Benessere degli animali d’allevamento: Passato, Presente e Futuro – III parte

//Benessere degli animali d’allevamento: Passato, Presente e Futuro – III parte

Benessere degli animali d’allevamento: Passato, Presente e Futuro – III parte

Una review sul benessere animale condotta nel Regno Unito e commissionata dall’RSPCA in occasione del 20° anniversario del programma Freedom Food 

Autori: Heather Pickett (pickett@animalwelfareresearch.com); Dan Crossley, Executive Director of Food Ethics Council (www.foodethicscouncil.org); Chris Sutton, Director of Purple Dot (www.purpledot.org) e Ricercatore Associato del Food Ethics Council.

Terza parte: Conclusioni Complessive
Spunti di riflessione
Cambiamento o progresso?
Contesto internazionale
Il ruolo dei programmi di certificazione in allevamento
Altri fattori di cambiamento: guardiamo al di là dei programmi di certificazione
Evitare di focalizzare l’attenzione sui singoli aspetti
Benessere degli animali d’allevamento ed etica: questioni irrisolte?
Principali conclusioni
Raccomandazioni
Ringraziamenti
Interviste complete
Interviste su tematiche complementari specie-specifiche
Individui che ci hanno fornito informazioni aggiuntive
Gli Autori
Riferimenti

Negli ultimi anni nel Regno Unito le preoccupazioni dell’opinione pubblica riguardanti il benessere degli animali d’allevamento sembrerebbero essere aumentate. Nonostante ciò, questa tematica spesso non riceve l’attenzione che meriterebbe nei molti dibattiti tra esperti relativi alla creazione di una filiera alimentare sostenibile, equa e sicura. Nel 2014, per celebrare il 20° anniversario del programma Freedom Food della RSPCA, è stato chiesto ad alcuni ricercatori indipendenti del Food Ethics Council e ad Heather Pickett di intraprendere alcune ricerche sui cambiamenti passati e sui potenziali cambiamenti futuri che andranno ad interessare il benessere animale nel Regno Unito. Il lavoro ha attinto dai punti di vista e dalle informazioni provenienti da un certo numero di esperti, tra cui rappresentanti del settore alimentare e dell’allevamento, da accademici di spicco e dai programmi di certificazione in allevamento. Il report guarda ai cambiamenti cui è andato incontro il benessere animale nel corso degli ultimi vent’anni nel Regno Unito e a quali sono stati alcuni dei fattori che hanno promosso questo cambiamento, compresi il ruolo dei programmi di certificazione e dell’etichettatura. Prosegue poi ipotizzando cosa potrebbe accadere nei prossimi 20 anni e quali potrebbero essere i principali fattori chiave (tra cui i cambiamenti climatici, quelli sulla genetica, quelli a livello di commercio globale e l’aumento delle richieste di trasparenza) che andranno ad influenzare il benessere animale.

Terza parte: Conclusioni Complessive

Spunti di riflessione

Cambiamento o progresso?

Nel Regno Unito ci sono stati sicuramente molti cambiamenti significativi relativi al benessere animale negli ultimi 20 anni. Le prove da noi raccolte suggeriscono come siano stati fatti dei progressi per molte specie animali in termini di innalzamento dei livelli di standard di benessere, compresa la messa al bando di alcuni dei sistemi di stabulazione più intensivi e l’aumento della percentuale di animali allevati con standard migliori rispetto a quelli di base. È tuttavia molto difficile dire quanti progressi ci siano stati in termini di valutazione degli esiti di benessere provato dagli animali. Senza dubbio ci saremmo aspettati un notevole miglioramento di alcuni aspetti, in particolare di quelli relativi al soddisfacimento delle necessità comportamentali di alcuni animali. Ad esempio, ad oggi tutte le galline ovaiole vengono tenute in tipologie di gabbie dove possono soddisfare, in una certa misura, la loro forte motivazione di deporre le uova in un nido e tutte le scrofe da riproduzione sono in grado di muoversi liberamente e di avere un contatto sociale tra di loro per la maggior parte della loro vita. Tuttavia, nonostante la retorica, abbiamo poche prove a disposizione dei progressi compiuti in alcuni campi del benessere animale, in particolare se facciamo riferimento ai livelli di benessere e ad alcuni problemi di salute che spesso vengono esacerbati da un allevamento finalizzato ad ottenere soltanto elevati tassi di crescita e rese eccessive. La maggior parte degli esperti con cui abbiamo parlato apprezza il recente spostamento dell’attenzione dall’aspetto produttivo verso altre valutazioni degli esiti di benessere e si augura che questo approccio acquisti importanza negli anni a venire. È probabile che ciò consentirà di formulare dei giudizi più appropriati sull’entità e sull’andamento di eventuali miglioramenti. Nel complesso, gli esperti intervistati hanno convenuto che c’è ancora molta strada da fare. Ci sono ancora tensioni per quanto riguarda il “correre troppo in avanti” rispetto ai consumatori e il fare progressi rispetto ad altri paesi concorrenti, fino ad arrivare ad ipotizzare che l’industria del bestiame del Regno Unito diventi poco redditizia.

Contesto internazionale

Il contesto internazionale è di vitale importanza, così come è significativo l’equilibrio commerciale quando si parla di carne e di pesce. In altre parole, siamo molto lontani dall’essere autosufficienti ed è improbabile che, nel contesto commerciale globalizzato in cui operiamo, questo cambierà radicalmente nel prossimo futuro (con molta probabilità anche in seguito all’aumento dell’impatto legato ai cambiamenti climatici). Inoltre esistono potenziali minacce legate alla diffusione nel Regno Unito di malattie che possono colpire sia gli animali che l’uomo provenienti da paesi con standard di produzioni animali scadenti.332

Il ruolo dei programmi di certificazione in allevamento

I nostri esperti intervistati hanno riconosciuto quasi all’unanimità il fatto che i programmi di certificazione attuati in allevamento innalzerebbero gli standard e favorirebbero il benessere animale nel Regno Unito. Esiste una certa (comprensibile) concorrenza tra i differenti programmi di certificazione. Tuttavia, viene riconosciuto il fatto che avere dei livelli di certificazione differenti potrebbe essere utile, per poter garantire ai consumatori di orientarsi verso differenti scelte, qualora lo desiderino. È fondamentale fornire ai consumatori informazioni sui programmi in maniera chiara, onesta e coerente affinché abbiano la possibilità di comprendere i benefici relativi ai differenti programmi di certificazione e siano in grado di fare una scelta informata anche sulle soluzioni specifiche per il benessere. Potrebbero esserci dei nuovi approcci adottabili dai programmi di certificazione in allevamento (e dall’industria alimentare) per promuovere dei miglioramenti del benessere degli animali d’allevamento. Ad esempio, in Austria vengono utilizzati con successo degli incentivi economici (uniti a consulenze e supporto tecnico) per ovviare al taglio del becco e al problema del beccaggio delle piume nelle galline ovaiole.333 Il settore dell’allevamento frequentemente può trovare al proprio interno le risposte ai suoi problemi di benessere animale, soprattutto se la situazione economica è in grado di favorire piuttosto che sfavorire i progressi e se gli agricoltori ricevono un sostegno adeguato.

Altri fattori di cambiamento: guardiamo al di là dei programmi di certificazione

Dalla nostra ricerca è emerso chiaramente come i cambiamenti relativi al benessere degli animali d’allevamento siano stati, e continueranno ad essere, promossi da una moltitudine di fattori e di protagonisti coinvolti. I programmi di certificazione sono una parte fondamentale di questo processo, ma non sono l’unica forza trainante e, effettivamente, potrebbero non essere sempre il metodo migliore per influenzare il benessere animale in tutti i vari settori. È necessario un approccio congiunto tra programmi di certificazione, industrie alimentari, governo, ricerca ed altri gruppi chiave coinvolti (comprese le ONG) al fine di promuovere un miglioramento del benessere degli animali e della domanda da parte dei consumatori. Come affermato da un intervistato esperto del settore:

“Per quanto riguarda la risoluzione di queste problematiche, vorrei sostenere l’impiego di strategie di settore/governo coordinate che facciano leva su tutto ciò che è in loro possesso – standard e monitoraggio dei programmi di certificazione aziendali, programmi di scambio delle conoscenze a livello di industria, aumento delle competenze dei consulenti e specifici requisiti di condizionalità.”

Evitare di focalizzare l’attenzione sui singoli aspetti

Le preoccupazioni in materia di ambiente e di benessere animali dovrebbero essere viste come tematiche strettamente correlate. Miglioramenti nel benessere degli animali possono contribuire allo sviluppo di una produzione più sostenibile e alla riduzione dell’impatto sull’ambiente. Quando si parla di benessere degli animali d’allevamento, troppo spesso ignoriamo la salute e il benessere delle persone che gestiscono e che si prendono cura di questi animali, molte volte per tutta la durata della loro vita. Invece questo è un aspetto di vitale importanza: il modo in cui le persone vengono motivate ed incentivate è un fattore cruciale in grado di determinare in che modo questi animali verranno accuditi e trattati. Il benessere degli animali d’allevamento è importante anche all’interno dell’attuale dibattito in materia di alimentazione e salute umana, cosa che – sebbene non sia l’obiettivo principale di questo lavoro- è comunque molto importante e da tenere sempre in considerazione.

Benessere degli animali d’allevamento ed etica: questioni irrisolte?

L’etica e il benessere animale sono due tematiche strettamente correlate. Quello che viene considerato accettabile o inaccettabile si basa in gran parte su valutazioni personali, ma queste possono venire influenzate dalla trasparenza, dalle coincidenze e dalla conoscenza reale che hanno le persone riguardo le condizioni che gli animali hanno apprezzato o patito durante la loro vita (e morte). È evidente che nel Regno Unito esistono molti milioni di persone che si occupano con passione del benessere degli animali in allevamento. Allo stesso modo, esistono milioni di soggetti i cui comportamenti ci suggeriscono come non siano eccessivamente preoccupati circa questo aspetto o che pensano di acquistare prodotti ottenuti con elevati standard di benessere anche quando in realtà non è così. È forse perché esiste la percezione (cosa sostenuta anche da alcuni esperti) che il Regno Unito sia in realtà all’avanguardia rispetto a molti altri paesi per quanto concerne il benessere degli animali d’allevamento? Oppure, se le persone nel Regno Unito fossero più informate su determinati aspetti, avrebbero maggiormente a cuore il benessere degli animali in allevamento? Le persone si preoccupano, ma in realtà sono informate a sufficienza? Ci sono alcuni aspetti riguardanti il benessere degli animali d’allevamento, come suggerito da qualcuno, che vengono deliberatamente nascosti o mascherati al “consumatore finale”? La gente solitamente afferma di essere interessata, ma nella realtà vuole veramente essere informata? Ne sono a conoscenza ma sentono di non essere in grado di prendersi cura di loro? Oppure le persone vorrebbero sapere semplicemente se i regolamenti e i programmi di certificazione adottati sono in grado di garantire almeno un livello minimo di benessere, in modo tale da non dover scegliere da soli, pensando di essere poco informati o qualificati per poterlo fare? Questa ricerca non aveva lo scopo di rispondere a tutte queste domande, semplicemente le proponiamo come considerazioni importanti alle quali pensare nei prossimi vent’anni.

Principali conclusioni

  • Le pressioni esercitate sul settore dell’allevamento, per soddisfare le continue richieste da parte della società di alimenti a basso costo, verranno esacerbate dalla crescita della popolazione, dai cambiamenti della dieta, dai vincoli sulle risorse e dalla necessità da parte di questo settore di adattarsi e di ridurre il suo contributo al cambiamento climatico. Le iniziative volte a ridurre l’impatto sul clima che si focalizzano sulla selezione di animali a crescita sempre più rapida o con rese elevate rischiano di destare, negli anni a venire, preoccupazioni nei sostenitori del benessere degli animali, essendo già oggi la salute e il benessere in allevamento compromessi da una selezione genetica che dà la priorità a tratti legati all’efficienza produttiva.
  • La maggior parte degli intervistati ritiene che i programmi di certificazione in allevamento e gli standard scelti dai venditori al dettaglio siano stati di aiuto e, in futuro, potrebbero contribuire a migliorare il benessere degli animali negli allevamenti. Da quando è stato introdotto nel 1994, il programma Freedom Food della RSPCA ha giocato un ruolo importante nel far raggiungere standard più elevati ad una percentuale significativa di animali nei diversi settori dell’allevamento. I programmi di certificazione biologica forniscono, in tutti i settori, standard più elevati ad un numero inferiore di animali mentre le aziende alimentari più all’avanguardia stanno assumendo un ruolo sempre più proattivo nel definire degli standard che superino quelli di base in un numero elevato di animali in alcuni settori.
  • L’enorme unanimità raggiunta tra gli esperti intervistati riguardava il fatto che il programma Freedom Food della RSPCA in futuro avrà un importante ruolo nel promuovere miglioramenti del benessere animale, sia nel Regno Unito che a livello internazionale. Da un punto di vista critico va sottolineato però che questo programma non dovrebbe adagiarsi sugli allori: dovrebbe infatti sempre perseguire il miglioramento della qualità del benessere e dovrebbe cercare di utilizzare la sua influenza per raggiungere il massimo risultato.
  • Anche se i programmi di certificazione e le industrie alimentari leader stanno contribuendo all’innalzamento degli standard, la genetica animale spinge sempre più spesso nella direzione opposta, così che sono necessari degli standard, una gestione e un’alimentazione degli animali sempre maggiori per riuscire a raggiungere un livello equivalente di benessere. Quindi, in un certo senso, lavoriamo sodo ma rimaniamo fermi al punto di partenza. Alcuni recenti cambiamenti negli obiettivi di selezione di alcune specie (ad esempio nei bovini da latte), partendo dai parametri sulla produttività fino a quelli incentrati sulla salute e sul benessere, ci fanno essere ottimisti.
  • Negli ultimi anni, in qualche modo l’attenzione si è spostata dai sistemi di allevamento e dagli input standard adottati verso altre valutazioni e si è cercato di incentivare la presa in considerazione degli esiti del benessere. Ci aspettiamo che questa tendenza continui e progredisca velocemente nel tempo. Lo sviluppo e l’adozione di nuovi approcci sul benessere, basati sulla valutazione degli esiti, saranno probabilmente promossi dallo sviluppo di nuove tecnologie automatizzate utili nel determinare la salute e il benessere degli animali.
  • Come evolveranno in futuro i sistemi di allevamento è ad oggi incerto. Tuttavia, è ragionevole aspettarsi che alcune delle problematiche attuali (economiche, sociali ed ambientali) si accentueranno sempre di più e ne emergeranno delle nuove che in pochi avranno previsto.

Raccomandazioni

  • È necessario sviluppare un approccio coordinato tra il settore dell’allevamento, i programmi di certificazione, le industrie alimentari, le organizzazioni per la protezione degli animali, il governo e la ricerca, per poter indirizzare e monitorare i progressi ottenuti in favore del benessere degli animali d’allevamento e la consapevolezza dei consumatori.
  • Il benessere degli animali d’allevamento deve essere tenuto in considerazione appieno, non solo come entità importante di per sé, ma anche come parte di una visione integrata del futuro. Dobbiamo orientarci verso una visione condivisa fatta di sistemi di produzione alimentari e di allevamenti equi, sani, umani e sostenibili dal punto di vista ambientale.
  • Il Regno Unito dovrebbe cercare di far riemergere la sua posizione storica di guida nel promuovere il benessere degli animali in allevamento. I timori riguardanti la competitività non dovrebbero permettere che questa nazione perda terreno su questioni relative al benessere, mentre altri paesi (Europei e non) continuano a fare progressi nel miglioramento degli standard. Il Regno Unito dovrebbe cercare di promuovere ulteriori miglioramenti degli standard di benessere e di incoraggiare gli altri paesi ad adottarli, in modo tale che il contesto commerciale globale diventi un’opportunità per una “corsa verso i massimi livelli” piuttosto che “verso livelli più bassi”.
  • I programmi di certificazione dovrebbero essere in grado di (1) stabilire dei parametri utili a favorire il benessere degli animali in allevamento e (2) di collaborare con i partner all’interno di tutta la filiera alimentare, al fine di garantire che i loro standard vengano tradotti in risultati positivi (e in un miglioramento) in termini di benessere. In questo contesto, il programma Freedom Food dell’RSPCA dovrebbe cercare di sfruttare maggiormente la sua influenza (diffondendosi anche a livello internazionale) per ottenere dei risultati migliori nello stabilire gli standard di riferimento per i sistemi di vendita al dettaglio nazionali e per quelle specie dove i tassi di penetrazione sono attualmente inferiori.

Ringraziamenti

Gli autori vorrebbero ringraziare le seguenti persone per aver gentilmente contribuito, con il loro tempo e con la loro esperienza, a questa ricerca.

Interviste complete

  • Professore Richard Bennett, Università di Reading
  • Helen Browning, Soil Association
  • Professore Henry Buller, Università di Exeter
  • Dr Abi Burns, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
  • Sue Ellis, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
  • Jane King, Farmers Weekly
  • Senior representative from sustainable food research and development organisation
  • Sue Lockhart, Sainsbury’s
  • Philip Lymbery, Compassion in World Farmingvi
  • Professor David Main, Università di Bristolvi
  • Catherine McLaughlin, National Farmers Union (NFU)
  • Dr Julia Wrathall, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)vi

Interviste su tematiche complementari specie-specifiche

  • Professore Emerito Donald Broom, Università di Cambridge
  • Professoressa Cathy Dwyer, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC)
  • Professoressa Sandra Edwards, Università di Newcastle
  • Casella di testoDr Pete Goddard, Hutton Institute
  • Chris Lloyd, English Beef and Lamb Executive (EBLEX)
  • Professoressa Christine Nicol, Università di Bristol
  • Professore Emerito John Webster, Università di Bristol
  • Dr John Webster, Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation
  • Mark Williams, British Egg Industry Council (BEIC)

Individui che ci hanno fornito informazioni aggiuntive

  • Chris Atkinson, Soil Association
  • Ian Burgess, The Co-operative
  • Lucinda Cobb, Lidl
  • Martin Doherty, Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB)
  • Sarah Harriss, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
  • Caroline Miller, Aldi
  • Emily Scott, Sainsbury’s
vi Questi individui sono stati intervistati completamente e gli sono state poste anche domande specie-specifiche

Vorremmo anche ringraziare il Freedom Food e l’RSPCA’S Farm Animals Department, oltre a Kate Rawles, membro del Food Ethics Council, per il suo contributo come consulente. Vorremmo ricordare il rapporto McNair – un’inchiesta indipendente commissionata dalla RSPCA sul programma di certificazione del benessere animale Freedom Food – che su alcuni aspetti ha tratto conclusioni simili alle nostre. I contenuti di questo report sono sotto la responsabilità degli autori. L’inserimento di un elenco di partecipanti non implica una loro approvazione delle opinioni e dei consigli contenuti nel presente documento.

Gli Autori

Heather Pickett (pickett@animalwelfareresearch.com) è un consulente indipendente per il benessere animale, disponibile come freelance per ricerche, analisi e redazione di relazioni nei campi del benessere animale, della sostenibilità ambientale, della salute umana, della nutrizione e della politica alimentare.

Dan Crossley è il direttore esecutivo del Food Ethics Council (www.foodethicscouncil.org), un’organizzazione benefica riconosciuta che lavora per costruire sistemi alimentari equi e resilienti che rispettino le persone, gli animali e il pianeta, aiutando le industrie alimentari, il governo e la società civile a fronteggiare i problemi etici che influenzano i processi decisionale relativi al cibo e all’allevamento.

Chris Sutton è direttore di Purple Dot (www.purpledot.org) e Ricercatore Associato presso il Food Ethics Council. Purple Dot supporta e mette in contatto le persone, le imprese e le organizzazioni facendole lavorare insieme per dar vita ad un’economia più equa e sostenibile e conduce ricerche politiche basate su valori ed analisi di mercato.

Gli autori vorrebbero ringraziare tutti gli individui che hanno partecipato a questa ricerca.

Riferimenti

  1. Defra (2014) Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2013. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315103/auk-2013-29may14.pdf (accessed 29.06.14)
  2. Ibid. Reference 1.
  3. Calculated from Defrastatistics for populations/slaughterings from Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2013, (Ibid. Reference 1), and poultryplacings from: https:// www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/317345/poultry-placings-05jun14.xls (accessed 24.06.14)
  4. Compassion in World Farming (1995) The Export of Live Farm Animals. Petersfield, UK.
  5. Compassion in World Farming (2000) Live Exports: A Cruel and Archaic Trade that Must be Ended. Petersfield, UK. OiE (2014) Number of cases of bovine spongiformencephalopathy (BSE) reported in the United Kingdom.
  6. http://www.oie.int/animal-health-in-the-world/bse-specific-data/number-ofcases-in-the-united-kingdom/ (accessed 8.11.13)
  7. FAWC (2014) Opinion on the welfare of farmed fish. Farm Animal Welfare Committee, London, UK.
  8. Ibid. Reference 7.
  9. 2012 data from DEFRA (2013) Numbers of holdings and land areas/livestock numbers by size group. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/245418/structure-june-UKsizebands-27sep13.xls (accessed 23.06.14). 1994 data supplied by Defra upon request.
  10. Ibid. Reference 9.
  11. Ibid. Reference 9.
  12. BPEX/AHDB (2014) The BPEX Yearbook 2013-2014. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Warwickshire, UK.
  13. Weber, R., Keli, N., Fehr, M. and Horat, R. (2007) Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates. Animal Welfare, 16: 277-279.
  14. EFSA (2007) Scientific Report on animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets. Annex to the EFSA Journal, 572: 1-13.
  15. EFSA (2007) Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets. The EFSA Journal, 572: 1-13.
  16. Havenstein, G.B., Ferket, P.R., Scheideler, S.E. & Larson, B.T. (1994) Growth, livability, and feed conversion of 1957 vs 1991 broilerswhenfed ‘typical’ 1957 and 1991 broilerdiets. Poultry Science, 73: 1785-94.
  17. Aviagen (2012) ArborAcres Plus: Broiler Performance Objectives. http://en.aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/AA_Broiler/AA-BroilerPerfObj2012R1.pdf (Accessed 08.07.14)
  18. Op. Cit. Reference 1.
  19. Op. Cit. Reference 1.
  20. DEFRA (2014) Average liveweights at point of slaughter in England & Wales. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/317344/poultry-slaughter-05jun14.xls and https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3173 5/poultry-placings-05jun14.xls (accessed 24.06.14)
  21. Op. Cit. Reference 1.
  22. SCAHAW (2000) The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers). Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, adopted

21 March 2000. http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf (accessed 08.07.14) 

  1. Kestin, S. C., Knowles, T. G., Tinch, A. E. & Gregory, N. G. (1992) Prevalence of legweakness in broilerchickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record, 131: 190-194.
  2. Knowles, T. G., Kestin, S. C., Haslam, S. M., Brown, S. N., Green, L. E., Butterworth, A., Pope, S. J., Pfeiffer, D. and Nicol, C. J. (2008) Leg disorders in broilerchickens: prevalence, risk factors and prevention. PLoS ONE 3 (2): e1545. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0001545.
  3. Op. Cit. Reference 1.
  4. FAWC (1997) Report on the Welfare of Laying Hens. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London, UK. http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/layhens/lhgretoc.htm (accessed 08.07.14)
  5. Defra (2009) Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2009. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK.
  6. ISA (2013) ISA Brown commercial layer production chart. http://www.isapoultry. com/products/isa/isa-brown/~/media/Files/ISA/ISA%20product%20information/ISA/Commercials/201112%20ISA%20Brown%20CS%20laying%20chart.ashx (accessed 25.11.13)
  7. ISA (2013) Animal Welfare. http://www.isapoultry.com/breeding/animal-welfare/ (accessed 25.11.13)
  8. Budgell, K.L. & Silversides, F.G. (2004) Bone breakage in threestrains of end-of-layhens. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 84: 745-747.
  9. Hocking, P.M., Bain, M., Channing, C.E., Fleming, R. & Wilson, S. (2003) Geneticvariation for egg production, eggquality and bone strength in selected and traditional breeds of layingfowl. BritishPoultry Science, 44: 365-373.
  10. Gregory, N.G., Wilkins, L.J., Eleperuma, S.D., Ballantyne, A.J. & Overfield, N.D. (1990) Broken bones in domestic fowls: effect of husbandry system and stunning method in end-of-lay hens. British Poultry Science, 31: 59-69.
  11. Defra (2008) Detection, causation and potential alleviation of bone damage in layinghenshoused in non-cage systems. Research Project AW0234. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default. aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=2&ProjectID=12670 (accessed 25.11.13)
  12. Op. Cit. Reference 1.
  13. EFSA (2009) Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the European Commission on welfare of dairy cows. The EFSA Journal, 1143: 1-38.
  14. Ibid. Reference 35.
  15. FAWC (1997) Report on the welfare of dairy cattle. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London, UK.
  16. FAWC (2009) Opinion on the welfare of the dairy cow. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London, UK.
  17. Marine Science Scotland (2013) Annual fish farm production survey 2012. http:// www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/09/9210/downloads#res433470 (accessed 16.04.14)
  18. FAO (2014) Fishstat database: Global Aquaculture Production, http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-aquaculture-production/query/en and Global Capture Production http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-capture-production/ query/en (accessed 24.06.14)
  19. Defra (2009) Pig and Poultry Farm Practices Survey 2009 – England. http:// webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130315143000/http://www.defra.gov.uk/ statistics/files/FPS2009-pigspoultry.pdf (accessed 25.11.13)
  20. Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal L 316: 36-38, 01.12.01. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:316:0036:0038:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  21. EFSA (2007) Scientific Report on animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. Annex to the EFSA Journal, 564: 1-14.
  22. Hendriks, H.J.M & van de Weerdhof, A.M. (1999) Dutch Notes on BAT for Pig and Poultry Intensive Livestock Farming. Information Centre for Environmental Licensing, The Hague, Netherlands.
  23. Op. Cit. Reference 41.
  24. Note that the earlier survey was for the UK and the later survey was for England, which has more than 80% of the pigs in the UK.
  25. FAWC (2011) Opinion on mutilations and environmental enrichment in piglets and growing pigs. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London, UK.
  26. BPEX (2008) Structure of the UK pig industry. British Pig Executive, Economic and Policy Analysis Group.
  27. The Meat Site (2012) One in four UK broilers from alternative systems, 16.03.2012. http://www.themeatsite.com/meatnews/17194/one-in-four-uk-broilers-fromalternative- systems (accessed 25.11.13)
  28. Kells, A., Dawkins, M.S. & Cortina Borja (2001) The effect of a ‘Freedom Food’ enrichment on the behaviour of broilers on commercial farms. Animal Welfare, 10: 347-356.
  29. Bailie, C.L., Ball, M.E.E., O’Connell, N.E. (2013) Influence of the provision of natural light and strawbales on activity levels and leg health in commercial broilerchickens. Animal, 7: 618-626.
  30. Defra (2007) The UK turkey and geese production industry: A short study. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. http://archive. defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/industry/sectors/eggspoultry/documents/turkeygeese- report.pdf (accessed 08.07.14)
  31. Op. Cit. Reference 41.
  32. Jones, T.A., Waitt, C.D. & Dawkins, M.S. (2009) Water off a duck’s back: Showers and troughs match ponds for improving duck welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 116: 52-57.
  33. Cooper, J.J., McAfee, L., Skinn, H. (2002) . Behavioral responses of domestic ducks to nipple drinkers, bell drinkers and water troughs. British Poultry Science 43, 17–18, cited in Jones, T.A., Waitt, C.D. & Dawkins, M.S. (2009) (Op. Cit. Reference 54).
  34. Defra (2013) Eggstatistics. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/255271/eggs-packers-07nov13.xls (accessed 25.02.14)
  35. Defra (2012) Farm Practices Survey Autumn 2012 – England. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181719/defra-statsfoodfarm-environ-fps-statsrelease-autumn2012edition-130328.pdf (accessed 25.02.14)
  36. Roberts, D. (2013) Housing management of dairy cows in the UK. SRUC Housed Dairy Cow Conference.
  37. EFSA (2009) Scientific Report of EFSA prepared by the Animal Health and Animal Welfare Unit on the effects of farming systems on dairy cow welfare and disease. Annex to the EFSA Journal, 1143: 1-7.
  38. Barker ZE, Leach KA, Whay HR, Bell NJ and Main DCJ (2010) Assessment of lameness prevalence and associated risk factors in dairy herds in England and Wales. Journal of Dairy Science, 93: 932-941.
  39. Haskell MJ, Rennie LJ, Bowell VA, Bell MJ and Lawrence AB (2006) Housing system, milk production, and zero-grazing effects on lameness and leginjury in dairycows. Journal of Dairy Science, 89: 4259-4266.
  40. FAWC (1996) Report on the welfare of farmed fish. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London, UK.
  41. Op. Cit. Reference 10.
  42. Taylor, J. F., Sambraus, F., Mota-Velasco, J., Guy, D. R., Hamilton, A., Hunter, D., Corrigan, D. & Migaud, H. (2013) Ploidy and family effects on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) growth, deformity and harvest quality during a full commercial production cycle. Aquaculture, 410/411: 41-50.
  43. Op. Cit. Reference 10.
  44. Beyond Calf Exports Stakeholders Forum (2013) The modern solution to the export of calves: Working in black and white. A final report on progress. http://calfforum.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Microsites/CalfForum/Documents/Calf_Forum_Final_Report_2013.pdf (accessed 13.02.14)
  45. Data from AHDB database, supplied by Martin Doherty, Senior Analyst, Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.
  46. FSA (2013) Approved red, poultry and game meat establishments. http://www.food. gov.uk/enforcement/sectorrules/meatplantsprems/meatpremlicence (accessed 28.11.13)
  47. EFSA (2004) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main commercial species of animals (Question N° EFSA- Q-2003-093) adopted on the 15th of June 2004. The EFSA Journal, 45: 1-29.
  48. Ibid. Reference 69.
  49. Op. Cit. Reference 62.
  50. FAWC (2014) Opinion on the welfare of farmed fish at the time of killing. Farm Animal Welfare Committee, London, UK.
  51. Op. Cit. Reference 1.
  52. BPEX/AHDB (2014) Pig Pocketbook 2014. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Warwickshire, UK.
  53. EuropeanCommission (2007) Attitudes of EU citizens towardsanimal welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270, March 2007. EU Health and Consumer Protection Directorate. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf (accessed 10.12.13)
  54. PPG (2007) The opportunities and challenges of running a responsible UK food and drink business. The Plough to Plate Group, Business in the Community, London. http://www.bitc.org.uk/princes_programmes/rural_action/future_of_british_ food_and_farming/plough_to_plate.html (accessed 08.07.14)
  55. EFSA (2010) Food-related risks. Special Eurobarometer 354, November 2010. European Food Safety Authority. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/factsheet/docs/ reporten.pdf and http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/factsheet/docs/ebuken.pdf (accessed 10.12.13)
  56. IGD (2011) Shopper attitudes to animal welfare. A report for Freedom Food by IGD. Institute of Grocery Distribution.
  57. Op. Cit. Reference 77.
  58. EuropeanCommission (2005) Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmedanimals. Special Eurobarometer 229, June 2005. EU Health and Consumer Protection Directorate. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_ en.pdf (accessed 10.12.13)
  59. Clonan, A., Holdsworth, M. Swift, J. and Wilson, P. (2010) UK Consumers Priorities for Sustainable Food Purchases, paper presented to The 84th Annual Conference of the AgriculturalEconomics Society, Edinburgh, March, 2011.
  60. Sky News (2006) Pair played baseball with live turkeys, 07.09.2006. http://news.sky. com/story/452657/pair-played-baseball-with-live-turkeys (accessed 08.07.14)
  61. Welfare of Calves Regulations 1987. Statutory Instruments 1987, No. 2021. http:// www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1987/2021/made (accessed 13.02.14)
  62. Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC. Official Journal L 340: 17, 11.12.91. http://eur lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1991L0628:20070105:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  63. The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990. Statutory Instruments 1990, No. 2628. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/2628/made (accessed 13.02.14)
  64. Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. Official Journal L 340: 21, 31.12.93. http://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1993:340:0021:0034:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  65. The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995. Statutory Instruments 1995, No. 731. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/731/made (accessed 13.02.14)
  66. Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 91/628/ EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport. Official Journal L 148: 52, 30.06.95. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ: L:1995:148:0052:0063:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  67. Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Official Journal L 221: 23, 08.08.98.. http://eur-lex.europa. eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:221:0023:0027:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  68. The Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991. Statutory Instruments 1991, No. 1477. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/1477/made (accessed 13.02.14)
  69. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000. Statutory Instruments 2000, No. 1870. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1870/made (accessed 13.02.14)
  70. Op. Cit. Reference 42.
  71. Council Regulation (EC) No. 5/2001 of 19 December 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs. Official Journal L 2: 1, 05.01.01. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:002:0001:0003:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  72. Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/ EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal L 316: 1, 01.12.01. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ: L:2001:316:0001:0004:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  73. The Animal Welfare Act 2006. 2006 Chapter 45. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2006/45 (accessed 13.02.14)
  74. Council Directive 97/2/EC of 20 January 1997 amending Directive 91/629/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves. Official Journal L 25: 24, 28.01.97. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ: L:1997:025:0024:0025:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  75. Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and Regulation (EC) No. 1255/97. Official Journal L 3: 1, 05.01.05. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:003:0001:0044:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  76. The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007. Statutory Instruments 2007, No. 1100, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1100/made (accessed 13.02.14)
  77. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. Statutory Instruments 2007, No. 2078. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2078/contents/made (accessed 13.02.14)
  78. Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production. Official Journal L 182: 19, 12.07.07. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ: L:2007:182:0019:0028:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  79. Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007 (2007/C 306/01). Official Journal, 306: 1-271, 17.12.07.
  80. Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal L 203: 53, 03.08.99. http://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:203:0053:0057:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  81. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Official Journal L 303: 1, 18.11.09. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:303:0001:0030:EN:PDF (accessed 13.02.14)
  82. Op. Cit. Reference 94.
  83. FAWC (2001) Interim report on the animal welfare implications of farm assurance schemes. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London, UK. http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/farmassurance.pdf (accessed 07.02.14)
  84. Food Safety Act 1990. 1990 Chapter 16. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/1990/16/enacted (accessed 30.01.14)
  85. Exceptwhereotherwisespecified, alldates are taken from: AFS (2012) Farm Assurance. http://assurance.redtractor.org.uk/resources/000/672/900/FINAL_ Farm_Assurance_Student_Presentation.pptx and AFS (2012) Farm Assurance Presentation Notes. http://assurance.redtractor.org.uk/resources/000/672/902/ Accompanying_Lecture_Notes.pdf (accessed 10.12.13)
  86. Knowles, T., Moody, R. & McEachern, M.G. (2007) European food scares and their impact on EU food policy. British Food Journal, 109: 43-67.
  87. QualityMeat Scotland (2012) Quality Assurance. http://www.scotchbeefandlamb. com/en/pgi-promise/quality-assurance/ (accessed 30.01.14)
  88. Op. Cit. Reference 106.
  89. John Webster, Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, personal communication, 2013.
  90. Op. Cit. Reference 6.
  91. Knowles, T., Moody, R. & McEachern, M.G. (2007) European food scares and their impact on EU food policy. British Food Journal, 109: 43-67.
  92. PR Newswire (2013) British turkey raises the standard. http://www.prnewswire. co.uk/news-releases/british-turkey-raises-the-standard-156210715.html (accessed 08.07.14)
  93. AFS (2013) Quality British Turkey joins the Red Tractor Scheme. http://www. redtractor.org.uk/quality-british-turkey-joins-the-red-tractor-scheme (accessed 10.12.13)
  94. Griffiths, R. (2012) Assurance Scheme standards developed for duck meat production. British Poultry Council, 13.09.2012. http://www.britishpoultry.org.uk/ assurance-scheme-standards-developed-for-duck-meat-production/ (accessed 10.12.13)
  95. Ibid. Reference 116.
  96. Kilbride, A.L., Mason, S.A., Honeyman, P.C., Pritchard, D.G., Hepple, S. & Green, L.E. (2012) Associationsbetween membership of farm assurance and organic certification schemes and compliance with animal welfare legislation. Veterinary Record, 170: 152.
  97. FAWC (2013) Review of the implications for animal welfare of farm assurance schemes. Farm Animal Welfare Committee, London, UK. http://www.defra.gov. uk/fawc/files/Review-of-the-implications-for-animal-welfare-of-farm-assuranceschemes. pdf (accessed 07.02.14)
  98. Ibid. Reference 119.
  99. Industry data for pigs, meatpoultry, cattle and sheep taken from Red Tractor (2012) Annual Review. http://www.redtractor.org.uk/documentdownload. axd?documentresourceid=95 (accessed 08.07.14). Industry data for laying hens supplied by Mark Williams, British Egg Industry Council, personal communication, 2013. Industry data for salmon supplied by John Webster, Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation, personal communication, 2013.
  100. Freedom Food data calculated based on surveyed animal numbers at most recent inspection (as at 28.01.14) as a proportion of UK surveyed populations at June 2013, except laying hens, which are as a proportion of layer chicks placed in the UK in 2013; turkeys, which are as a proportion of half the number of turkey poults placed in the UK in 2013 (i.e. assuming two ‘crops’ reared per year); and salmon, which are tonnage as a proportion of SEPA consented biomass.
  101. Organic data from Defra (2014) Organicstatistics 2013 – United Kingdom. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/317368/organics-series-05jun14.xls (accessed 24.06.14); exceptfish data, which are from Marine Science Scotland (2013) Annualfish farm production survey 2012. http:// www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/09/9210/downloads#res433470 (accessed 16.04.14)
  102. PigWorld (2013) NPA opposesteeth clipping ban. Pig World, December 2013, p16.
  103. YouGov (2012) Awareness research for Freedom Food. Total sample size was 2150 adults. Fieldworkwasundertakenbetween 5th – 7th November 2012. The survey was carried out online. The figureshavebeen weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).
  104. Op. Cit. Reference 78.
  105. Op. Cit. Reference 105
  106. Pagazaurtundua, A. & Warriss, P.D. (2006) Levels of footpaddermatitis in boiler chickensreared in 5 different systems. BritishPoultry Science, 47: 529-532.
  107. Cooper, M.D. & Wrathall, J.H.M. (2010) Assurance schemes as a tool to tackle genetic welfare problems in farm animals: broilers. Animal Welfare, 19(S): 51-56.
  108. Main, D.C.J., Whay, H.R., Green, L.E. & Webster, A.J.F. (2003) Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on the welfare of dairycattle. Veterinary Record, 153: 227-231.
  109. RSPCA (2013) Broiler Welfare Assessment Protocol. http://www.rspca.org.uk/ ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232733616006&mode=prd (accessed 28.02.14)
  110. Op.Cit. Reference 125.
  111. Op. Cit. Reference 78.
  112. Op. Cit. Reference 80.
  113. Op. Cit. Reference 78.
  114. Oxford University (2014) Organic farms support more species, 04.02.2014. http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2014/140204.html (accessed 15.04.14)
  115. Knage-Rasmussen, K.M., Houe, H. Rousing, T. & Sorensen, J.T. (2014) Herd- and sowrelated risk factors for lameness in organic and conventionalsowherds. Animal, 8: 121-127.
  116. Millet, S., Cox, E., Buyse, J., Goddeeris, B.M. & Janssens, G.P.J. (2005) Immunocompetence of fatteningpigsfedorganic versus conventionaldiets in organic versus conventional housing. Veterinary Journal, 169: 293-299.
  117. Rutherford, K.M., Langford, F.M., Jack, M.C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A.B. & Haskell, M.J. (2009) Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom. The Veterinary Journal, 180: 95-105.
  118. Barker, Z.E., Leach, K.A., Whay, H.R., Bell, N.J. & Main, D.C.J. (2010) Assessment of lameness prevalence and associated risk factors in dairy herds in England and Wales. Journal of Dairy Science, 93: 932-941.
  119. Dippel, S., Dolezal, M., Brenninkmeyer, C., Brinkmann, J., March, S., Knierim, U. & Winckler, C. (2009) Risk factors for lameness in freestall-houseddairycowsacrosstwobreeds, farming systems, and countries. Journal of Dairy Science, 92: 5476-5486.
  120. Rutherford, K.M.D., Langford, F.M., Jack, M.C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A.B. & Haskell, M.J. (2008) Hock injury prevalence and associated risk factors on organic and nonorganic dairy farms in the United Kingdom. Journal of Dairy Science. 91: 2265–2274.
  121. Hovi, M. & Roderick, S. (1998) Mastitis therapy in organicdairyherds. Proceedings of the BritishMastitis Conference 1998, pp. 29-35. Axient/Institute for Animal Health, Milk Development Council/Novartis Animal Health.
  122. Fall, N. & Emanuelson, U. (2009) Milk yield, udder health and reproductive performance in Swedish organic and conventional dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science, 76: 402-410.
  123. Ellis, K.A., Mihm, M., Innocent, G., Cripps, P., McLean, W.G., Howard, C.V. & Grove-White, D.G. (2006) Milk hygienequality and clinicalmastitisincidence on UK conventional and organicdairyfarms. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on VeterinaryEpidemiology and Economics, Cairns, Australia.
  124. Hamilton, C., Emanuelson, U., Forslund, K. & Hansson, I. (2006) Mastitis and related management factors in certified organic dairy herds in Sweden. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 48: 11.
  125. Napolitano, F., Rosa, G. de, Ferrante, V., Grasso, F. & Braghieri, A. (2009) Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method. Small Ruminant Research, 83: 49-57.
  126. Ferrante, V., Lolli, S., Vezzoli, G. & Cavalchini, L.G. (2009) Effects of two different rearing systems (organic and barn) on production performance, animal welfare traits and egg quality characteristics in laying hens. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8: 165-174.
  127. Niebuhr, K., Zaludik, K., Baumung, R. Lugmair, A. & Troxler, J. (2005) Injuriouspecking in free-range and organiclayinghensflocks in Austria. Animal Science Papers and Reports, 23(S1): 195-201.
  128. Op. Cit. Reference 33
  129. Tuyttens, F., Heyndrickx, M., De Boeck, M., Moreels, A., Van Nuffel, A., Van Poucke, E., Van Coillie, E., Van Dongen, S. & Lens, L. (2005) Comparison of broiler chicken health and welfare in organic versus traditional production systems. Animal Science Papers and Reports, 23(S1): 217-222.
  130. Ibid. Reference 151.
  131. Ibid. Reference 151.
  132. Broom, D.M. & Reefmann, N. (2005) Chicken welfare asindicated by lesions on carcases in supermarkets. BritishPoultry Science, 46: 407-414.
  133. Ibid. Reference 151.
  134. Op. Cit. Reference 128.
  135. Op. Cit. Reference 125.
  136. Op. Cit. Reference 78.
  137. Leapfrog Research/Organic UK, cited in SoilAssociation (2013) Organic Market Report 2013. http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=whbpEnZUd7A%3d&tabid=1984 (accessed 09.07.14)
  138. KantarWorldpanel, cited in EBLEX/AHDB (2013) UK Yearbook 2013 – Cattle. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. http://www.eblex.org.uk/ wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/m_uk_yearbook13_Cattle110713.pdf (accessed 08.07.14)
  139. Op. Cit. Reference 78.
  140. Op. Cit. Reference 119.
  141. J Sainsbury plc (2014) Animal Welfare. http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/ responsibility/20×20/animal-welfare/ (accessed 14.07.14)
  142. BEIS (2014) Egg industry data. British Egg Information Service. http://www.egginfo. co.uk/industry-data (accessed 27.02.14)
  143. Defra (2013) Family Food 2012. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK.
  144. Amos, N. & Sullivan, R. (2013) The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare 2013 Report. Compassion in World Farming and World Society for the Protection of Animals. http://www.bbfaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BBFAWReport- 2013.pdf (accessed 27.02.14)
  145. Op. Cit. Reference 119.
  146. RSPCA (2011) Indicator: Chickens. Political Animal. http://www.politicalanimal.org. uk/RSPCA/Farm%20chickens.pdf (accessed 10.12.13)
  147. Ibid. Reference 168.
  148. J Sainsbury plc (2014) Sainsbury’s goes the egg-stra mile for happy hens, Sainsbury’s press release 13.02.2012. http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/media/lateststories/ 2012/20120213-sainsburys-goes-the-egg-stra-mile-for-happy-hens/ (accessed 30.06.14)
  149. Co-op (2009) The Co-operative Sustainability Report 2009: Focus on Sustainability. The Co-operative, Manchester, UK.
  150. Co-op (2010) Join the Revolution: Sustainability Report 2010. The Co-operative, Manchester, UK.
  151. Ibid. Reference 172.
  152. Co-op (2011) Inspiring through Co-operation: Sustainability Report 2011. The Cooperative, Manchester, UK.
  153. Op. Cit. Reference 170.
  154. FAWC (2009) Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London, UK
  155. Ibid. Reference 176.
  156. Ibid. Reference 176.
  157. Ibid. Reference 176.
  158. Alsoaddressed in: Nasr, M., Murrell, J., Wilkins, L., and Nicol C. (2012) The effect of keelfractures on egg-production parameters, mobility and behaviour in individuallayinghens. Animal Welfare, 21:127-135.
  159. BPEX (2011) 20:20 Pig Health and Welfare – a vision for 2020. http://www.bpex.org.uk/downloads/301566/299810/2020%20Pig%20Health%20and%20Welfare.pdf (accessed 08.07.14)
  160. EFSA/AHAW (2014) Scientific opinion concerning a multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non-animal-based measures to assess the welfare of pigs. EFSA Journal, 12(5): 3702.
  161. FAWC (2008) FAWC Report on the implication of castration and tail docking for the welfare of lambs. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London, UK
  162. Mul, M., Vermeij, I., Hindle, V. & Spoolder, H. (2010) EU – Welfare Legislation on Pigs. Report 273. Wageningen UR Livestock Research. Lelystad, The Netherlands.
  163. Op. Cit. Reference 10.
  164. Op. Cit. Reference 10.
  165. AWIN (2014) Animal Welfare Indicators. http://www.animal-welfare-indicators.net/ site/ (accessed 16.04.14)
  166. Berrill, I. K., Cooper, T., MacIntyre, C. M., Ellis, T., Knowles, T. G., Jones, E. K. & Turnbull, J. F. (2012) Achieving consensus on current and future priorities for farmedfish welfare: a case study from the UK. FishPhysiology and Biochemistry, 38: 219-229.
  167. Beddington J. (2009) Food, energy, water and the climate: a perfectstorm of global events? Government Office for Science. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http:/www.bis.gov.uk/assets/goscience/docs/p/perfect-stormpaper. pdf (accessed 08.07.14)
  168. Data from UN/ESA (2013) World Population Prospects – The 2012 Revision Dataset–“Total Population – Both Sexes”. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm (accessed 21.01.14)
  169. Ibid. Reference 190.
  170. Johansson, Å., Guillemette, Y. & Murtin, F. (2012) Looking to 2060: Long-Term Global Growth Prospects: A Going for Growth Report, OECD Economic Policy Papers, 03. http://www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/2060%20policy%20paper%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 08.07.14).
  171. Data from United States Energy Information Administration (2013). International Energy Outlook 2013. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO 2013&subject=0-IEO2013&table=1-IEO2013&region=0-0&cases=Reference-d041117. (Accessed 22.01.14)
  172. Foresight (2011) The Future of Food and Farming. Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, London.
  173. Popkin. B. (2001) The Nutrition Transition and Obesity in the Developing World. The Journal of Nutrition 131: 871-873S.
  174. Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. (2013). World agriculturetowards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. Agricultural Development EconomicsDivision. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
  175. EuropeanCommission (2014) Fisheries – Aquaculture. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/index_en.htm (Accessed 27.02.2014)
  176. EuropeanCommission (2009) Building a sustainable future for aquaculture – A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of EuropeanAquaculture. Communication from the Commission to the EuropeanParliament and Council. COM(2009) 162 final.
  177. World Bank (2013) Fish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture. World Bank report number 83177-GLB. Washington DC 200. Ibid. Reference 199.
  178. Waite, R. Beveridge, M., Brummett, R., Castine, S., Chaiyawannakarn, N, Kaushik, S., Mungkung, R., Nawapakpilai, S. & Phillips, M. (2014) Improvingproductivity and environmental performance of aquaculture. Working paper, Creating a Sustainable Food Future (5). World Resources Institute, Washington DC.
  179. FAOstat database. http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed 24.06.14)
  180. FAO Fishstat database. http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global aquacultureproduction/query/en and http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-captureproduction/query/en (accessed 24.06.14)
  181. Op. Cit. Reference 196.
  182. Op. Cit. Reference 199.
  183. IPCC (2013) “Summary for Policymakers”, . In Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
  184. Garnett, T. (2008) Cooking up a storm: Food, greenhouse gas emissions and our changing climate. Food Climate Research Network. Centre for Environmental Strategy. University of Surrey.
  185. Op. Cit. Reference 194.
  186. Fairlie, S (2010) Meat – a benignextravagance. East Meon: Permanent Publications
  187. Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G. (2013) Tacklingclimate change throughlivestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
  188. Natural England (2008) “3. Biodiversity”, in State of the Natural Environment 2008. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/60043 (accessed 09.01.14.)
  189. ADAS (2007) The Environmental Impact of Livestock Production. Report for Defra FFG. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/documents/envimpacts- livestock.pdf (accessed 08.07.14)
  190. Ibid. Reference 212.
  191. Op. Cit. Reference 194.
  192. Lang, T. & Barling, D. (2012) Food security and food sustainability: reformulating the debate. The Geographical Journal, 178 (4): 313-326.
  193. Garnett, T.& Godfray, C. (2012). Sustainableintensification in agriculture. Navigating a coursethroughcompeting food system priorities, Food Climate Research Network and the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of Oxford, UK. http://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/SI_report_final.pdf (accessed 08.07.2014)
  194. Op. Cit. Reference 194.
  195. EFRA (2014) Second Report: Food Security. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, House of Commons. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm201415/cmselect/cmenvfru/243/24302.htm (accessed 04.07.14).
  196. EuropeanCommission (2013). Prospects for AgriculturalMarkets and Income in the EU 2013-2023. Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. December 2013.
  197. Defra (2012) Paper 4: Industry Action. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69616/greenhouse-gas-agriculture-industryaction-20121122.pdf (accessed 02.01.14)
  198. EBLEX (2009) Change in the air – The English Beef and Sheep Production Roadmap, Phase 1. http://www.eblex.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Change-inthe-Air.pdf (accessed 08.07.2014)
  199. BPEX (2011) Advancing Together: A Roadmap for the English Pig Industry – Towards Better Performance. http://smartstore.bpex.org.uk/articles/dodownload.asp?a=smartstore.bpex.org.uk.7.11.2011.10.40.10.PDF&i=301331 (accessed 02.01.14)
  200. Ibid. Reference 222.
  201. BPEX (2014) Positive Progress: An Update on the Roadmap for Environmental Sustainability of the English Pig Industry. http://smartstore.bpex.org.uk/articles/ dodownload.asp?a=smartstore%2Ebpex%2Eorg%2Euk%2E22%2E1%2E2014%2E9%2E37%2E25%2Epdf&i=303361 (accessed 29.06.14)
  202. Op. Cit. Reference 221.
  203. Op. Cit. Reference 221.
  204. Op. Cit. Reference 224.
  205. EBLEX (2009) Down to Earth – The English Beef and Sheep Production Roadmap, Phase 3. http://www.eblex.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ roadmap_3_-_down_to_earth_180112-final-report.pdf (accessed 08.07.14)
  206. Op. Cit. Reference 224.
  207. Op. Cit. Reference 221.
  208. Op. Cit. Reference 221.
  209. Rondeel (2014) The system. http://www.rondeel.org/uk/the-system/ (accessed 20.01.14)
  210. FAWC (2012) Letter to Defra re sustainable intensification, 03.02.12. http://www.defra.gov.uk/fawc/files/sustainable-intensification.pdf
  211. EFSA (2007) Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. The EFSA Journal, 564: 1-14.
  212. Sawalha, R.M., Conington, J., Brotherstone, S. & Villanueva, B. (2007) Analyses of lambsurvival of Scottish Blackfacesheep. Animal, 1: 151-157.
  213. SCAHAW (2001) The welfare of cattle kept for beef production. Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, adopted 25 April 2001.
  214. EBLEX (2010) Testing the Water: The English Beef and Sheep Production Environmental Roadmap, Phase 2. http://www.eblex.org.uk/wp/wp-content/ uploads/2013/05/p_cp_testingthewater061210.pdf (accessed 28.01.14)
  215. Waterhouse, A. (1996) Animal welfare and sustainability of production under extensive conditions – a European perspective. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 49: 29-40.
  216. Ibid. Reference 238.
  217. Op. Cit. Reference 221.
  218. Lovett, D.K., Shalloo, L., Dillon, P. & O’Mara, F.P. (2006) A systems approach to quantifygreenhouse gas fluxes from pastoraldairy production asaffected by management regime. Agricultural Systems, 88: 158-179.
  219. Ibid. Reference 241.
  220. DairyCo (2013) Dairy Roadmap 2013: Environmental Sustainability Report. http://www.dairyco.org.uk/non_umbraco/download.aspx?media=14858 (accessed 02.01.14)
  221. LUCCG (2010) Land Use Climate Change Report to Welsh Assembly Government. March 2010. Welsh Assembly Land Use Climate Change Group. http://wales.gov.uk/docs/drah/publications/100310landuseclimatechangegroupreporten.pdf (accessed 02.01.14)
  222. Op. Cit. Reference 59.
  223. FAO (2014) Climate change adaptation in fisheries and aquaculture. Compilation of initial examples. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1088. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. Italy.
  224. Op. Cit Reference 1.
  225. EBLEX/AHDB (2013) UK Yearbook 2013 – Sheep. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Warwickshire, UK.
  226. Marine Scotland Science (2012) Scottish Annual Fish Farm Production Survey 2012. Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/09/9210
  227. Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (2014) Exports, SSPO 25.04.14. http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/markets/exports.aspx (accessed 08.07.14)
  228. Marine Management Organisation (2013) UK Sea Fisheries Statistics 2012. http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics/documents/ukseafish/2012/ final.pdf (accessed 27.02.14)
  229. Op. Cit. Reference 248.
  230. BPEX/AHDB (2014) Poultry Pocketbook 2014. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Warwickshire, UK.
  231. Op. Cit. Reference 74.
  232. Op. Cit. Reference 1.
  233. Op. Cit. Reference 74.
  234. EuropeanCommission (2013) Prospects for AgriculturalMarkets and Income in the EU 2013-2023. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets-and-prices/medium-termoutlook/2013/fullrep_en.pdf (accessed 08.07.14)
  235. Fergusson, F. (2011) World Trade Organisation Negotiations: The Doha Development Agenda. Congressional Research Service Report for the US Congress. http://fas. org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32060.pdf (accessed 08.07.14)
  236. Chaffin, J. (2011) European Union: Stalled Doha round spawns rush of bilateral deals. The Financial Times, 08.11.11.
  237. EuropeanCommission (2013) Facts and figures on the EU-Canada Free Trade deal, 18.10.13. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=974 (accessed 28.01.14)
  238. Mul, M., Vermeij, I., Hindle, V. & Spoolder, H. (2010) EU – Welfare Legislation on Pigs. Report 273. Wageningen UR Livestock Research. Lelystad, The Netherlands.
  239. Allegra Strategies (2013) Food Strategy Forum, Taste of the Future 2020. Food Service Consultants International. http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.fcsi.org/ resource/resmgr/uk/allegra-fcsi_taste_of_the_fu.pdf (accessed 08.07.14)
  240. Food & Beverage Industry Chair of the École Hôtelière de Lausanne (2013) Job Observatory in the F&B Sector: The Purchasing Function. Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  241. Sustainable Restaurant Association (2013) The Discerning Diner. Summary Consumer Attitude Report 2013. http://www.thesra.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Consumer-Report.pdf (accessed 09.07.14)
  242. Griffith, R., O’Connell, M. and Smith, K. (2013) Food expenditure and nutritional quality over the Great Recession. Institute of Fiscal Studies. IFS Briefing Note BN143. http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn143.pdf (accessed 09.07.14)
  243. The organisation was originally called the Organisation des Epizooties in 1924, and has kept OIE as its acronym despite becoming the World Organisation for Animal Health in 2003.
  244. EuropeanCommission (2013) Memo: Commissioninitiatives to cut red tape and reduce regulatory burdens – Questions and Answers. EuropeanCommission- MEMO/13/786, 19.09.13. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-786_en.htm (accessed 09.07.14).
  245. The Liaison Group of UK Animal Welfare Advisory Bodies (2013) UK law relating to animal welfare – a discussion paper. http://www.defra.gov.uk/fawc/files/UK-lawrelating-to-animal-welfare.pdf (accessed 03.01.14)
  246. FAWC (2007) Opinion on Beak Trimming of Laying Hens. http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/beak-trimming.pdf (accessed 03.01.14)
  247. Cheng, H. (2006) Morphological changes and pain in beaktrimmedlayinghens. World’sPoultry Science Journal, 62: 41-52.
  248. Kuenzel, W. J. (2007) Neurobiologicalbasis of sensoryperception: welfare implications of beaktrimming. Poultry Science, 86: 1273-1 282.
  249. Op. Cit. Reference 269.
  250. Compassion in World Farming (2011) Controllingfeatherpecking and cannibalism in layinghenswithoutbeaktrimming. http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/ cm_docs/2011/c/controlling_feather_pecking_and_cannibalism_without_beak_ trimming_revised_030311.pdf (accessed 03.01.14)
  251. Compassion in World Farming (2010) Layinghens case study Austria 1. http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2010/l/laying_hen_case_study_austria_ciwf.pdf (accessed 03.01.14)
  252. Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations (2002) (Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 1646) prohibited beak trimming of laying hens from 1st January 2011. This prohibition was repeated in the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 (Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 1100). Similar legislation was enacted in other parts of the UK.
  253. FAWC (2009) letter to DEFRA minister for farming and the environment. Beak Trimming of Laying Hens. 8 September 2009. [online] Available at: http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/beaktrimming.pdf (accessed 29.01.14)
  254. Hansard (2010) Statement by The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice) on BeakTrimming (LayingHens). Official Report, 12 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 4MC.
  255. Government of the Netherlands (2010) Ban on beak trimming improves animal welfare in poultry sector. http://www.government.nl/news/2013/06/09/ban-onbeak-trimming-improves-animal-welfare-in-poultry-sector.html (accessed 29.01.14)
  256. Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0487:0548:en:PDF (accessed 04.01.14)
  257. EuropeanCommission. DG Agriculture and Rural Development (2013) Overview of CAP reform 2014-2020. AgriculturalPolocyPerspectives Brief n.5, December 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/policy-briefs/05_en.pdf (accessed 04.01.14)
  258. EuropeanCommission (2009) Options for animal welfare labelling and the establishment of a European Network of Reference Centres for the protection and welfare of animals. Communication from the Commission to the EuropeanParliament, the Council, the EuropeanEconomic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/docs/options_animal_welfare_labelling_report_en.pdf (accessed 14.01.14)
  259. EuropeanCommission (2012) Communication on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. Brussels, 15 February 2012 COM(2012) 6 final/2
  260. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products. Official Journal L 299: 1, 16.11.07.
  261. Op. Cit. Reference 202.
  262. Op. Cit. Reference 202.
  263. OiE (2013) 7. Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare, in TerrestrialAnimal Health Code. http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_1.7.1.htm (accessed 15.01.14)
  264. OiE (2013) TerrestrialAnimal Health Code. http://www.oie.int/en/internationalstandard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-online/ (accessed 15.01.14)
  265. OiE (2013) AquaticAnimal Health Code. http://www.oie.int/en/internationalstandard-setting/aquatic-code/access-online/ (accessed 15.01.14)
  266. OiE (2013) Animal Welfare and BeefCattle Production Systems, in TerrestrialAnimal Health Code. http://www.oie.int/en/international-standard-setting/terrestrialcode/access-online/?htmfile=chapitre_1.7.9.htm (accessed 15.01.14)
  267. OiE (2013) Animal Welfare and Broiler Chicken Production Systems, in TerrestrialAnimal Health Code. http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_1.7.10.htm (accessed 15.01.14)
  268. EuropeanCommission (2014) Trade, Countries and Regions: Chile. EuropeanCommission website, 05.05.14. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-andregions/ countries/chile/ (accessed 09.07.14)
  269. GHK (2010) Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Policy Options for the Future. Report submitted by GHK Consulting in association with ADAS UK (Food Policy Evaluation Consortium). DG Sanco. http://www.eupaw.eu/docs/Final%20Report%20-%20EUPAW%20Evaluation.pdf (accessed 14.01.14)
  270. Downes, A. (2013) World Trade Organisation sealban ruling breaks positive ground for animal welfare. IFAW, 25.11.13. http://www.ifaw.org/united-kingdom/news/world-trade-organisation-seal-ban-ruling-breaks-positive-ground-animal-welfare (accessed 03.01.14)
  271. Mul, M., Vermeij, I., Hindle, V. & Spoolder, H. (2010) EU – Welfare Legislation on Pigs. Report 273. Wageningen UR Livestock Research. Lelystad, The Netherlands.
  272. Op. Cit. Reference 292.
  273. EFSA (2011). Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare concerning the welfare of animals during transport. EFSA Journal, 9: 1966.
  274. Cressey, D. (2012) Rabbits show theirpain: The extension of ‘grimacescales’ highlights their growing role in research. Nature, 07.09.12. http://www.nature.com/ news/rabbits-show-their-pain-1.11198 (accessed 17.01.14)
  275. Doyle R.E., Lee C., Deiss V. Fisher, A.D., Hinch, D.N. & Boissey, A. (2011) Measuringjudgementbias and emotional reactivity in sheep following long-term exposure to unpredictable and aversive events. Physiology and Behaviour 102: 503-510.
  276. Rushen, J., Chapinal. & N de Passillé, A. (2012) Automated monitoring of behaviouralbasedanimal welfare indicators. Animal Welfare, 21: 339-350.
  277. StampDawkins, M., Cain, R., & Roberts, S. (2012) Optical flow, flock behaviour and chicken welfare. Animal Behaviour, 84: 219-223.
  278. Op. Cit. Reference 299.
  279. Op. Cit. Reference 299.
  280. Op. Cit. Reference 300.
  281. Op. Cit. Reference 299.
  282. Op. Cit. Reference 10.
  283. Webster, J. (2013) Animal Husbandry Regained: The place of farm animals in sustainable agriculture. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
  284. Ibid. Reference 306.
  285. Ibid. Reference 306.
  286. Mellor, D.J., Patterson-Kane, E. & Stafford, K.J. (2009) 4. Genetics, biotechnology and animal breeding: mixed blessings, in The Sciences of Animal Welfare. UFAW Animal Welfare Series. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
  287. FWI (2014) New PLI for dairy cattle to be launched in August. Farmers Weekly Interactive, 22.01.14. http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/22/01/2014/142907/new-pli-fordairy-cattle-to-be-launched-in-august.htm (accessed 12.03.14)
  288. Compassion in World Farming/RSPCA (2008) Beyond CalfExports: The efficacy, economics and practicalities of sexedsemenas a welfare friendlyherd replacement tool in the dairyindustry. http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Microsites/CalfForum/Documents/SeptemberReport.pdf (accessed 17.01.14)
  289. Weissmann, A., Reitemeier, S., Hahn, A., Gottschalk, J. & Einspanier, A. (2013) Sexing domestic chicken before hatch: a new method for in ovo gender identification. Theriogenology, 80: 199-205.
  290. EFSA (2008) Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from the European Commission on food safety, animal health and welfare and environmental impact of animals derived from cloning by somatic cell nucleus transfer (SCNT) and their offspring and products obtained from those animals. The EFSA Journal, 767: 1-49.
  291. Kirkden, R.D. & Broom, D.M. (2012) Welfare of geneticallymodified and clonedanimalsused for food. A report for Compassion in World Farming, Godalming,UK. http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2013/w/welfare_of_genetically_modified_and_cloned_animals_used_in_food.pdf (accessed 18.01.14)
  292. Op. Cit. Reference 292.
  293. Op. Cit. Reference 281.
  294. Sustainable Development Commission (2009) Setting the Table: Advice to Government on PriorityElements of SustainableDiets. http://www.sd-commission. org.uk/publications/downloads/Setting_the_Table.pdf (accessed 09.01.14)
  295. Eating Better (2013) Eating Better Launched Today, 01.07.13. http://www.eatingbetter. org/blog/8/Eating-Better-launched-today.html (Accessed 31.01.14)
  296. Molloy, A. (2013) No meat, no dairy, no problem: is 2014 the yearvegansbecome mainstream? The Independent, 31.12.13 (accessed 31.01.14)
  297. Walker, H. (2014) Relax, it’s no longerweird to be a vegan, The Guardian, 04.01.14 (accessed 31.01.14)
  298. Aston L.M., Smith J.N., Powles, J.W. (2012) Impact of a reduced red and processedmeatdietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: a modelling study. BMJ Open. 2:e001072.
  299. Modelling by the British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group, Oxford University published in Friends of the Earth (2010) Healthy Planet Eating. How lower meatdiets can savelives and the planet. http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/healthy_planet_eating.pdf (accessed 09.07.14).
  300. Sutton, C. & Dibb, S. (2013) Prime Cuts: valuing the meatweeat. WWF-UK and Food Ethics Council.
  301. Ibid. Reference 323
  302. Ibid. Reference 323.
  303. Post, M.J. (2012) Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects. Meat Science, 92: 297-301.
  304. Rumpold, B.A. & Schlüter, O.K. (2013) Potential and challenges of insectsas an innovative source for food and feed production. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 17: 1-11.
  305. Thewis, A. & Galis, A-M. (2012) Livestock production: prospects over the nextdecades and alternative proteinsources. AgroLifeScientific Journal, 1: 29-38.
  306. Webster, A.J.F. (2009) The virtuous bicycle: a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 18: 141-147.
  307. McNair, D., Spelman, C. & Main, D. (2013) The McNair Report: An independent inquiry and report commissioned by the RSPCA into the Freedom Food animal welfare assurancescheme. http://www.freedomfood.co.uk/media/26775/The_McNair_Report_final.pdf (accessed 11.02.14).
  308. Maciel, C. & Boch, B. (2012) ModernPolitics in Animal Welfare: The Changing Character of Governance of Animal Welfare and the Role of Private Standards. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 20: 219-235.
  309. Food Ethics Council (2012), Animal welfare in a world full of priorities: navigating the ethical standpoint of business, government, citizens and consumers. http://www.foodethicscouncil.org/system/files/121120-Report.pdf (accessed 03.03.14)
  310. Op. Cit. Reference 274.

 

 

Per leggere la I parte: www.ruminantia.it/benessere-degli-animali-dallevamento-passato-presente-e-futuro/

Per leggere la II parte: www.ruminantia.it/benessere-degli-animali-dallevamento/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

About the Author:

Ruminantia - Lo spazio in rete dell'Allevatore. I migliori professionisti del settore a supporto dell'allevatore italiano, con informazioni aggiornate e articoli scientifici.