| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Keeling, Linda, et al.
(author)
-
Animal Welfare and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
- 2019
-
In: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2297-1769. ; 6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper systematically evaluates the extent to which achieving the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) is compatible with improving animal welfare. The analyses were based on discussion and independent scoring in a group of 12 participants with academic backgrounds within agricultural or veterinary sciences. We considered all categories of animals; those kept for food production, working and companion animals, but also laboratory and wild animals. The strengths of the links between improving animal welfare and achieving an SDG were scored on a 7-point scale, from being completely indivisible, at one end of the scale, to where it is impossible to reach both the SDG and improved animal welfare at the same time. There was good consensus between participants, with the overall scores being positive, indicating that although animal welfare is not explicitly mentioned in the SDGs, working to achieving the SDGs is compatible with working to improve animal welfare. When analyzing the direction of the links, the impact of achieving an SDG was considered, on average, to be slightly better at leading to improved animal welfare, than the impact of improving animal welfare was on achieving the SDG. The exception to this was for SDG 2, dealing with zero hunger. The two SDGs for which there was strongest mutual reinforcing were SDG 12, which deals with responsible production and consumption, and SDG 14, which deals with life below water. Most of the targets under these two SDGs were considered relevant to animal welfare, whereas when all SDGs were considered, 66 targets of the total of 169 were considered relevant. Although the results of this study suggest a mutually beneficial relationship between improving animal welfare and achieving SDGs, this should be confirmed on a wider group of people, for example people from less developed countries and other stakeholders. Showing the relationships between animal welfare and the sustainable development goals helps highlight the importance of animal welfare when implementing these goals in practice. The methodology described in this study could also be useful to researchers working with other societal and environmental issues not yet considered within the overall SDG framework.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Olmos Antillón, Gabriela, et al.
(author)
-
A global study to identify a potential basis for policy options when integrating animal welfare into the UN Sustainable Development Goals
- 2022
-
In: Frontiers in animal science. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2673-6225. ; 3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A previously developed methodology to rate the strength of the impact of improving animal welfare on achieving each of the 17 SDGs and the impact of achieving each SDG on animal welfare was used at the third Animal Welfare Global Forum of the World Organisation for Animal Health. Data from 95 participants from key stakeholder categories and organisations involved in animal welfare were analysed. The resulting ‘map’ of the relative strengths of these associations confirmed the expected co-benefits of improving animal welfare and achieving the SDGs. Differences at regional level and according to the economic classification of the country were also identified. This paper focuses on using this ‘map’ as a potential guide for how organisations interested in improving animal welfare could identify potential new allies for strategic partnerships to facilitate the implementation of different policy options. For example, a strategy can be to collaborate with those organisations where the impact is of similar mutual benefit, e.g. between improving animal welfare and achieving SDG 3 (Good health and well-being). Organisations in these two areas are already aligning themselves in the ‘One Health’ movement. Another strategy can be to align with organisations for whom achievement of their goal has the greatest impact on animal welfare, even if the impact is not mutual e.g. by collaborating with organisations working to achieve SDG 16 (Peace justice and strong institutions) and SDG 4 (Quality education). Achieving these goals was considered to have a large impact on improving animal welfare, equivalent to that of achieving SDG 3. In summary, this study can help organisations working in the area of animal welfare identify previously untapped areas of potential support, so tailoring their efforts efficiently, while at the same time themselves supporting movement towards the Agenda 2030. Simply put, the co-benefits make collaboration worthwhile, potentially opening up opportunities that would be unavailable when organisations are working independently towards their own respective goals.
|
|
| 9. |
- Olmos Antillón, Gabriela, et al.
(author)
-
Animal welfare and the United Nations’ sustainable development goals—broadening students’ perspectives
- 2021
-
In: Sustainability. - : MDPI AG. - 2071-1050. ; 13
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The mutually beneficial relationships between improving animal welfare (AW) and achieving the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals (SDGs) were further explored and compared to previous work. This was done in the context of a doctoral training course where students selected at least six SDGs and reasoned around their impact on AW and vice versa. Then, students rated the strength of the SDG—AW links. Lastly, students engaged in an assessment exercise. Students reported an overall mutually beneficial relationship between AW and all SDGs, yet with significant differences in strength for SDGs 4, 11, 10, 12 and 13 to that previously found by experts. Students considered SDG 12: Responsible consumption and production the most promising way to integrate AW targets. This study further supports the positive role of AW in the success of the UN’s strategy. Still, the magnitude of the anticipated impacts is modified by stakeholder, context and experience.
|
|
| 10. |
- Olmos Antillón, Gabriela, et al.
(author)
-
Antibiotic use in organic and non-organic Swedish dairy farms: a comparison of three recording methods
- 2020
-
In: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2297-1769. ; 7
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Biases of antimicrobial use (AMU) reporting systems pose a challenge to monitoring of AMU. Our study aimed to cross-compare three data sources of AMU in Swedish dairy herds to provide an account of the validity of AMU reports. We studied AMU differences between two production systems, to investigate how the reporting system affected this comparison. On-farm quantification of AMU via a manual collection of empty drug containers (BIN) took place in organic (n = 30) and conventional (n = 30) dairy herds during two periods between February 2016 and March 2017. A data extract mirroring these periods was obtained from two linked datasets that contain AMU data as reported by the prescribing veterinarians. These included data from the Swedish Board of Agriculture system (SBA) and Växa milk recording system (VXA). Using the European Medicines Agency technical units, the total number of defined daily doses (DDDvet), and defined course doses (DCDvet) per animal/year were calculated for each herd/period/dataset. Descriptive statistics and Bland–Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement and systematic bias between the datasets. Mixed models for repeated measures were used to assess AMU differences between production systems. We found consistent numerical differences for the calculated AMU metrics, with BIN presenting higher usage compared to the SBA and VXA. This was driven by a disparity in intramammary tubes (IMt) which appear to be underreported in the national datasets. A statistically significant interaction (BIN dataset) between the production system and drug administration form was found, where AMU for injectable and lactating cow IMt drug forms differed by the production system, but no difference was found for dry-cow IMt. We conclude that calculating AMU using DDDvet and DCDvet metrics at a herd level based on Swedish national datasets is useful, with the caveat of IMt potentially being misrepresented. The BIN method offers an alternative to monitoring AMU, but scaling up requires considerations. The lower disease caseload in organic herds partly explains the lower AMU in particular drug forms. The fact that organic and conventional herds' had equally low AMU for dry-cow IMt, coupled with mismatches in IMt report across herds indicated an area of further research.
|
|
