AnnotatedBibliography.docx

Running Head: ANIMAL WELFARE 2

ANIMAL WELFARE 2

Annotated Bibliography
Da Vielle Vinson
DeVry University
3/17/2021

References
Abraham, M. C., de Verdier, K., Båge, R., & Morrell, J. M. (2017). Semen collection methods in alpacas. Veterinary Record, 180(25), 613–614. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.104074

This paper focuses on reviewing the available methods that are used currently in obtaining spermatozoa or semen among southern American camelids. The paper also presents the challenges faced when handling the viscous seminal plasma of camelids. Reproductive biotechnologies such as embryo transfer and artificial insemination with cryopreserved embryos present unique complications among this species as compared to challenges faced regarding domestic livestock (Abraham et al., 2017). The paper also discusses future developments and possibilities regarding applicable reproductive biotechnologies.
Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R., & Lomillos, J. M. (2020). Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. Animals, 10(3), 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385

This paper explores the evolution regarding concerns and perception of consumers on the effects of intensified production systems and their impacts on welfare of animal. Alonso et al., (2020) point out of an increasing perception among consumers that farm animal welfare should be improved and protected. Consumers are attracted to quality attributes regarding animal welfare which signify authentic, healthier, safer environmentally friendly and more hygienic products. Consumers are more confident of purchasing welfare friendly products that are clearly labelled which signify transparency across the value chain of the product. Farmers and business men ought to be informed of this changing perception in order to adopt more sustainable and socially responsible practices at their farms which is instrumental for them to obtain social ethical approval and maintain public credibility.
Grumett, D. (2019). Aristotle’s Ethics and Farm Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 32(2), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09776-1

This paper looks at the ethics of Aristotle and its contribution to the ethics of farm animal. In theorizing is concepts Aristotle emphasized that a good and flourishing life is factor of good diet, behavior and physiology (Grumett, 2019). Aristotle believed that animals have their purpose in the ecosystem just as humans have one and that their telos is unchanging and natural. Animals deserve to be treated with care due to their great and valuable contributions in different communities all over the world. This paper goes on to provide a framework for farm animal ethics which are derived from the principles upheld by Aristotle.

Hernandez, E., Fawcett, A., Brouwer, E., Rau, J., & Turner, P. (2018). Speaking Up: Veterinary Ethical Responsibilities and Animal Welfare Issues in Everyday Practice. Animals, 8(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8010015

The expectations regarding animal care are on the increase in majority of the developed countries. However, there are still significant challenges regarding animal welfare that continue to be experienced in the field of veterinary practice. According to Hernandez et al., (2018) veterinary ethics is still a new concept which requires educational focus because of its crucial importance in helping professionals in this respective field in formulating their approach to clinical case management and establishing the overall acceptable practices or conduct towards animals. Hernandez et al., (2018) delivers key insights regarding how veterinary ethics are taught, the approaches and ethical frameworks employed in different cases. Hernandez et al., (2018) further looks at guidelines legislation and code of professional conduct regarding animal welfare issues. The paper presents an argument that lacking veterinary ethical sensitivity or having insufficient mature ethical reasoning usually results in failure of the duty to care for animals hence resulting to poor animal welfare outcomes.

Ritter, C., Beaver, A., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2019). The complex relationship between welfare and reproduction in cattle. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 54, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/rda.13464

Using the aspect of reproduction in assessing the welfare of animals present certain limitations. In taking a closer look at farm measures such as fertility rates signify biological performance. However, such a measure may fail to consider the welfare of individual animal. Ritter et al., (2019) argue reproductive performance doesn’t directly signify good welfare given the reproductive technologies currently employed in many farms. However, technologies such as artificial insemination is associated with several welfare advantages such as reducing the risk of transmitting diseases and selecting specific beneficial properties. However, such practices also limit oestrus expression. Oestrus manipulation may spark negative attitudes among consumers who view naturalness as an important aspect of animal welfare