Effects of confinement and research needs to underpin welfare standards

Although there is no agreement on how to measure animal welfare, how to interpret some of the observed changes in behavior and physiology, and how much confinement of animals is acceptable, this has not stopped animal welfare standards from being set in the form of either voluntary or mandatory recommendations. Notwithstanding that there are gaps in knowledge about a number of farming practices, there is some emphasis by scientists, industry, politicians, and some animal welfare groups for any changes to welfare-related recommendations to be based on scientific evidence. This article discusses the related issues of confinement and its effects on farm animals, research gaps in the field of animal welfare, the development of welfare standards, and whether such standards should be underpinned by science. For some issues there is a general consensus, for example, that animals feel pain and have emotions and that animals' appearance and behavior are used by good farmers to recognize both the ‘normality’ and deviations from normal of their animals. However, these variables are difficult to measure or define. Nevertheless, if issues are considered important to animals' welfare, should difficulty of measurement or definition be a barrier to the creation of legislated standards? Thus, options for legislated standards include either comprehensive standards, some of which may be difficult to measure, similar to current legislation on cruelty to animals, or only a limited number of standards with targets that can be measured, some of which may have less relevance to welfare outcomes.