Science for Animal Welfare Conference 2026 DAY 2 Stream A (Beveridge Hall)

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The value of the content lies in the personal narrative and scientific insights shared by Marina von Keyserlingk. She provides a compelling argument for integrating experiential knowledge with scientific rigor, demonstrating how her background in farming enabled her to effectively communicate with producers and drive change. Her discussion of studies on feeding behavior preceding disease in dairy cows illustrates the importance of behavioral indicators in welfare assessment. She also critically evaluates arguments about feeding the world, highlighting flaws in the productivity narrative. The argumentation is well-reasoned, grounded in specific examples and references to her own published work, though the transcript provides only a snapshot of the full conference.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The video is a professional conference recording, and the title accurately describes the content. The medal lecture is based on the speaker’s own peer-reviewed research and her experience in the industry. She references specific studies (e.g., the metritis feeding behavior study) and concepts like David Fraser’s welfare framework, though without providing direct citations or links in the transcript. The inclusion of multiple speakers and a dedicated symposium on reproducibility indicates a strong commitment to scientific rigor. The title is precise, and the content matches it. No inconsistencies between title and content are apparent.

The title accurately reflects the content: a full day of presentations from the Science for Animal Welfare conference, specifically Day 2 Stream A.

8/10

The conference features established researchers and peer-reviewed content. The medal lecture by Marina von Keyserlingk provides a personal yet evidence-based account of dairy cow welfare research, acknowledging scientific studies and industry interactions. The overall reliability is high, though the transcript covers only a fraction of the full event.

• 00:00Introduction and welcome from CEO Dr Huw Golledge
• 01:22Science for Animal Welfare Medal Lecture
• 53:44A Five-Realms framework for animal welfare - Katarína Bučková, National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan
• 1:16:05Describing the characteristics of feasibility when selecting potential (positive) animal welfare indicators for on-farm assessment - Heng-Lun Ko, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
• 1:36:47The Benchmark Method – a way to make aggregated animal welfare comparisons across production systems, between countries and over time - Peter Sandøe, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
• 1:57:00Public attitudes towards the fate of non-releasable marine mammals - Bianca Vandresen, University of British Columbia, Canada
• 2:00:25Raising the bar: How Shell powers up animal welfare beyond regulatory minimums - Marlly Guarin, Shell, Netherlands
• 2:04:16Avoiding a polarised future: Synthesising diverse perspectives on the future of farm animal welfare in Canada - Katie Koralesky, University of British Columbia, Canada
• 2:08:23Questions for short talk speakers
• 2:16:00The Welfare Footprint framework: A modular architecture for quantifying and comparing animal experience across systems - Wladimir Alonso, Welfare Footprint Institute, USA
• 2:36:21Assurance or artifice: Why doesn't transparency always improve animal welfare? Mia Cobb, University of Melbourne, Australia
• 2:57:30Optimising the selection of welfare indicators in farm animals - Jon Day, Cerebrus Advies, Netherlands
• 3:19:35Improving lifetime welfare of pigs and chickens by automated monitoring of animal welfare measures at slaughter – progress made by the aWISH project - Frank Tuyttens, ILVO, Belgium
• 3:58:31Do sick calves isolate? Changes in lying behaviour and space use during diarrhea - Heather Neave, Purdue University, USA
• 4:02:24Exploring the relationships between immune markers and behaviours reflecting affective states in piglets - Liesbeth Bolhuis, Wageningen University & Research, Netherlands
• 4:05:57Changes in locomotor play, social play, and reward sensitivity after disbudding in calves - Amelia St John Wallis, University of Bristol, UK
• 4:09:10The influence of perforated rubber mats on sow (Sus scrofa) locomotion and welfare - Jen-Yun Chou · University of Saskatchewan, Canada
• 4:12:30Questions for the short talk speakers
• 4:18:00From evidence to impact: Building evidence-based animal welfare policy and practice - Jessica Cait, Charles River Laboratories, USA
• 4:47:41Introduction - Birte Nielsen
• 4:55:54From protocol to practice: Using ethical review to improve animal welfare and research replicability - Aileen MacLellan, Canadian Council on Animal Care, Canada
• 5:07:53Testing replicability across laboratories: Inter-observer reliability on an ethogram for affiliative behaviour in pigs - Marie Bordes, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Austria
• 5:33:47Panel discussion - Charlotte Burn, Christian Nawroth, Georgia Mason, Joseph Garner

• David Fraser's conceptual framework for animal welfare — Marina von Keyserlingk discusses David Fraser's Venn diagram explaining the three dimensions of animal welfare, used as a foundational concept.
• Study on feeding behavior and metritis in dairy cows — She describes a study with Julie Huzzy showing that cows that later develop severe metritis reduce feed intake and feeding time up to two weeks before calving.
• Work on cow preferences for maternity pens — She references Katie Proudfoot's research on cow preference for shelter during calving, highlighting a refinement that was not adopted in practice.
• Tom Levit's journalism on animal welfare — She mentions Tom Levit's articles revealing hidden practices in animal agriculture, illustrating public scrutiny.
• Hermus Gabri's work on methane mitigation and food security — She references a colleague who discusses increasing animal productivity in food-insecure regions rather than reducing consumption.

• Animal welfare: A socially mandated science — The concept that animal welfare research exists because of public concern, as mentioned by von Keyserlingk.

• Arguments about 'feeding the world' — Von Keyserlingk challenges the claim that increased animal production alone can feed a growing population, pointing to distribution and food insecurity issues.