Animal Care Guidelines and Future Directions

A. B. Webster1

Department of Poultry Science, University of Georgia, Athens 30602

ABSTRACT Two notions broadly accepted in devel-oped western societies have made animal care guidelinesinevitable. These are that domestic animals are sentientand that humans are responsible to ensure the propercare of domestic animals. Despite these common views,people have differing moral understandings of the hu-man-animal relationship, and there are sharp divisionsover how these views should be applied to domestic ani-mal care. Animal care guidelines have been developedby different nations at several organizational levels torepresent a compromise that is acceptable to most people.These organizational levels include individual poultrycompanies, national poultry associations, individual cus-tomers of the poultry industry, national associations ofcustomer companies, national governments, and interna-tional organizations. Animal care guideline developmenthas typically included input from producers and scien-tists and, depending on the sponsoring organization, ani-mal advocates and government representatives as well.Animal advocacy groups have also sought to influence

Key words: poultry welfare, animal welfare, animal care guideline

2007 Poultry Science 86:1253–1259

ANTHROPOMORPHISM, MORALITY,AND DUTY

Animal care guidelines for agricultural animals are aproduct of developed societies around the world derivedculturally from Europe, comprising what is commonlyknown as western culture. My discussion of animal careguidelines and where we are going in regard to themwill reflect this cultural context, because there has been,to my knowledge, little initiative for such guidelines inother societies.

For many centuries, western culture largely excludedanimals from the realm of morality. The prevailingthought was that humans had no direct moral obligationstoward animals. This attitude began to change in the19th century with the general acceptance that cruelty toanimals is improper, and the change has accelerated, par-

©2007 Poultry Science Association Inc.Received January 31, 2007.Accepted February 1, 2007.1Corresponding author: bwebster@uga.edu

1253

domestic animal care by campaigning against animal pro-duction practices or by offering their preferred guidelinesfor producers to adopt in the hope that the endorsementof the welfare group would add value to the product.Originally, animal care guidelines were only recom-mended, with little or no requirement for compliance. Inrecent years, the need for retail companies to assure cer-tain welfare standards has led to animal welfare auditingof production facilities. Animal care guidelines primarilyhave sought to establish standards for handling and hus-bandry in existing production systems. Future guidelinesmay put increasing emphasis on adoption of alternativemanagement practices or housing systems. Internationalanimal care guidelines are being developed on 2 levels(i.e., among national governments to create a commonstandard for trade in animal products and within interna-tional retail companies to create company-wide animalcare standards). These initiatives should tend to unifyfarm animal care standards worldwide but perhaps at alevel some nations might consider lower than preferable.

ticularly in the latter half of the 20th century, so that nowit is broadly believed that we ought to ensure the well-being of all animals in our care as much as feasibly possi-ble. Paralleling this change has been an increasingly an-thropomorphic view of animals. Anthropomorphism isthe projection of human attributes onto animals, particu-larly psychological attributes. Interpretation of the psy-chological experience of another individual, even anotherhuman, involves inference, because it is not possible tomeasure how the individual feels. One can only makeeducated guesses based on the behavior of the individual.Because anthropomorphism involves imputing to ani-mals characteristics that cannot be directly measured, aprocess that can be uncertain even among humans, thepractice was considered by many ethologists to be unsci-entific, particularly those in the branch of ethology knownas behaviorism. However, growing knowledge of biologyand acceptance of Darwinian theory of the evolution ofspecies have led to altered attitudes regarding anthropo-morphism, even in ethology. Philosophers have arguedthat the biological and evolutionary continuity betweenhumans and nonhuman animals is of great significancefor interpretation of the experience of animals (Singer,

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

WEBSTER1254

1975; Midgley, 1983; Regan, 1983). These authors assertthat physical, physiological, and psychological similarit-ies between humans and many nonhuman animals makeit logical to conclude that these nonhumans can experi-ence pain, suffering, and enjoyment and that it is unlikelythat Homo sapiens would be the only species whose mem-bers have the attribute of consciousness.

Such arguments have been so effective, in my opinion,that our society as a whole has come to embrace the notionthat animals should be viewed anthropomorphically andthat by doing so in a considered way it is possible toknow what animals think and feel, within limits. Twoconclusions have followed that now provide the drivingforce for animal care guidelines. These are that domesticanimals are sentient and can suffer and that because ofthis animal welfare is a moral issue, in which we havedirect duties to domestic animals. A direct duty is anobligation owed by a moral agent to another moral entity(person or animal) strictly based on the characteristicsthat cause the entity to be recognized as having moralvalue. Such an obligation is independent of whateverother importance the entity might have to the acting moralagent or any other moral entity. This was a significantstep in the moral development of our civilization.

Spokesmen for animal agricultural groups have oftenexpressed that farmers have an interest in the well-beingof their animals, because their living depends on it. How-ever, this kind of interest can only lead to an indirectduty toward animals, because it is based on the value ofthe products derived from them and does not recognizevalue inherent to the animals themselves. In defense offarmers, I know that many feel a responsibility towardtheir animals that goes beyond a mere interest in produc-tion performance. In a manner nicely described by Midg-ley (1983), many farmers, and others who keep animals,include them in their own community, consciously ornot, and recognize sentient traits in the animals that callthem to a direct obligation to ensure their proper care.The level of obligation perceived varies with the differentempathetic tendencies of people and with the degree towhich different animal species stimulate empathy.

Animal care guidelines can be seen as formal effortsto recognize these direct duties and ensure a minimumstandard of care that reflects scientific understanding ofthe attributes of a given species independently of interper-sonal differences in empathy and interspecies differencesin traits inducing empathy.

DIVERGENT VALUES

Despite a general acceptance that direct duties are owedto agricultural animals, there is disagreement regardingthe nature of these obligations. In the latter part of the20th century, philosophers not satisfied with traditionalviews sought to derive moral principles that should gov-ern the human-animal relationship. Their writings havehad considerable influence in the animal welfare move-ment. Some of the thoughts that led them to extend moralconsideration to animals have been mentioned already.

Singer (1975) built an argument from preference utilitari-anism that animals should be given equal considerationto humans based on their ability to enjoy pleasures andexperience suffering. This does not mean that an animalshould necessarily be given equal treatment, because inmany cases, its psychological capacity would be inferiorto that of a human being, but if its interests, such as theywere, were not given equal consideration, the humansinvolved in the judgment would be guilty of speciesism.Singer (1975) advocated vegetarianism based on his philo-sophical conclusions. Regan (1983) concluded that theapproach of Singer (1975) was not adequate to protectanimals and developed a theory of animal rights, derived,as with Singer (1975), from the implications of biologicaland evolutionary continuity between humans and ani-mals. He argued that any animal or person advancedenough to have the minimum psychological capacity tobe self-aware [he called these subjects of a life (SOL)] hasinherent value equal to all other such entities, regardlessof psychological capacity. All SOL ought to have equalrights. Moreover, SOL have a valid claim to respectfultreatment, and moral agents (people) have prima facieduty to assist SOL when others treat them in ways thatviolate their rights. Regan (1983) also advocated vegetar-ianism.

The philosophical views of Singer (1975) and Regan(1983) are egalitarian in that they are based on the convic-tion that all individuals possessing moral value shouldbe given equal consideration according to the respectivemoral principle being applied. A philosophy such as thatput forward by Midgley (1983) argues for the extensionof moral consideration beyond the species boundary butnot necessarily on an egalitarian basis. In other words,just as it is reasonable for a person to feel more obligatedto help family members or friends than strangers, it isalso reasonable for a human to perceive greater obligationto another human than to an animal of another species.Nonetheless, obligations to individuals who are closer onthe relational scale do not necessarily outweigh obliga-tions to individuals who are farther. In fact, it is argued,it is compelling for humans to extend moral considerationto animals, because animals have characteristics that arerecognized as morally relevant in humans.

The above points of view are based on secular philoso-phy and have been embraced by many. However, mil-lions of people derive their moral understanding froma religious perspective. Christianity is the predominantreligion in North America and has had great historicalinfluence on the development of western society. Becauseits focus is on the relationship between God and humansand on how humans ought to treat each other, it is per-haps understandable that, given the problematic natureof both these relationships, Christian leaders have givenrelatively little attention throughout history to the hu-man-animal relationship, except to affirm based on scrip-tures such as Genesis 1:26, 28, and Genesis 9:3 that hu-mans, not other animals, were created in the image ofGod, that people are to fill the earth and subdue it, andthat animals are available for human use. The belief that

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

POULTRY WELFARE SYMPOSIUM 1255

humans are ascendant in the world and may use animalsfor their purposes precludes the possibility of moralequivalence between humans and animals. This has ledsome thinkers in the past to conclude that the world existsfor the sake of humans and that there is no basis forextension of moral consideration beyond humans. How-ever, such a conclusion overlooks other biblical passagesthat make it clear that the physical universe exists, notfor mankind, but to glorify God directly (e.g., Psalm 148)and that, while affirming human ascendancy, the interestof God includes animals as well as people (e.g., Matthew10:29, 31). Also, quality of human character involves con-cern for the welfare of domestic animals (e.g., Proverbs12:10). The 20th century saw the human-animal relation-ship revisited by Christian thinkers taking a more com-prehensive view of scripture, who were also informed bya better biological understanding of animals. For example,the prominent Christian philosopher, C. S. Lewis, recog-nizing the capacity of animals for pain, made the state-ment, “Man was appointed by God to have dominionover the beasts, and everything a man does to an animalis either a lawful exercise, or a sacrilegious abuse, of anauthority by divine right,” (Lewis, 1940). Pope John PaulII wrote in his encyclical, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, “... onecannot use with impunity the different categories of be-ings, whether living or inanimate–animals, plants, thenatural elements–simply as one wishes, according toone’s own economic needs. On the contrary, one musttake into account the nature of each being...The dominiongranted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power,nor can one speak of a freedom to “use and misuse,” orto dispose of things as one pleases...when it comes to thenatural world, we are subject not only to biological laws,but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated withimpunity,” (John Paul II, 1987). These quotes support aprevalent Christian view that humans exist as stewardsin the world, not as rulers of it.

At this time, I don’t believe there is a stated positionregarding the human-animal relationship that is broadlyendorsed by the various Christian denominations, be-yond the aforementioned principles of ascendancy andauthority to use animals. Nonetheless, I have the impres-sion that the Christian community in the developed worldaccepts by and large that the role of stewardship accentu-ates rather than diminishes the need to extend moralconsideration beyond human beings. In regard to domes-tic animals, this can be taken to mean that one shouldcare about animal welfare, because it is evident that ani-mals can suffer, and to cause them unnecessary sufferingwould be to abuse creatures that ultimately belong toGod. This leaves considerable latitude for judgement asto what would be acceptable treatment of animals. How-ever, as a whole, I see little resistance from the Christiancommunity to animal care guidelines that acknowledgethe legitimacy of using animals for food and otherpurposes.

The future direction of animal care guidelines and theeffects these will have on animal production practiceswill be determined by the ongoing contest of ideas in our

society. There are divergent points of view, even withinthe secular or religious perspectives held by differentsocietal groups. Some people who advocate animal rightsbelieve that animal agriculture should not exist. Othersbelieve that modern intensive animal production prac-tices are wrong. On the other hand, most people believethat it is good in principle to produce meat for food. Someare offended by the claim that animals have rights.

GUIDELINES: GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED

In this social milieu, there have been attempts at reasonand compromise by various nations to come up withvoluntary guidelines for the care and use of commerciallyfarmed agricultural animals. Among English-speakingnations, Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealandhave such guidelines. The United States has not taken thisapproach. These initiatives were, and are, government-sponsored, but the guidelines themselves typically havebeen developed in consultation with scientists, farm in-dustry organizations, and animal welfare groups, in addi-tion to representatives of government regulatory agen-cies. Current versions of these can be found on the govern-ment websites of the respective nations. These guidelinesare intended to be living documents and so are periodi-cally reviewed and revised as necessary to bring themup to date. For example, the Codes of Recommendationsfor the Welfare of Livestock: Domestic Fowls, published inEngland in 1972, was updated in 1987 and was followedin 2002 by new documents focusing separately on layinghens and on meat chickens and breeding chickens (DE-FRA, 2002a,b). Likewise, the Canadian Recommended Codeof Practice for the Care and Handling of Poultry from Hatcheryto Processing Plant was originally published in 1983, up-dated in 1989, and in 2003 separated into publications onchickens, turkeys, and breeders and egg-type chickens,respectively (CARC, 2003a,b).

These recommended codes typically include a state-ment declaring the welfare standard for the care of theagricultural species in question. Many include a list of5 freedoms that an animal should normally be able toexperience. This list was originally developed by whathas become known as the Brambell Committee, commis-sioned in England in the early 1960s to evaluate the wel-fare of agricultural animals in modern commercial pro-duction systems (Brambell, 1965). As generally statednow, these freedoms are as follows: 1) freedom from hun-ger and thirst; 2) freedom from discomfort; 3) freedomfrom pain, injury, or disease; 4) freedom to express normalbehavior; and 5) freedom from fear and distress. Thecodes then go on to cover a broad range of husbandryand handling topics, such as personal responsibility ofanimal attendants, feeding, management, stocking den-sity, buildings and equipment, housing environment,bird handling, special procedures, euthanasia, emergencyprecautions, transport, receiving, and slaughter.

One criticism of these codes might be that they aremerely recommended and so may not ensure that poultry,or other farm animals, are properly cared for. Nonethe-

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

WEBSTER1256

less, they are not entirely without weight. The Englishcodes of recommendation can be used to establish guiltduring prosecution of a legal offense involving a domesticflock. The Canadian recommended codes of practice forpoultry have been adopted by national and provincialfarm animal councils as the standard for ethical care andhandling of poultry flocks.

Many European countries have worked on establishingstandards for the care and handling of farm animals fora long time. Their activities are too diverse to elaboratehere. However, Europe provides unique examples of su-pernational or regional efforts to ensure farm animal wel-fare. These have taken place within 2 organizations. TheCouncil of Europe (COE), consisting currently of 46 mem-ber states, was formed shortly after the second world warto act as an interparliamentary body to negotiate treatieson a variety of issues. Since 1968, the COE has formulatedseveral conventions pertinent to animal agriculture (i.e.,for the protection of animals during international trans-port, for the protection of animals kept for farming pur-poses, and for the protection of animals for slaughter).Under these conventions are recommendations concern-ing different species. For instance, under the EuropeanConvention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farm-ing Purposes, the Recommendation Concerning DomesticFowl (Gallus gallus) was adopted in 1995. This documentoutlines recommended standards, based on stated biolog-ical characteristics of the domestic fowl, for stockmanshipand inspection, enclosures, buildings and equipment,management, changes of genotype or phenotype, andkilling and lists additional provisions specifically for lay-ing hens, meat-type poultry, and killing of unwantedchicks and embryos.

The European Union (EU), currently comprising 25member states that are also members of the COE, beganlegislating on animal protection in the 1970s. Animal wel-fare was recognized for the first time in the 1997 EUTreaty of Amsterdam, based on the acknowledgment thatanimals are sentient beings. This development has madethe physical and psychological needs of agricultural ani-mals a priority in their own right. The EU legislationis considered binding on the member states, which areexpected to promulgate national legislation covering, butnot limited to, the minimum standards specified by theEU. In some cases, the EU regulation is intended to beimplemented uniformly across all member states to im-prove enforcement capability. Current EU farm animalwelfare legislation deals with transport, slaughter, batteryhens, veal, calves, and pigs. Within the EU, animal welfareissues are under the purview of the European FoodSafety Authority.

A summary of European activities regarding farm ani-mal welfare can be found in Caporale et al. (2005). Detailsof the animal welfare-related activities of the COE andEU can be found on the websites of the respective organi-zations.

The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), al-ready the international reference organization for animalhealth and zoonoses, intends to become a world leader

in animal welfare. It has embarked on the formulation ofanimal care guidelines that will have international appli-cation among the member countries of the organization(currently over 165). The OIE was originally establishedto protect against the spread of animal diseases throughinternational trade. However, the existing interconnec-tion of its member nations made it possible to try tofacilitate international trade negotiations by putting ani-mal welfare standards on common ground through ani-mal care guidelines. So far, the OIE has drafted guidelines,based on scientific advice, for the slaughter of animals, thetransport of animals by sea, the transport of animals byland, and the killing of animals for disease-control pur-poses. These are currently under review within the OIEmember countries.

ACTIONS BY ANIMAL WELFAREORGANIZATIONS

Some animal welfare organizations have tried to beproactive in encouraging what they perceive to be appro-priate standards of care and management for agriculturalanimals. For instance, in the United States, the AmericanHumane Association offers a “free farmed” certificationprogram, and, similarly, Humane Farm Animal Care of-fers a “certified humane” program. Periodic inspectionsverify that a company in the program remains in compli-ance with prescribed welfare standards. With compliance,a poultry company is authorized to market its productunder a certification label to consumers who are willingto pay a premium for products they believe are better.The guidelines of these programs were developed, withinparameters defined as being important by the sponsoringorganization, with input from scientific experts. Descrip-tions of the programs and the names of poultry companiesthat have been certified can be found on the respectivewebsites of the organizations.

Although the initiatives described so far do not allconcur on what an appropriate set of guidelines shouldbe, they do underscore the view that animal agricultureis a legitimate activity, provided it is done right. Somegroups, particularly those driven by a belief in animalrights, advocate that animal agriculture should be eradi-cated entirely or downsized greatly from its present stateand have launched their own uncompromising cam-paigns for change. Unlike the animal care guideline initia-tives above, these involve media campaigns intended toturn public opinion against modern animal agriculture.One tactic has been to showcase egregious examples ofimproper care of farm animals and claim that these arethe norm, putting not just the company responsible forthe animals on the defensive but the entire industry aswell. In recent years, some groups have found that theycan effectively campaign against prominent retail compa-nies that sell animal products directly to the public. Theseretailers buy large amounts of meat from their suppliers,and, for that reason, are in a position to influence theanimal care practices of many meat-producing compa-nies. The animal rights organization People for the Ethical

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

POULTRY WELFARE SYMPOSIUM 1257

Treatment of Animals targeted several major fast-foodchains in succession with eye-catching campaigns usinglogos resembling those of the respective companies butmodified in ways to suggest the target company wascruel and blood thirsty. Demonstrations highlighting thecampaign theme have been staged at franchise restau-rants to discourage customers from entering the storesand have put pressure on the relationship between theparent company and the franchisee.

GUIDELINES: INDUSTRY

Although activist campaigns against industries that useanimals take place in many nations, the campaignsagainst fast-food retailers have centered in the UnitedStates, because, although international, these companieshave their headquarters and the largest proportion oftheir operations in the United States. Their responses tothe media attacks of the activists have led to a new initia-tive for development of animal care guidelines by thepoultry industry itself.

The fast-food retailers realized very quickly that theywere in a public relations battle for the hearts and mindsof consumers, one that involves convincing people of themoral acceptability of their products. In 2000, McDonald’sCorporation announced that it had established an animalwelfare program with specific requirements that it in-tended its suppliers to meet. Shortly thereafter, BurgerKing, Wendy’s International, and Kentucky FriedChicken introduced similar animal welfare programs. Al-though the large food retailers could manage their ownprograms, many smaller companies lack the resources,so 2 major US food retail industry associations, the FoodMarketing Institute (FMI) and the National Council ofChain Restaurants (NCCR), joined together to create ajoint animal welfare program that would be available formember companies.

Not having knowledge of animal production practicesthemselves, the general strategy followed by individualfood retailers and the industry associations has been toform advisory groups that include scientific experts andrepresentatives of suppliers. These advisory groups havehad the task of putting together animal welfare programsthat were knowledge-based and feasible. The animal wel-fare programs all require that poultry production facilities(e.g., hatcheries, farms, processing plants) be audited ona regular basis by independent auditors to provide animalwelfare assurance in accordance with the program. Theseprograms are reviewed periodically so that new issuescan be addressed and updates made as needed. One ofthe strengths of this approach, in my opinion, is thatparticipation of a poultry company is voluntary, basedon its agreement to supply product to the retailer, yet ithas a strong incentive to comply with program re-quirements.

The animal welfare program of a given retail companywill only engage those poultry producers, and only thoseproduction complexes within a company, that supplyproduct to the retailer. The size of the food retail chains

means that much of the poultry industry will be coveredby the animal welfare program of one chain or another,but there are still some gaps. One notable gap involvesthe catching, transport, and processing of spent fowl, bothcommercial layers and heavy breeders. In the UnitedStates, these birds are often sold to separate fowl pro-cessing companies, which take responsibility for thecatching, transportation, and processing of the birds. Tomy knowledge, this part of the poultry industry has notyet had to institute animal welfare programs at the behestof its customers, although I am aware that at least 1 USfowl processor is assembling an animal welfare programon its own. Other, generally small, poultry companiesthat sell into special markets also may not have had torespond to the animal welfare concerns of customers. Insome cases, these also have gone ahead with their ownanimal welfare initiatives. I expect as more retail andinstitutional organizations adopt animal welfare pro-grams, all poultry companies large and small eventuallywill find it necessary to have comprehensive animal wel-fare programs.

Spurred by the challenges of the animal welfare move-ment, the United Egg Producers (UEP), the leading com-mercial egg industry association in the United States, setout to establish guidelines for husbandry of commercialflocks of laying hens. Following input from a scientificadvisory committee, the UEP guidelines were introduced(UEP, 2003). An animal care certified program is offered tomember companies that includes audits by independentauditors to verify compliance with the UEP guidelines.Egg companies in good standing have the right to markettheir products under the UEP animal care certified logo.The UEP has also sponsored research to provide neededinformation to support the transition of the egg industryto improved animal care practices (e.g., on nonfeed with-drawal molting). The National Chicken Council and theNational Turkey Federation, national associations of theUS chicken and turkey industries, respectively, have alsoput together husbandry guidelines and audit programs(NTF, 2004; NCC, 2005). In these cases, the audit programsare for the individual use of member companies, usingexternal auditors if desired, and not part of a certificationprogram administered by the parent association. Al-though the approach each guideline or audit programtakes reflects the structure and welfare issues of the indus-try sector in question, they all cover the spectrum of activi-ties engaged, from hatching (if applicable) through pro-duction to transport and slaughter, and provide for em-ployee education. Current versions of the guidelines areavailable on the websites of the associations.

In the introductions to their animal care guidelines,each association acknowledges that the care and handlingof birds should be humane. I believe the acceptance ofthe poultry industry that production performance oughtnot to be the sole determinant of husbandry standardsshows that the industry is maturing in its understandingof animal welfare and that industry leaders are deter-mined to keep in step with the evolving expectations ofsociety. Many people in the poultry industry and in the

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

WEBSTER1258

retail industry that depend on poultry products wereinitially disturbed by the pressures of the animal welfaremovement and felt that the need to respond was a costlyimposition on time and resources. However, the industryhas become stronger as a result of the challenge, in myopinion. Poultry producers and food retailers have hadto work with each other to develop common animal carestandards. The needs of both had to be considered toturn animal welfare principle into feasible action. As thisprocess has unfolded, retailers, with advice from theirscientific advisors, have been able to endorse guidelinesset by poultry industry associations. In turn, the industryassociations have adjusted their guidelines to accommo-date issues important to the food retailers. At the time ofthis writing, the FMI-NCCR Animal Welfare ProgramWeb site indicates that the FMI and the NCCR have jointlyendorsed the UEP guidelines (except for 1 point) andthe National Chicken Council guidelines and that theNational Turkey Federation guidelines are under review.In this manner, poultry suppliers and retailers are coalesc-ing a unified animal welfare position that is thoughtful,informed, and reflective of the general views of society.At the same time, both suppliers and retailers have re-tained the autonomy of their own animal welfare pro-grams, setting the stage for ongoing negotiation and revi-sion of guidelines as knowledge grows or societalviews change.

WHAT CAN ANIMAL WELFAREGUIDELINES AND AUDITS ACCOMPLISH?

Animal welfare guidelines and audits can accomplish3 things. First, they verify that a proper environmentand adequate resources to cover bird needs are beingprovided, such as feed, water, space, ventilation, back-up generator, alarms, etc. They also verify that flock hus-bandry processes are under control by inspection of re-cords, such as temperature, air quality, mortality, culling,etc. Finally, they provide a direct assessment of bird well-being by inspection of such things as walking ability, footcondition, eye condition, bodily injury, bird health, etc.

In my experience, animal welfare audit programs havelead to real improvements in poultry care and handlingin the last 5 yr. Most US poultry companies that partici-pate in animal welfare audits now have detailed corporateanimal welfare programs. These include documentedtraining of employees and regular internal audits. Somecompanies have created new high-level positions foroversight of their animal welfare programs. The auditprogram also helps supervisors and others look at theirprocesses from a fresh perspective and take note of thingsthat formerly may not have been recognized as requir-ing action.

Many hatcheries have improved transitions betweenconveyors to reduce impact on hard surfaces and elimi-nate pinch points. Improved technology to euthanize cullchicks has been installed when needed, and better proce-dures to monitor the incidence of chick injuries have beenput in place. On the farm, growers are being trained to

ensure proper euthanasia technique for culled birds.There is better record keeping of culling and more empha-sis on environmental control, on backup in case of poweroutage, and on alarm notification in case of system fail-ures. Many companies are making the effort to evaluatewalking problems of birds and note incidence of foot paddermatitis on farms. Catchers are being trained to handlebirds well, and incentives have been established to mini-mize birds dead on arrival at the processing plant. In hotweather, cooling strategies, such as the use of fan trailers,are being implemented to avoid overheating of birds ontransport trailers during loading. Many poultry compa-nies are working hard to minimize times from catch tounloading at the processing plant to minimize stress onbirds. More effort is being devoted to the maintenanceof transport cages to prevent harm to birds. At processingplants, there has been increased attention to the designand operation of holding areas to protect birds from heator cold, depending on the season. Dumping systems arebeing kept in better repair. Many plants have installednew, better-designed electrical stunners. More attentionis being given to monitoring and reduction of injuriessuch as wing dislocation and leg bruising.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The sourcing of animal welfare guidelines in variousinitiatives complicates predictions of future directions fortheir development. Some operate within industries withtheir incentives based at least in part on capitalist interest.These may operate within national boundaries if spon-sored by national industry associations, but their effectsmay spill over between nations by the decision of interna-tional companies, such as fast-food retailers or grocerychains, to standardize their animal welfare programs asmuch as possible all over the world. Recommendedguidelines sponsored by national governments may haveaspects that are unique to the nation itself, particularlyin regard to legislated welfare-related requirements (e.g.,cage vs. noncage housing of poultry); however, the char-acteristics of a given type of animal do not change, so thedifferent nationally sponsored recommended guidelinesshare elements in common. International efforts for ani-mal care guidelines to facilitate trade may have the effectof making welfare standards more similar between na-tions but perhaps at a lower common denominator thanpreferred by some nations.

I think it is safe to say that animal care guidelines andanimal welfare audit programs will be a way of life forthe poultry industry from now on. Those companies orcomplexes within companies that have not yet come un-der the jurisdiction of one of these programs will eventu-ally be drawn in as more fast-food chains, supermarketchains, and institutional purchasers of poultry productsmake animal welfare assurance a priority in their purchas-ing criteria. Poultry companies will continue to build ani-mal welfare expertise by creating positions and hiringcapable people to manage company animal welfare pro-grams. There will be continued efforts to standardize ani-

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

POULTRY WELFARE SYMPOSIUM 1259

mal care requirements within the poultry industry sectors(e.g., broilers, turkeys, commercial layers) so that poultrycompanies do not have to manage different sets of re-quirements from different retail customers. Many retail-ers may also find it advantageous to adopt standardscommon to their industry to avoid accusations that theylag behind in their animal welfare awareness. On theother hand, some poultry companies and retailers wish-ing to access niche markets will choose to maintain animalcare programs that satisfy demands unique to the market.

The animal care guidelines in existence should be seenas steps in a process to ensure a standard of care foragricultural animals that meets the broad expectations ofsociety. Although they reflect what is feasible to achieveat present, few people consider them to be perfect. Therewill always be pressure to revise them. Most organiza-tions or companies with animal care guidelines have themregularly reviewed and updated. Subjects addressed bytheir animal welfare advisory committees focus on prog-ress in improvements already set in motion, on new issuesthat need consideration, and on possibilities made avail-able by new technology. At the time of this writing, someof the prominent topics include standards for walkingability of broilers, incidence of foot pad dermatitis infloor-housed birds, ammonia levels in poultry houses,reduction of dead on arrival rates, optimization of catch-ing methods, reduction of handling-related injuries, andmethods of stunning before slaughter. These topics willchange over time.

I see 2 major factors influencing the future direction ofanimal care guidelines. Consumer preference will be theprimary factor, because consumers create the demand, orlack of it, for poultry products based on their buyingdecisions. To the extent that animal welfare is a concernfor the consumer, the animal production and marketingindustries will try to ensure that their animal welfareprograms satisfy this concern. The second major factor isnew scientific knowledge and technology. New under-standings of the bird in regard to its sentience and capac-ity to suffer could force reconsideration of husbandrypractice. New technology can open up options to improvepoultry welfare in ways that were not formerly feasible.Several other factors are also important in enhancing orinhibiting healthy development of animal care guidelines.The extent to which the poultry industry keeps involvedin guideline development at whatever level it occurs (e.g.,industry sector, national government, or internationalagreement) will determine how well its expertise andperspective are represented. The campaigns of activists,with such things as embarrassing videos, lawsuits, at-

tempts at legislation, and motions at meetings of companystockholders, will continue to create pressure for changesin husbandry practices, depending on their truthfulnessand on how well prepared the industry is to respond.Finally, increasing globalization of trade in animal prod-ucts will bring divergent views of the human-animal rela-tionship into confrontation, as represented by differentnational positions. I expect that most nations will seek acommon ground that facilitates trade (e.g., through theefforts of the OIE). However, because different moralviews of the human-animal relationship may be involvedand because some changes may threaten the existence ofthe industry of a nation, it is unclear how internationalagreements will affect animal care guidelines within na-tions, as a general rule.

REFERENCES

Brambell, F. W. R. 1965. Report of the technical committee toinquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive live-stock husbandry systems. Her Majesty’s Stationary Off. Com-mand 2836, London, UK.

Caporale, V., B. Alessandrini, P. Dalla Villa, and S. Del Papa.2005. Global perspectives on animal welfare: Europe. Rev.Sci. Tech. 24:567–577.

CARC. 2003a. Recommended Code of Practice for the Care andHandling of Farm Animals: Chickens, Turkeys and Breedersfrom Hatchery to Processing Plant. Can. Agri-Food Res.Counc., Ottawa.

CARC. 2003b. Recommended Code of Practice for the Care andHandling of Pullets, Layers and Spent Fowl. Can. Agri-FoodRes. Counc., Ottawa.

DEFRA. 2002a. Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare ofLivestock: Laying Hens. Dep. Environ. Food. Rural Aff., Lon-don, UK.

DEFRA. 2002b. Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare ofLivestock: Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens. Dep. Envi-ron. Food. Rural Aff., London, UK.

John Paul II. 1987. Part IV. Sec. 34 in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis.Hunter Publ., Edison, NJ.

Lewis, C. S. 1940. Page 126 in The Problem of Pain. WilliamCollins & Sons Co. Ltd., Glasgow, UK.

Midgley, M. 1983 Animals and Why They Matter. Univ. GeorgiaPress, Athens.

NCC. 2005. National Chicken Council Animal Welfare Guide-lines and Audit Checklist. Natl. Chicken Counc., Washing-ton, DC.

NTF. 2004. National Turkey Federation Animal Care Best Man-agement Practices for the Production of Turkeys. Natl. Turk.Fed., Washington, DC.

Regan, T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Univ. CaliforniaPress, Los Angeles.

Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treat-ment of Animals. Avon Books, New York, NY.

UEP. 2003. United Egg Producers Animal Husbandry Guide-lines for US Egg Laying Flocks. United Egg Producers, Wash-ington, DC.

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from