Three papers by Donald M. Broom emphasise that, where animals are farmed or otherwise affected by production, their welfare can be scientifically assessed, and that welfare is a key part of the sustainability of systems.
An individual’s welfare is its state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment. There are many measures of good and poor welfare, some of which give information about positive or negative feelings. They may be measures of behaviour, physiology or disease state, and some provide information about what is important to the individual.
Broom (2023) explains that there are several ways to identify a net positive or net negative effect where factors causing both negative and positive effects are present. A range of sentient animals can assess the risks and benefits of actions and situations, and this is important when deciding on life strategies. Humans, other mammals and other sentient animals such as fish may tolerate a negative experience in order to increase the chances of having a positive experience. A positive experience may be sufficient to overcome an existing negative experience resulting in net welfare which is positive. Good welfare can counterbalance poor welfare but does not do so in all circumstances.
A system or procedure is sustainable if it is acceptable now and if its expected future effects are acceptable, in particular in relation to resource availability, consequences of functioning and morality of action. When assessing sustainability, the whole process from the beginning of obtaining raw materials to the final disposal of the product and other consequences of production must be considered. Measurement and scoring of sustainability components can include positive and negative effects (Broom 2021, 2022).
For food production and all other activities, there should be consideration of a complete range of sustainability components. Negative components of food production sustainability include: adverse effects on human welfare, including human health, no fair reward for producers in poor countries, and not preserving rural communities; poor welfare of production or other animals; unacceptable genetic modification; harmful environmental effects such as pollution, causing climate change or biodiversity reduction; and inefficient use of world resources. Since some of these diverse components cannot be expressed in terms of money, energy, or carbon cost, a factual, scientific sustainability scoring method (Broom 2021) is needed to compare different systems and products.
Broom, D.M. 2021. A method for assessing sustainability, with beef production as an example. Biological Reviews, 96, 1836-1853. doi.org/10.1111/brv.12726
Broom, D.M. 2022. The use of sustainability scoring to evaluate food production and prepare for the future, Animal, 16, 100680 (pp. 11) doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2022.100680
Broom, D.M. 2023. Can positive welfare counterbalance negative and can net welfare be assessed? Frontiers in Animal Science, 4, p.1101957. doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2023.1101957