Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 19 (1988) 339-386 339 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

Proceedings

(Proceedings of Workshop Sponsored by The Farm Animal Care Trust and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare)

Behavioural Needs of Farm Animals

CONTENTS

Introduction, R. Harrison

Needs - - behavioural or psychological, M.R. Baxter

Discussion 1. Edited by M.R. Baxter and B.O. Hughes

Behavioural needs: can they be explained in terms of motivational models?, B.O. Hughes and I.J.H. Duncan

Discussion 2. Edited by B.O. Hughes

Behavioural needs in relation to livestock maintenance, A.F. Fraser

Discussion 3. Edited by B.O. Hughes

Needs, freedoms and the assessment of welfare, D.M. Broom

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

M.R. Baxter Scottish Farm Buildings Investigation Unit, Aberdeen, Gt. Britain

Dr. H.J. Blokhuis De Omloop 13, 3931 CV Woudenberg, The Netherlands

Dr. D.M. Broom Department of Pure and Applied Zoology, University of Reading, Gt. Britain (second day only)

0168-1591/88/$03.50 © 1988 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

340

Dr. M. Dawkins Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Gt. Britain

R. Ewbank Director of UFAW, Gt. Britain

Mrs. B. Flatlandsmo Directorate of Veterinary Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Oslo, Norway

Dr. D.W. FSlsch C/o Institfit ffir Tierproduktion, Gruppe Phy- siologie und Hygiene, Ziirich, Switzerland

Professor A.F. Fraser Director of Animal Care, Memorial Univer- sity of Newfoundland, Canada

Ms. D. Halverson C/o Animal Welfare Institute, Washington, DC, U.S.A.

Mrs. R. Harrison Farm Animal Care Trust, 34 Holland Park Road, London W14 8LZ, Gt. Britain

Dr. B.O. Hughes AFRC Poultry Research Centre, Roslin, Gt. Britain

T.I. Hughes Ontario Humane Society, Canada

Dr. P. Jensen Department of Animal Hygiene, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Skara, Sweden

Dr. M. Kiley-Worthington School of Biology, University of Sussex, Gt. Britain

Dr. M.F. Stewart University of Glasgow Veterinary School, Gt. Britain

Dr. K. Vestergaard Royal Veterinary and Agriculture University, Copenhagen, Denmark

Professor P.R. Wiepkema Department of Animal Husbandry, Wagen- ingen, The Netherlands

Professor D.G.M. Wood-Gush School of Agriculture, University of Edin- burgh, Gt. Britain

341

In troduct ion

RUTH HARRISON

Farm Animal Care Trust, 34 Holland Park Road, London, W14 8LZ (Gt. Britain)

First of all I should like on behalf of the Farm Animal Care Trust, to thank the Animal Welfare Foundation for their generous donation which enabled us to seek the collaboration of UFAW in this Workshop. I should also like to extend our thanks to UFAW for undertaking all the arrangements for the Workshop in their own excellent way.

Before Brambell, the general concept of caring for farm animals was that they should be kept in "suitable accommodation". The Danish Protection of Animals Act, 1950, is a good example. Its Clause 2 lays down that:

"Anyone keeping animals should see that they have sufficient and suitable food and drink, and that they are properly cared for in suitable accommodation".

The word "suitable" was not defined. The Brambell Committee was the first body to give substance to this word.

They pointed out in their report (1965) that animals have behavioural needs which should not be ignored, and they accepted Professor Thorpe's guiding principle:

"Whilst accepting the need for much restriction, we must draw the line at con- ditions which completely suppress all or nearly all the natural, instinctive urges and behaviour patterns characteristic of actions appropriate to the high degree of social organisation as found in the ancestral wild species and which have been little, if at all, bred out in the process of domestication. In particular, it is clearly cruel so to restrain an animal for a large part of its life that it cannot use any of its normal locomotory behaviour patterns".

The concept of behavioural needs was thus introduced into agricultural thinking. But habits die hard. The Prefaces to the first Codes of Practice issued in the U.K. in 1971 studiously ignored behaviour, and related welfare only to physiological requirements:

"The basic requirements for the welfare of livestock are", they said, "the provi- sion of readily accessible fresh water and nutritionally adequate food as required, the provision of adequate ventilation and a suitable environmental temperature;

342

adequate freedom of movement and ability to stretch limbs; sufficient light for satisfactory inspection; the rapid diagnosis and treatment of injury and disease; . . . . Flooring which neither harms nor causes undue strain.."

Nevertheless the seeds were sown and bore fruit in another country. W. Ger- many's Protection of Animals Act, 1972, laid down that:

"Any person who is keeping an animal or who is looking after it, shall give the animal adequate food and care suitable for its species; and he shall provide ac- commodation which takes account of its natural behaviour".

The Norwegian Welfare of Animals Act of 1974 followed suit. Section 2 states:

"Animals shall be treated well, and due regard shall be given to their natural instincts and needs.."

but Section 4 enlarges on this by returning to the old word "suitable":

"Persons owning or having in their care any domestic animal, pet, or animal held in captivity in any way shall ensure that the animal has fully suitable quar- ters with sufficient space, suitable warmth, "etc.etc.

The Council of Europe, in drawing up its European Convention for the Pro- tection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, was inspired by both Brambell and the W. German Act in setting out that:

"Animals shall be housed and provided with food, water and care in a manner which . . , is appropriate to their physiological and ethological needs",

adding a self-evident qualification

"in accordance with established experience and scientific knowledge".

This has allowed government officials to turn round the original statement and to preserve the status quo by placing the emphasis on the qualification - - to which they cling like drowning men to a straw.

The Convention was open to signing and ratification in 1976. Ratifying States are bound by the Convention

"To give effect to the principles of animal welfare laid down in Articles 3-7 of the Convention".

Curiously, the only regulation that the U.K. felt to be necessary to give effect

343

to the principles of the convention was one requiring daily inspection of housed livestock and the automated equipment used. Everything else, they felt, was covered by the 1968 Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act. Two separate interpretations of this assumption have been given by government officials. The first is that the Act lays down that it is an offence to cause "unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress". If an animal is deprived of a need it will behave abnormally and show that it is distressed, and "physiological and behavioural needs" are therefore covered by the Act - - a typically negative approach to welfare.

The second interpretation is that since the Minister is given power to make regulations covering every aspect of the animal's life in the Act, the require- ments are covered -- seemingly whether or not he actually uses that power.

The status quo has thus been maintained whilst arguments still go on about what is actually meant by the term "behavioural needs". And that is why we have called this Workshop. We hope to take the discussion a few steps further and, possibly, reach some conclusions on which we can agree. We would like to stress that we are here to discuss general principles and not to discuss individ- ual livestock husbandry systems; not even to discuss individual species more than is absolutely necessary.

We have divided the Workshop into three main sessions, which are inevit- ably partly overlapping, but which are aimed to take the subject further. The first, and probably most controversial, is - - what is the basis of behaviour? Is it a response to physiological requirements?, or to psychological requirements? Is it innate, learned, or a response to stimuli? In the second session we move on to discuss what we mean by a "need". Is it something which, if lacking, an animal cannot survive? Or is it something an animal has to have in order to avoid injury or suffering? Or is it something the animal has to have in order to live in harmony with its environment? The Explanatory Text to the W. Ger- man Act defines "well-being" as being "based on the normal vital functions developing and proceeding undisturbed in a manner which is typical for the species and which does justice to the animal's behaviour". Are the terms "well being" and "need" synonymous for our purposes? In the third session we will hope to reach agreement on some behaviours which should be permitted to our animals, however much we may disagree on the finer points. Such decisions should surely involve ethical considerations as much as scientific ones?

Can we, for example, agree the "Basic Guidelines" in Animals and Ethics (Carpenter et al., 1980). I quote:

"No husbandry method should deny the environmental requirements of the basic behavioural needs of these animals. These needs will include the following: - - Freedom to perform natural physical movement - - Association with other animals; where appropriate of their own kind

Facilities for comfort activities, e.g. rest, sleep and body care

344

Provision o/food and water to maintain full health Ability to perform daily routines of natural activities Opportunity for the activities of exploration and play, especially for young animals Satisfaction of minimal spatial and territorial requirements, including a visual field and "personal space"

May I make one final plea to you? Many people outside the government service feel that there is a danger that, in being encouraged to press for more research before making any decisions, ethologists will be used as pawns in de- laying action - - whilst in the field decisions are urgently sought and needed. It is essential for you to be seen to be maintaining your scientific integrity.