Wading into the ethics of animal welfare

Apr 2007... Livestock industries need to go beyond science in addressing animal welfare issues, to avoid giving up the moral ‘high ground’ to critics, says animal behaviour professor Dr. Ray Stricklin.

When challenged on animal welfare, livestock industries have been quick to defend themselves with science.

Science says what truths can be stated objectively. Science deals with what is measurable. Science provides an anchor of reason to an oftentimes emotional debate.

But in focusing too narrowly on science, livestock industries risk weakening their response to a complex issue that the public, including those in the livestock industry themselves, ultimately view on a much broader level than science.

This was the message delivered by Dr. Ray Stricklin of the University of Maryland animal science department, at the Livestock Care Conference, March 23 in Red Deer, hosted by Alberta Farm Animal Care (AFAC).

In a presentation titled “Science & ethics: When do they overlap?” Stricklin argued animal welfare should be viewed not only on the basis of science, but as a combination of science and ethics.

“There is an argument that science alone should be the basis of dealing with animal welfare, but I disagree,” says Stricklin, an animal behaviour professor who has been involved with animal welfare related teaching, research and policy activities for over 25 years.

“We who work in animal agriculture want to do what is right for the animals, for the environment and for the public at large. In that sense, science and ethics should always overlap and we should not give up the moral high ground to critics of the industry by focusing on science alone. We need to speak out clearly stating that we care about our animals and we care about doing the right thing – that’s what ethics is all about.”

Challenging ‘A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy’

While science deals with “what is,” ethics deals with “what ought to be,” explains Stricklin. Both are needed to properly assess what level of animal care is appropriate to address animal welfare concerns.

To illustrate this point, Stricklin put up a slide highlighting a famous quote used in the animal rights debate: “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” This quote, stated several years ago by the then president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), argued that in matters of pain and suffering there is no difference between the distress of an animal and a human child. And some persons have interpreted the phrase to mean that the boy is deserving of only the same consideration one would give a rat, pig or dog.

“I think all of us would agree that the boy deserves greater consideration. We place the boy in a separate category – but not according to science,” says Stricklin. “From the view of science, this statement can be said to be true, since the rat, pig, dog and boy are all mammals according to the biological system of classifying animals.”

The value judgment used to place the boy in a separate category is based not on science but on an ethical argument, he points out. “Science is the basis for grouping the elements together. But it is ethics that gives one the basis to argue that the boy deserves different treatment.” And while science does not tell how the boy should be treated, Stricklin states, “I definitely believe the boy is in a separate category when it comes to ethical decisions.”

Likewise, considerations of animal welfare should not be confined to science alone. “There’s a danger to making decisions based solely on science. We need to have room for value judgments.”

The ‘Stricklin diet’ and quality of life

Particularly when it comes to understanding matters of quality of life, science alone is insufficient, says Stricklin. “We humans don’t base our dietary habits on science. In fact the nutritionists who calculate diets for livestock could do the same for humans, but I wouldn’t want to eat it.”

“I grew up in the south. I still like to fried pork chops for breakfast a couple times a week, and have steak a few times for dinner. Science will tell me this is not the best diet I should be eating. But I choose to eat this way because it’s something I enjoy. It’s a choice based on personal preference I make because it adds to my quality of life.”

One’s diet is a matter of preference and not science, he says, and similarly animal welfare approaches should not be judged on science alone. However, unlike making choices between flavors of ice cream, ethical decisions about animal welfare should involve a blend of science along with value or ethical judgments on what can be done to enhance an animals’ quality of life to a reasonable level.

Judging that “reasonable level” is not easy, he acknowledges. Different people will have different points of view. But it’s important nonetheless to not ignore this aspect.

If livestock producers are seen to not be afraid to talk about quality of life and to take steps to address this, they will have a more favorable image with consumers, says Stricklin. They may not please everyone, but the fact they’re trying can go a long way to strengthening relations.

Perhaps most important, including a strong focus on quality of life allows livestock producers to act more in line with their own personal values, which typically include high regard for the well being of animals. But we be must be serious and demonstrate that we are working to do the right thing for animals, says Stricklin.

“My advice is don’t give up the high ground,” says Stricklin. “Address the issue of animal quality of life.”

Doing this will allow livestock industries to tackle animal welfare head on, says Striklin. “Quality of life of animals is the primary ethical argument against animal agriculture. That’s the area that needs to be addressed.”

A practical basis to ethics

Making ethical judgments means making reasonable moral judgments, he says, and “reasonable” means practical. In other words, making improvements to enhance the quality of life of animals doesn’t have to be in conflict with other goals of livestock production, such as efficiency and profitability.

A major challenge is that there is no single “animal agriculture” and animal industries compete for the same consumer dollar, he acknowledges. “The challenge is to develop animal welfare standards that do not create an unfair advantage for one species’ production system relative to its competitors.”

As a basis for adding ethical considerations to animal care approaches, Stricklin advocates a practical approach based on two fundamental guidelines. First, the pain and suffering that meat animals experience should be eliminated where possible and practical. Second, as an overall consideration, animal agriculture should move to ensure that, at a minimum, quality of life should be a net plus for the animal. “Animals used in agriculture should benefit from having existed,” says Stricklin.

Holistic view of progress

Stricklin suggested however that the goal of animal agriculture cannot simply be to maximize the quality of life experiences for animals. Rather, other interests must be included in the equation. Following this, the goals of animal agriculture should be to minimize the costs to humans, animals and the environment, and to maximize the benefits to each party. Tying this to his base guidelines for animal care approaches, Stricklin says conventional livestock production systems need to boost benefits to the animals. “We must move quality of life of food animals from being considered to be a net cost by our critics to ensuring that it is in fact a net benefit to the animal.”

But even when boosting animal welfare is the focus, taking a holistic view is critical, he emphasized. A good example is in the Swedish bill of farm animal rights, which adopted the view that “cows must have access to pasture” but applies this principle only during the growing season.

“Under this approach, many dairy cows are still housed in tie stalls during the non-growing season. The argument was that banning tie stalls would lead to bigger barns for loose housing, which would result in ultimately poorer welfare due to larger groups in a confined area, more milk per cow, feet and leg problems, etc. There would also be more environmental problems and many small farms would be forced out of business, which would be a negative for rural society as a whole.”

Thus, while Sweden requires that cows have pasture access during the growing season, there is no law against continuous tie-stalls housing the rest of the year. “What they’ve come up with in this example is a good balance across animal welfare, the environment, and the rural community – including the animal owner,” says Stricklin.

In the course of his own academic work related to animal behaviour and animal welfare, Stricklin has developed a holistic view reflected in his statement: “Appropriately practiced agriculture involves a managed ecosystem wherein the costs are minimized and benefits are optimized for humans, animals and the environment.”