**TESTIMONY OF**

**Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM**

**Associate Director, Animal Welfare Division**

**American Veterinary Medical Association**

**Concerning a**

**Review of the Welfare of Animals in Agriculture**

**Before the**

**Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry**

**Committee on Agriculture**

**United States House of Representatives**

**May 8, 2007**

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide input on behalf of the American Veterinary
Medical Association as you consider how the welfare of agricultural
animals might best be assured. The AVMA currently comprises more than
75,000 members, representing approximately 86 percent of the nation's
practicing veterinarians.

Animal welfare, not surprisingly, is of primary importance to
veterinarians and to the AVMA. Animal welfare, in fact, was identified
as one of the AVMA's top five critical issues during its recent
strategic planning process. In fulfillment of one of the goals
established for this critical issue, the AVMA has developed and
published its overarching Animal Welfare Principles^1^ (Appendix A),
which serve as a guideline for the AVMA in making decisions and
initiating actions on animal welfare concerns. The Association is also
dedicating substantial resources to proactively address the veterinary
profession's abiding interest in animal welfare. One aspect of those
increased resources is a revamped and expanded volunteer Animal Welfare
Committee; another is the creation of a Division of Animal Welfare
dedicated to this topic. I serve as the Associate Director of that
Division.

This hearing is likely to highlight some differences that exist among
stakeholders with regard to how we believe animals should be used and
cared for. An important underlying truth is that most people in the
United States believe it is acceptable to use animals for food and
fiber, as long as the welfare of those animals is good.^2^ The AVMA has
indicated its explicit agreement with this approach via the first of its
eight Animal Welfare Principles.

But what is good welfare? When evaluating animal welfare, it is
important to be clear about what people mean when they say this. Animal
producers tend to cite elements of good health and normal biologic
function (e.g., adequate weight gain, reproductive efficiency) as
evidence of good animal welfare, whereas animal activists are often most
comfortable with a vision that allows animals to live in natural
environments. The dichotomy between the two groups is a result of
different experiences leading to different value frameworks.^3^ These
differing value frameworks are used by each group when they judge how
animals should or should not be used and cared for.

Veterinary medicine is a scientific discipline. That means veterinarians
are most comfortable making data-based decisions. Animal welfare can
present challenges, because, as I just mentioned, its decisions involve
a value component, and science is not set up to make moral
determinations. The AVMA Animal Welfare Principles recognize this.
However, animal welfare science is a problem-solving discipline and, as
such, it can often contribute information that can help us find
solutions when existing systems or proposed changes do not appear to
work within our value framework. In short, it serves as a kind of golden
parachute. When questions or concerns are raised by society about animal
care, animal welfare science attempts to answer those. Animal welfare
science is a new and applied science that has emerged from existing
scientific disciplines, such as physiology, neurobiology, ethology,
epidemiology, and pathology. Rather than seeking specialization within
those disciplines, it integrates information from them in an attempt to
answer broad questions.

Although the degree of importance attributed to each element making up
an animal's overall welfare state may vary, the AVMA believes no
assessment of animal welfare is complete unless all pertinent elements
are considered. It is not satisfactory, for example, to judge the
welfare of an animal on the basis of its physical health without regard
for whether it is suffering or frustrated; nor is it appropriate to
conclude that an animal that can engage in species-typical or "natural"
behavior(s) has a good state of welfare without also evaluating its
health and biologic function. Veterinarians, by virtue of their
broad-based training, are extraordinarily well-positioned to integrate
and bring the relevant elements of animal welfare science to the table
to assist key decision-makers in making good decisions. These skills of
veterinarians, combined with the promise of a science that is
multi-disciplinary and an understanding of the importance of input and
buy-in by a variety of stakeholders, are what inspire the AVMA's current
approach to animal welfare.

Two high-profile issues currently under the microscope of animal welfare
advocates and some members of the public can be used to demonstrate the
power of animal welfare science to assist not only in decision-making,
but also in ensuring positive animal welfare outcomes. These issues are
space allowances in cages housing laying hens and the use of gestation
stalls for housing pregnant sows.

With respect to cages for laying hens, science was able to document not
only a need for change, but also how this type of housing for laying
hens needed to be adjusted to improve animal welfare. In the late 1990s,
recognizing animal welfare as an emerging public concern, the egg
industry pulled together a multi-disciplinary team comprising animal
scientists, veterinarians, a public policy specialist, and a
representative of the humane community and charged them with conducting
a scientific review and making recommendations for revision of that
industry's animal care guidelines. This multi-disciplinary team explored
nearly 30 years of production and mortality data collected with laying
hens housed at different space allowances. Their review^4^ suggested
cage space needed to be increased from 48 square inches per hen (the
dimensions recommended in a set of 1983 industry guidelines) to a range
of 67 to 86 square inches per hen based on bird size. In this case, the
industry guideline was not aligned with research findings or societal
expectations. By phasing in space allowances according to science-based
parameters, the industry discovered that hen welfare improved and
economic benefits were realized through improved egg production. This
experience taught us two important things: first, that science could be
used to help define and resolve an animal welfare problem and, second,
that science should be used initially in the drafting of animal care
guidelines, rather than called in after the fact.

The evaluation of the welfare of sows housed in gestation stalls is an
example of where application of animal welfare science can point out
fallacies in simplistic solutions. Comprising individuals representing
expertise in multiple scientific disciplines and multiple stakeholder
interests, including the humane community and the industry, the AVMA's
Task Force on the Housing of Pregnant Sows conducted a comprehensive
review (Appendix B)^5^ of the scientific literature on housing systems
for pregnant sows with the intent of determining the appropriateness of
the use of gestation stalls. By evaluating information on biologic
function, behavior, physical health, and production, the members of our
Task Force were able to determine that current stall systems minimize
aggression and injury, reduce competition, allow individual
non-competitive feeding, and assist in control of body condition.
Stalls, however, also restricted movement and exercise, did not allow
sows to practice normal foraging behaviors, and restricted social
interaction. Current group systems were found to permit freedom of
movement and social interaction, but also to hold the potential for
aggressive interactions, injury, and uneven body condition if not
managed appropriately. In this case, the science couldn't identify a
particular housing system as being unequivocally superior (i.e., there
was no quantitative way to determine how much behavioral freedom was
equal to how much risk of injury), but it did provide information
suggesting that simply banning a particular system was probably not a
quick-and-easy solution to improving sow welfare overall. It also
identified areas of focus for future improvements in sow housing design.
Current AVMA policy on this issue (Appendix C)^6^ reflects the findings
and recommendations of its Task Force.

There is a considerable disconnect in experience between most members of
the American public and the people who actually raise animals for food
and fiber. In addition, interest in animal care and welfare among the
American public has been increasing. As a result, sometimes people
become fixated on forcing changes that they think will improve animal
welfare when, in reality, that might not be the case. At the same time,
animal agriculture, responding to the public's desire for inexpensive,
high quality food products, actively pursues the most efficient way to
produce those products. That pursuit can create conflicts of interest,
and sometimes negative impacts, when attempts are made to balance the
bottom line against animal welfare.

Pulling together societal expectations and industry needs is a lesson in
recognizing that guidelines for animal care benefit from being both
science-based and dynamic. When animal care guidelines were originally
established by the egg production industry, induced molting was a
controversial subject. Molt induction had great economic benefits for
the industry. It also had some animal welfare benefits in that extending
the useful life of the hen meant that fewer hens were needed to produce
a desired quantity of eggs. For this reason, the industry was not
inclined to abandon molt induction, but recognized that current methods
of feed withdrawal were not in line with public value frameworks.
Certification guidelines that allowed a molt were established, but
research on alternatives was also solicited and funded. When more humane
methods of inducing a molt were identified, the AVMA revised its
recommendations regarding molt induction.^7^ Similarly, at the advice of
the egg industry's scientific animal welfare advisors, industry
guidelines were changed to disallow molt induction via feed
withdrawal.^8^ In this case, attention only to public pressure would
have resulted in complete abandonment of a production practice that
actually accrued some welfare benefits. Instead, after soliciting the
assistance of scientists and veterinarians, the industry was able to
move toward a more humane approach, but still retain the benefits of
this production practice.

Common sense and science depend on each other to reach sound conclusions
on animal welfare. Multi-disciplinary, scientific input is important
when it comes to giving an account of the various problems animals may
face when people attempt to manage them in accord with their use. As
illustrated by example throughout my submitted testimony, components of
animal care cannot be considered in isolation. Consideration of all
aspects of a production system is critical in determining what changes,
when implemented, will actually improve the quality of life of animals.
Common sense, empathy, cultural values, and multi-stakeholder input are
important when we attempt to determine what level of animal welfare risk
is acceptable.

In acting on recommendations regarding animal welfare, the AVMA hopes
government officials will ensure that:

-   Sound science serves as the basis for any recommended interventions;

-   Actions are consistent with the reason for intervention and are
    based on a comprehensive risk assessment;

-   Responses are proportionate, and a complete assessment of costs and
    benefits is performed and considered;

-   Decisions are made in partnership with key stakeholders; and

-   Resulting actions will promote a welfare-friendly and sustainable
    agricultural industry.

On behalf of the American Veterinary Medical Association, my sincere
appreciation for the opportunity to speak with you today.

^1^American Veterinary Medical Association. Animal Welfare Principles.
Available at:
<http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/principles.asp>.
Accessed May 8, 2007.

^2^Kendall HA, Lobao LM, Sharp JS. Public concern with animal
well-being: place, social structural location, and individual
experience. *Rural Sociology* 2006;71(3):399-438.

^3^Fraser D. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the
interplay of science and values. *Animal Welfare* 2003;12:433-443.

^4^Bell D, Chase B, Douglass A, Hester P, Mench J, Newberry R,
Shea-Moore M, Stanker L, Swanson J, Armstrong J. UEP uses scientific
approach in its establishment of welfare guidelines. *Feedstuffs* 2004;
March 15.

^5^AVMA Task Force on the Housing of Pregnant Sows. A comprehensive
review of housing for pregnant sows. *J Am Vet Med Assoc*
2005;227(10):1580-1590. Also available at:
<http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/sow_housing_tfr.pdf>.
Accessed May 8, 2007.

^6^American Veterinary Medical Association. Pregnant sow housing.
Available at:
<http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/pregnant_sow_housing.asp>.
Accessed May 8, 2007.

^7^American Veterinary Medical Association. Induced molting of layer
chickens. Available at:
<http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/molting.asp>. Accessed
May 8, 2007.

^8^Smith R. UEP to end feed withdrawal. *Feedstuffs* 2005; May 9.