welfare legislation. Literature was reviewed to determine the scientific relevance of standards and initiatives, and those aspects going beyond minimum EU standards. Standards and initiatives were assessed to determine their strengths and weaknesses regarding animal welfare. Attitudes of stakeholders in the improvement of animal welfare were determined through a Policy Delphi exercise. Social perception of animal welfare, economic implications of upraising welfare levels, and differences between countries were considered. Literature review revealed that on-farm space allowance, climate control, and environmental enrichment are relevant for all animal categories. Experts' assessment revealed that on-farm prevention of thermal stress, air quality, and races and passageways' design were not sufficiently included. Stakeholders considered that housing conditions are particularly relevant regarding animal welfare, and that animal-based and farm-level indicators are fundamental to monitor the progress of animal welfare. The most notable differences between what society offers and what farm animals are likely to need are related to transportation and space availability, with economic constraints being the most plausible explanation.
收集了来自八个欧洲国家的动物福利标准和倡议信息,进行了分类,并与欧盟福利标准进行比较,以发现那些超出欧盟福利立法要求的最低福利水平的方面。查阅了文献,以确定标准和倡议的科学相关性,以及那些超出欧盟最低标准的方面。对标准和倡议进行了评估,以确定它们在动物福利方面的优势和劣势。通过政策德尔菲法确定了利益相关者在改善动物福利方面的态度。考虑了社会对动物福利的认知、提高福利水平的经济影响以及国家之间的差异。文献综述表明,农场空间 allowance、气候控制和环境富集对所有动物类别都很重要。专家评估表明,农场预防热应激、空气质量以及围栏和通道的设计没有得到充分考虑。利益相关者认为,住房条件与动物福利特别相关,基于动物和农场层面的指标对于监测动物福利进展至关重要。社会提供的与农场动物可能需要的之间最显著的差异与运输和空间可用性有关,经济限制是最合理的解释。 (注:原文中“on-farm space allowance”的“allowance”不太明确准确意思,暂保留英文)