Accepted Manuscript

Title: Understanding human and other animal behaviour:

ethology, welfare and food policy

Authors: Michael C. Appleby, Lesley A. Mitchell

PII: S0168-1591(18)30294-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.032
Reference: APPLAN 4664

To appear in: APPLAN

Received date: 28-9-2017

Revised date: 4-4-2018
Accepted date: 27-5-2018

Please cite this article as: Appleby MC, Mitchell LA, Understanding human and other
animal behaviour: ethology, welfare and food policy, Applied Animal Behaviour Science
(2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.032

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Understanding human and other animal behaviour: ethology, welfare and

food policy

Short title: Applied ethology, welfare and food policy

T
Michael C. Appleby, Lesley A. Mitchell

IP
Michael C. Appleby, University of Edinburgh, UK

R
SC
and Lesley A. Mitchell, Good Food Futures, UK

U
Corresponding author: Dr M.C. Appleby, Jeanne Marchig International Centre for Animal Welfare
N
Education, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Edinburgh, EH25 9RG, UK. E-mail:
A
[email protected]
M

Conflicts of interest: none

ED
PT

Highlights:


E

Consideration of livestock welfare can enable advantages for production not otherwise
CC

identified, and is therefore important for achieving good management for production,

livelihoods, food security and nutrition.

A

 Understanding of animal behaviour and care for livestock welfare contribute to all three pillars

of sustainable agriculture: economic profitability, social equity and environmental health.

1
  Consideration of animal behaviour and welfare helps to increase the positive impacts of

livestock on food security and nutrition, and to avoid the negative, and should therefore be a

policy priority for countries worldwide.

Abstract

T
Food security and sustainability are paramount goals of global policy in the Twenty First Century. What

IP
are the contributions of applied ethology and animal welfare in delivering these major goals? Livestock

R
plays a major role in food security and nutrition (FSN), because meat and animal products are

SC
important in people’s diets and the livestock sector is central to food systems’ development. And

many aspects of the welfare of livestock are important for production, as expressed in the advice,

U
‘Look after your animals and they will look after you,’ for example, reduction of disease. Consideration
N
of animal welfare can enable advantages for production that have not otherwise been identified, and
A
is therefore not just compatible with but important for achieving good management of livestock for
M

production, livelihoods and FSN. Furthermore, understanding of animal behaviour and care for
ED

livestock welfare contribute to all three pillars of sustainable agriculture: economic profitability, social

equity and environmental health. Ethology clarifies the interactions between animals, humans and
PT

the environment, and thus helps to optimise livestock management for the best balance between

these complex priorities. However, although considering behaviour and welfare is valuable for
E

production and FSN, people do not always recognise or act on this value. They may need information
CC

or help to do so: mechanisms are needed to provide information, help and sometimes financial

assistance to producers. These mechanisms need input from experts in applied ethology and animal
A

welfare, at both practical and policy level.

Six policy areas are briefly outlined. Each requires (to a variable degree) understanding of

animal behaviour and welfare and implementation of that understanding. (1) Development of

humane, sustainable food security strategies; (2) Promotion of humane, sustainable livestock systems;

2
(3) Reduction of livestock reliance on human-edible arable crops, especially cereals; (4) Development

of specific food and livestock policies to assist vulnerable sectors of the population; (5) Sustainable

diets; and (6) Development of markets for humane, sustainable livestock production.

Increased urgency is needed to achieve food security and sustainability, by producers,

governments and intergovernmental organisations in consultation with other stakeholders including

scientists and non-governmental organisations. The livestock sector has both positive and negative

T
impacts. Consideration of animal behaviour and welfare helps to ensure and increase the positive

IP
impacts, and to reduce and avoid the negative, and should therefore be a priority for countries

R
worldwide.

SC
Keywords: food policy; food security; livestock; sustainability; welfare

U
N
1. Introduction
A
Food security and sustainability are paramount goals of global policy in the Twenty First Century.
M

These goals are inextricably linked, because the definition of each implies the other, and analysis of
ED

the livestock sector is critical for both. When the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and

Nutrition (HLPE, 2016) of the UN’s Committee on World Food Security examined the issue of
PT

‘Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition,’ it asked the question ‘What

roles for livestock?’ The present paper asks more specifically: What are the contributions of applied
E

ethology and animal welfare in delivering the major goals of food security and sustainability
CC

worldwide?
A

2. The role of applied ethologists in food policy

The theme of the 2017 congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology is ‘Understanding

Animal Behaviour.’ In the context of this paper and of the congress’s most relevant session on

‘Applying ethology in the keeping of animals,’ it is important to note that the animals for which

3
behavioural understanding is needed include humans: hence the title ‘Understanding human and

other animal behaviour.’

Understanding human behaviour is complex and involves many disciplines in addition to

ethology, including sociology, economics, politics and diplomacy. But it is helpful to consider the

people and groups of people who impact animals as a hierarchy, from numerous individuals with

direct impact up to smaller numbers of institutions – such as governments and intergovernmental

T
organisations – whose impact may be large but indirect (Figure 1). And our experience as scientists

IP
active in animal advocacy convinces us that to improve animal welfare it is important to engage both

R
low down in this hierarchy – to produce case studies and other evidence that will be persuasive to

SC
decision-makers – and high up – to lobby for policies that will influence and affect large numbers of

people and animals. We therefore refer to this hierarchy as the ‘pyramid of influence.’

U
It is also important to recognise, though, that scientists do not generally have a special or
N
privileged voice in such interactions. As well as scientists and veterinarians, other stakeholders
A
involved include producers, retailers, trade associations, non-governmental associations,
M

consumers/citizens, religious groups, cultural groups and the media. We therefore argue that to
ED

achieve ‘Application of ethology in the keeping of animals’ to the benefit of animals, people and the

environment, it is important for applied ethologists to get involved where appropriate and possible in
PT

both agricultural practice and food policy.

E

3. The role of livestock in food security and nutrition (FSN)

CC

Livestock plays a major role in FSN, because meat and animal products are important in people’s diets

and ‘The livestock sector is central to food systems’ development’ (HLPE, 2016, p14). Most
A

importantly, adding moderate quantities of animal-sourced food to the diet of malnourished people

is beneficial, partly because of the provision of micronutrients. The review by the UN’s Food and

Agriculture Organisation (FAO, 2011, p94) of ‘Livestock in food security’ further emphasises that:

4
 Livestock source food is not essential to human nutrition but it is highly beneficial. In livestock

systems that primarily consume roughage and agro-industrial waste products, livestock add to

the food supply beyond what can be provided by crops. Moreover, they make a very important

contribution to food access and stability.

FAO (2016) outlines both these direct and indirect contributions of livestock, and the risks

associated with livestock production, in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN,

T
2015). The benefits and risks of livestock – which emphasise the need for their careful use and

IP
management – are clear for the two SDGs that relate most closely to FSN:

R
2. Zero hunger

SC
• Food (energy and high value protein)

• Traction and fertilizer for crop production

• Income

3. Good health and well being U

N
• Essential micronutrients, especially for children, women and the elderly
A
• Majority of animal diseases could cause human pandemics
M

• Use of antimicrobials expected to rise in livestock

• Diseases limit livestock productivity

ED

Benefits and risks are also apparent for all the other SDGs. Indeed, consideration of the whole

list of 17 goals (FAO, 2016) makes it clear that problems and potential solutions in the areas of all the
PT

SDGs affect FSN, and that livestock can contribute to solutions of all the SDGs and to supporting FSN
E

through all those channels, while also presenting risks that make appropriate management of livestock
CC

essential.
A

4. The importance of animal management and welfare in livestock production

In a sense it Is obvious that the welfare of livestock is important for production. For production of milk

or eggs while an animal is alive, or of meat at the end of its life, it is necessary for it to survive, grow,

be as healthy as possible and function normally, and these are clearly critical factors in that animal’s

5
welfare. This is sometimes expressed (for example by Rollin, 1993) in the advice, ‘Look after your

animals and they will look after you.’

However, welfare is complex, so there are some situations in which increasing production

reduces some aspects of welfare, or conversely increasing welfare costs money, at least in the short

term. This inconsistency has been modelled by McInerney (2004). Nevertheless, with long term, broad

perspectives, there are more positive relationships between animal welfare and production than

T
generally supposed. Some of the most important of these relationships are mediated by health. The

IP
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE, 2017a) has recognised ‘That there is a critical relationship

R
between animal health and animal welfare’ and ‘That improvements in farm animal welfare can often

SC
improve productivity and food safety, and hence lead to economic benefits.’ The latter principle

supports the statement made above that positive relationships between animal welfare and

production are common and important. U

N
So the OIE (2017b), with 180 Member Countries worldwide, sets standards for animal welfare
A
in production systems, in transport, during killing animals for disease control, and during slaughter.
M

Furthermore, consideration of animal welfare can enable advantages for production that have
ED

not otherwise been identified. For example, in designing handling systems for livestock, including for

slaughter, it took an approach aimed at reducing problems for the animals concerned to identify the
PT

fact that understanding animal behaviour could improve design and management, and hence efficient

use of labour in handling livestock. This also had benefits for meat yield, meat quality, food safety,
E

disease control, worker safety, and therefore profit (Grandin, 2014).

CC

Thus consideration of animal welfare is not just compatible with but important for achieving

good management of livestock for production, livelihoods and FSN.

A

5. The importance of animal management and welfare for sustainable agriculture

The fact that animal management and welfare is important to livestock production and hence FSN

means that it contributes to the first part of the definition of sustainability (World Commission on

6
Environment and Development, 1987, p15), ‘meeting the needs of the present.’ But it is appropriate

to ask whether it is consistent with the rest of that definition, doing so ‘without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ We can address that question in relation to the

three main goals of sustainable agriculture (UCSAREP, undated), economic profitability, social and

economic equity and environmental health.

5.1 Animal management and welfare and economic profitability

T
Where farmers work for money, the fact that consideration of animal management and welfare is

IP
important for livestock management and productivity means that it also contributes to profitability.

R
Furthermore, to make a profit it is necessary to offer products to the market and for them to be

SC
purchased by customers. The management and welfare of the animals that generate those products

play many roles in those processes, because it has many effects on yield, food safety and food quality

U
(including nutritional value). For example, moving animals at the slaughterhouse by beating them with
N
sticks causes bruising, whereas using flags or rattles avoids this problem for both welfare and meat
A

quality (Grandin, 2014). Research in Uruguay (the 7th largest beef exporter in the world, with only 3
M

million people but 13 million cattle) found that in 2002-3 50% of carcasses at slaughter plants had
ED

bruises, and more than 2kg of meat was lost per animal during the dressing process, totalling at least

4 thousand tonnes from the two million animals slaughtered each year. Methods used to move
PT

animals were mostly prods and sticks, as well as dogs and shouts (Huertas et al., 2003). A two year

programme of training was carried out all over the country, sponsored by the Ministry of Livestock,
E

the Uruguayan meat board, the producers’ association and academia and by 2008 carcass bruising
CC

had decreased by more than half (Instituto Nacional de Carnes, 2009).

Good management and welfare of livestock may, in addition, provide some producers with
A

specialist markets to increase profit: some customers are willing to pay more for high quality products,

for example those produced organically or guaranteeing the welfare of the animals involved. The same

principles apply to subsistence farmers, and to small-scale farmers who only partly work for profit

7
while also supplying food to family and neighbours: care for livestock improves survival, growth,

production and the yield of products that help to promote FSN.

The part played by animal welfare in this was recognised at an intergovernmental level by the

UN’s Committee on World Food Security, which drew up Principles for Responsible Investment in

Agriculture and Food Systems (2014) to enhance FSN. These include (p16):

Principle 8. Promote safe and healthy agriculture and food systems [through investment]

T
supporting animal health and welfare, and plant health, to sustainably increase productivity,

IP
product quality, and safety.

R
5.2 Animal management and welfare and social and economic equity

SC
Animal welfare is important for social equity, both because of the practical effects of animal welfare

on production, disease and so on already discussed, and because animal welfare is itself of increasing

U
concern worldwide, to people in all countries. Many people, including many poor people, depend on
N
animals for income, social status and security as well as food and clothing, and many measures to
A
improve animal welfare also benefit their owners. This is partly explained by the many roles that
M

animals, including livestock, play in people’s lives. These were well described by an Expert Group

convened by the FAO (Fraser et al., 2009, p1):

ED

The welfare of humans and the welfare of animals are closely linked. In many regions, a secure

supply of food for people depends on the health and productivity of animals, and these in turn
PT

depend on the care and nutrition that animals receive. Many diseases of humans are derived
E

from animals, and the prevention of these animal diseases is important for safeguarding
CC

human health. Roughly one billion people, including many of the world’s poor, depend directly

on animals for income, social status and security as well as food and clothing, and the welfare
A

of their animals is essential for their livelihood. Moreover, positive relations with animals are

an important source of comfort, social contact and cultural identification for many people.

Thus the survival, performance and welfare of people’s animals are important to them, and

many measures to improve animal welfare also benefit their owners, as McCrindle (1998) commented

for a developing country, South Africa.

8
5.3 Animal management and welfare and environmental health

Livestock production releases a significant proportion of human-produced greenhouse gases (GHGs)

(Gerber et al., 2013), and has many other environmental impacts (Steinfeld et al., 2006; FAO, 2016).

But perhaps surprisingly, consideration of animal welfare can help to ameliorate these impacts. In

some systems good for welfare, such as pasture for beef cattle, carbon dioxide may even be absorbed

rather than emitted, as Webster (2016, p143) explains:

T
Life-cycle analysis reveals that well-managed grasslands constitute a significant carbon sink,

IP
the extent of carbon sequestration depending on factors such as the intensity of grazing and

R
the balance between grasses and legumes (clovers and alfalfa). Recently there have been

SC
several large-scale studies of grassland systems in Europe … which balance the production of

C and GHG by ruminants (sources) against the capacity of pastures to sequester C (sinks). In

U
semi-intensive systems (e.g., dairy production) the sources and sinks were closely in balance.
N
The most extensive systems, e.g., extensive beef production, proved to be a significant carbon
A
sink.

Furthermore, there are many circumstances in which improving management of animals – for
M

example, improving their nutrition and health care – can increase both their welfare and their
ED

productivity (McInerney, 2004) and reduce both the relative and absolute emission of GHGs. Similarly,

cutting mortality, waste and inefficiency in livestock systems that are currently low-yielding, will help
PT

to address other environmental impacts such as water use and pollution (Gerber et al., 2013), while

also improving animal welfare. Other examples of mutual benefit can be found in development of new
E

systems, such as silvopastoral ranching, keeping cattle on land with bushes and trees as well as grass,
CC

with ‘win-win-wins’ for animals, producers and environment (Broom et al., 2013).

Remembering that animal production is primarily a biological process, not a technical one,
A

and focusing on the animals’ needs as a primary input rather than an afterthought, generally (although

not uncritically) helps to optimise their interactions with the environment and find the right balance

between animal, human and environmental needs. It is generally true that ‘Sustainable agriculture is

humane, humane agriculture is sustainable’ (Appleby, 2005).

9
6. Livestock welfare and FSN in practice

Although considering welfare is valuable for production and FSN, people do not always recognise or

act on this value. They may need information or help to do so. One reason why help is needed is that

addressing livestock welfare, adopting appropriate management and gaining consequent benefits for

production or FSN may need initial investment of time or money, for example in housing, husbandry,

T
staff training or veterinary care. Making such an investment may be a barrier for all producers, both

IP
psychologically and practically, even when the potential returns on investment are large. But it is likely

R
to be a particular barrier to poor producers, of whom there are some in developed countries but many

SC
more in developing countries (Devereux, 2014).

Yet the returns on investment are often significant. For example, some of the worst problems

U
associated with livestock transport, for both the financial value and the welfare of the animals, occur
N
during loading and unloading. These problems are often particularly severe where there are no special
A
facilities, and animals are manhandled or lifted by inappropriate devices, on or off vehicles, up or
M

down large differences in level, suffering stress and injuries that may be serious or fatal (Appleby et
ED

al., 2008). Good facilities allow animals to enter or leave the transport on the level or by a gently-

sloping ramp with good footing, and with races and barriers that encourage quiet movement (Grandin,
PT

2014). Building such facilities requires expenditure of time, money or both, and even if this is not large

it may be prohibitive for an individual producer. Yet if the expense can be covered, perhaps by sharing
E

between several producers, the financial benefits may be considerable, in avoiding injury to animals,
CC

including those delivered to market.

So to achieve the benefits of considering animal welfare for livestock production and FSN,
A

mechanisms are needed to provide information, help and sometimes financial assistance to

producers.

7. Geography, development and farm systems

10
Even among rich people, a sudden shortage of meat or other animal products, perhaps caused by a

major animal disease outbreak, would threaten FSN. Safeguarding welfare is therefore ubiquitously

important for FSN. However, the priority for establishing and maintaining FSN is for people who do

not currently have food security, which is primarily poor people in developing countries.

This can be illustrated by the titles of three recent reports on this issue concerning Africa, a

continent that comprises many developing countries:

T
 ‘The importance of integrating animal welfare, environmental health and veterinary

IP
legislation in improving food security and contributing to agricultural gross domestic

R
product in Africa’ (Bahari, 2013)

SC
 ‘Livestock and livelihoods in Africa: maximising animal welfare and human wellbeing’

(Devereux, 2014)

 U
‘Harnessing the power of animal protection and welfare: potential pathways to food
N
security, economic growth and the wellbeing of African people; a stakeholder
A
analysis, policy landscaping and political economy of policy making on animal welfare
M

in Africa’ (World Animal Protection, 2016)

ED

In developing countries, a much higher proportion of food is produced and consumed on a

local/informal basis, rather than in a formal supply chain, than in developed countries. The FAO (2011)
PT

distinguishes between three different human populations: livestock-dependent pastoralists and

ranchers, small-scale mixed farmers and urban dwellers. For the first two, the benefits of livestock
E

welfare are clear. For urban dwellers the situation is more complex. Urbanization and attempts to
CC

keep food prices low have driven intensification of livestock keeping, with some negative effects for

animal welfare, but intensification is not increasing FSN and in many cases is reducing it. This suggests
A

that the current growth in intensive livestock farms should be slowed or terminated. However, within

existing, large livestock units, animal welfare concerns are not just important in themselves: just as in

small-scale and extensive farms, addressing welfare problems will help to increase food supply and to

reduce problems such as disease risk (to both animals and people) and environmental pollution.

11
8. Future developments

It is challenging to devise policies that will effectively address the complex issues discussed here, to

increase FSN for poor people in varied, urban and rural conditions, and identify the best strategies for

sustainability, balancing economic, environmental and social priorities. However, there are good

examples globally of the effectiveness of dialogue in driving forward change in the livestock sector,

T
including the FAO-convened Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock (2015), the Global Roundtable

IP
for Sustainable Beef (2017), and, at regional level, commitments to sustainable intensification such as

R
the Pacto Caquetá (2016). The following recommendations are made from our own experience, in

SC
collaboration with colleagues (Parente and van de Weerd, 2012) and scientists from the University of

Vienna (Erb et al., 2012).

U
We believe governments, intergovernmental organisations, and the food industry, in dialogue with
N
experts in animal behaviour and welfare such as scientists, veterinarians and civil society
A

representatives in NGOs, should take action in the following policy areas. Each requires (to a variable
M

degree) understanding of animal behaviour and welfare and implementation of that understanding.
ED

1. Develop humane-sustainable food security strategies and include farm animal welfare in future

food security assessments and policies

PT

For example by implementing animal welfare standards, notably those of the OIE (2017b), carrying

out research and development into practical improvement of welfare on farms, and engaging in
E
CC

knowledge transfer to farmers. A good example of the latter is the Good Practice Note produced by

the International Finance Corporation (2014), ‘Improving animal welfare in livestock operations.’
A

As one practical example, World Animal Protection worked with the National Dairy Research

Institute of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research to produce a National Code of Practices for

Management of Dairy Animals in India (Kamboj et al., 2014). That Code of Practices is now being

endorsed and promoted at national, state, institutional and local levels, used in teaching and as a

12
university farm management guide, and promoted to dairy farmers during extension activities, with

potential to improve both the productivity and welfare of over 50 million dairy animals across India.

2. Promotion of humane, sustainable livestock systems

Support to improve efficiency and resilience of poorly performing but otherwise sustainable

operations can deliver multiple gains, and management in existing intensive farms can be considerably

improved for FSN and sustainability.

T
IP
3. Build farming systems that reduce the reliance on human-edible arable crops, especially cereals

There should be reduced feeding of livestock on grain and land that could be used directly to feed

R
people, and increased emphasis on keeping livestock, particularly ruminants, on land unsuited to

SC
arable crops. Such systems may sequester carbon, and are good for animal welfare.

U
4. Develop specific food and livestock policies to assist vulnerable sectors of the population
N
Vulnerable populations include subsistence farmers, small-scale producers and the rural and urban
A
populations they supply with food, particularly poor people. Similar priority is given in the Sustainable
M

Development Goals (UN, 2015). Under Goal 2 (‘End hunger, achieve food security and improved

nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture’), section 3 says:

ED

By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in

particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers.

PT

These people need knowledge transfer and practical help, including financial support.
E

5. Promote sustainable diets and address food losses and waste

CC

While the phrase ‘sustainable diets’ primarily refers to human diets, in relation to livestock it prompts

consideration of sustainability for animals and the environment as well as for people. For people, meat
A

and animal products are important in their diets, and in particular adding moderate quantities of

animal products to the diet of malnourished people is beneficial (Neumann et al., 2003). More

generally, safeguarding livestock welfare helps to prevent negative effects, including waste of

resources, increasing sustainability for human diets, for animals and for the environment.

13
6. Develop markets for humane, sustainable livestock production, within countries and in international

trade

For producers to make a profit – necessary for sustainability – they need to offer saleable products to

the market. Safeguarding livestock welfare assists with that, for example by increasing food safety, for

national and international markets.

T
IP
Increased urgency is needed to achieve food security and sustainability, by producers,

governments and intergovernmental organisations in consultation with other stakeholders including

R
scientists, veterinarians and non-governmental organisations. The livestock sector has both positive

SC
and negative impacts. Consideration of animal behaviour and welfare helps to ensure and increase

U
the positive impacts, and to reduce and avoid the negative, and should therefore be a priority for
N
countries worldwide.
A
M

Acknowledgment

Much of the preparation of this paper was done while the authors were employed by World Animal
ED

Protection.
E PT
CC
A

14
References

Appleby, M.C., 2005. Sustainable agriculture is humane, humane agriculture is sustainable. J. Ag. Envir.

Ethics 18, 293-303.

Appleby, M.C., Cussen, V., Garcés, L., Lambert, L.A., Turner, J., (Eds.) 2008. Long Distance Transport

and Welfare of Farm Animals. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Bahari, M.M., 2013. The importance of integrating animal welfare, environmental health and

T
veterinary legislation in improving food security and contributing to agricultural gross

IP
domestic product in Africa. Proceedings, 20th Conference of the OIE Regional Commission for

R
Africa (Lomé, Togo), pp. 1-10.

SC
Broom, D.M., Galindo, F.A., Murgueitio, E., 2013. Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high

biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 280, 2013-2035.

U
Committee on World Food Security, 2014. Principles for responsible investment in agriculture and
N
food systems. http://www.fao.org/3/a-au866e.pdf.
A
Devereux, S. 2014. Livestock and Livelihoods in Africa: Maximising Animal Welfare and Human
M

Wellbeing. IDS Working Paper 451. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK.
ED

Erb, K.-H., Mayer, A., Kastner, T., Sallet, K., Haberl, H., 2012. The Impact of Industrial Grain Fed

Livestock Production on Food Security: An Extended Literature Review. World Society for the
PT

Protection of Animals, London.

FAO, 2011. World Livestock 2011 – Livestock in Food Security. FAO, Rome.
E

FAO, 2016. Livestock and the SDGs: Review of Main Linkages.

CC

www.livestockdialogue.org/fileadmin/templates/res_livestock/docs/2016/Panama/global-

goals_wheel.pdf.
A

Fraser, D., Kharb, R.M., McCrindle, C., Mench, J., Paranhos da Costa, M., Promchan, K., Sundrum, A.,

Thornber, P., Whittington, P., Song, W., 2009. Capacity Building to Implement Good Animal

Welfare Practices. Report of the FAO Expert Meeting, FAO Headquarters (Rome), 30

September – 3 October 2008. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0483e/i0483e00.pdf.

15
Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G.,

2013. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and

Mitigation Opportunities. FAO, Rome.

Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock, 2015. Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock (The Global

Agenda).

http://www.livestockdialogue.org/fileadmin/templates/res_livestock/docs/2016/FINAL-

T
GASL_AP-16Nov2015.pdf.

IP
Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, 2017. The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

R
http://grsbeef.org/page-1861850.

SC
Grandin, T., (Ed.) 2014. Livestock Handling and Transport, 4th edition. CAB International, Wallingford,

UK.

U
HLPE, 2016. Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition: What Roles for
N
Livestock? www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe.
A
Huertas, S., Gil, A., Suanes, A., Cernicchiaro, N., Zaffaroni, R., de Freitas, J., Invernizzi, I., 2003. Estudio
M

de los factores asociados a la presencia de lesiones traumaticas en carcasas de bovinos

ED

faenados en Uruguay. Jornadas Chilenas de Buiatria, Pucón, Chile, 6, 117-118.

Instituto Nacional de Carnes, 2009. Uruguay: Auditorias de la Carne. http://www.inac.gub.uy.

PT

International Finance Corporation, 2014. Good Practice Note: Improving Animal Welfare in Livestock

Operations. www.ifc.org/agribusiness.
E

International Society for Applied Ethology, 2017. ISAE 2017. http://conferences.au.dk/isae2017

CC

Kamboj, M.L., Prasad, S., Oberoi, P.S., Manimaran, A., Lathwal, S.S., Gupta, K. 2014. National Code of

Practices for Management of Dairy Animals in India. ICAR National Dairy Research Institute,
A

Karnal, India.

McCrindle, C. 1998. The community development approach to animal welfare: an African perspective.

Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 59, 227-233.

16
McInerney, J.P. 2004. Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy. Report to Department of Environment,

Food and Rural Affairs.

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/animalwelfa

re.pdf.

Neumann, C.G., Bwibo, N.O., Murphy, S.P., Sigman, M., Whaley, S., Allen, L.H., Guthrie, D., Weiss, R.E.,

Demment, M.W., 2003. Animal source foods improve dietary quality, micronutrient status,

T
growth and cognitive function in Kenyan school children: Background, study design and

IP
baseline findings J. Nutrition 133, 3941S-3949S.

R
OIE, 2017a. Introduction to the Recommendations for Animal Welfare.

SC
http://www.oie.int/en/international-standard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-

online/?htmfile=chapitre_aw_introduction.htm.

U
OIE, 2017b. OIE Standards and International Trade. http://www.oie.int/en/animal-welfare/oie-
N
standards-and-international-trade.
A
Pacto Caquetá, 2016. Planeaciόn estratégica.
M

https://issuu.com/rafaeltorrijos/docs/planeacion_estrategica_pacto_caquet
ED

Parente, S., van de Weerd, H., 2012. Food Security and Farm Animal Welfare. Compassion in World

Farming, Godalming, and World Society for the Protection of Animals, London.
PT

Rollin, B. 1993. Animal production and the new social ethic for animals. In Purdue University Office of

Agricultural Research Programs, Ed., Food Animal Well-Being 1993: Conference Proceedings
E

and Deliberations, pp. 3-13. Purdue Research Foundation, West Lafayette.

CC

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., de Haan, C. 2006. Livestock’s Long

Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome.

A

UCSAREP, undated. What is Sustainable Agriculture?

http://asi.ucdavis.edu/programs/sarep/about/what-is-sustainable-agriculture.

UN, 2015. Sustainable Development Goals. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs.

17
Webster, J. 2016. Livestock production systems: Animal welfare and environmental quality. In

Pritchard W, Ortiz R, Shekar M (Eds) Routledge Handbook of Food and Nutrition Security, pp.

137-152. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

World Animal Protection, 2016. Harnessing the Power of Animal Protection and Welfare: Potential

Pathways to Food Security, Economic Growth and the Wellbeing of African People; a

Stakeholder Analysis, Policy Landscaping and Political Economy of Policy Making on Animal

T
Welfare in Africa. World Animal Protection Africa, Nairobi.

IP
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University

R
Press, Oxford.

SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

18
Figure caption

Figure 1. The pyramid of influence. IGOs = Intergovernmental organisations, e.g. UNESCO, OIE.

Organisations and associations include institutes, universities and professional associations.

T
R IP
IGOs

SC
Governments
Organisations & associations
Managers
Individuals
Animals
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

19