Farm Animal Welfare: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Zoology
Contributor:
Agnese Balzani
,
Alison Hanlon
,
agnese balzani

Animal welfare concepts encompass biological functioning in terms of health, growth and productivity; the animals’ affective state; and naturalness of the animals’ life, especially with regard to the ability to perform the normal behaviour repertoire. Farmers are responsible to produce food and they play a key role in improving the welfare of their animals. Farmers interpersonal and external characteristics can influence their decision-making process. For example, farmers' empathy for animals influences the adoption of animal welfare practices. An extensive overview of how the farm animal welfare concepts have been perceived by farmers and a thematic analysis of the characteristics that influence this perception can lead to future directions on implementation of farm animal welfare innovation.  The review further highlights the need for promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder participation. This study suggests strategies to improve farm animal welfare, including tools to support behavioral changes amongst farmers.

  • farm animal welfare
  • farmers
  • perceptions
  • attitudes
  • empathy
  • human animal relationship
  • policy
  • stakeholders
  • communication
  • knowledge transfer

1. Introduction

Globally 70 billion animals are farmed annually for meat, milk and eggs. Two-thirds of these are farmed intensively [1]. In the growing debate about how food of animal origin is produced it is a challenge to disentangle the producer and stakeholder interests. Many factors contribute to the well-being and health of animals in commercial production systems including housing and environment; nutritional and health programs; handling and caretaker interactions; animal group dynamics; and common management practices. These factors have been established in more than four decades.
 
However, despite the scientific progress in FAW, reflected by an annual publication growth of 13.3% [2], the implementation in practice is still poor in many areas. For example the level of neonatal lamb mortality has remained consistently high in some countries, despite 40 years of research to identify the risk and protective factors to reduce mortality [3]; another example is provided by Green et al. [4], which illustrates deficiencies in the implementation of ‘new’ best practice for the treatment of lameness in sheep.
 
As the world population continues to grow, the scientific community is facing a great challenge in order to sustainably increase agricultural production, to decrease food losses and maintain high animal health and welfare standards. Nevertheless, these efforts and innovations cannot be implemented without stakeholders’ support, including, farmers, veterinarians, agriculture advisors, consumers, policy makers, and retailers.
 
Farmers are one of the key stakeholders for the successful implementation of enhanced FAW standards [5]. Since Seabrook’s [6] research on human and animal relationship (HAR), there has been a growing body of literature focused on exploring farmers’ attitudes towards animal health and welfare problems with the aim of optimizing the future programs designed to implement FAW. To better explore these aspects, socio-psychological approaches have been implemented since the late eighties [7]. Interdisciplinary studies focusing on farmers’ perceptions of FAW have reported that personalities [8], knowledge [9,10], values [11,12,13] economic advantages [9,13,14], communication with their veterinarian and agriculture advisors [10,15,16], time and management influence the perception of FAW.
 
A deeper understanding of how farmers perceive and value FAW can lead to more effective development of extension programs, policies, and management initiatives aimed at maintaining healthy animals. Additionally, insights into factors that influence farmers’ decision-making process could support policy interventions aligned to the habitual behavior of target communities [17].

2. Animal Welfare Topics of the Studies

For the purpose of this review all the studies that investigated farmers’ perceptions, attitudes, values, knowledge of FAW were analyzed. Considering the scope of animal welfare science, the papers examined covered a wide variety of themes (Figure 3). Attitudes of farmers to painful procedures represented one of the main themes (pig tail docking n = 7; cattle disbudding/dehorning n = 10; claw trimming n = 1; pig euthanasia n = 1). Only 15% of the papers reviewed focused on understanding farmers’ perceptions and attitudes towards animal welfare in general. Analysis of data on farmers’ attitudes, beliefs, emotions and personality together with health management was the second most common theme investigated (cow and sheep lameness n = 8; mastitis n = 1; pig disease n = 2). Farmers’ attitudes towards participation in existing or improved quality assurance schemes was investigated in 15% of the studies reviewed.
Animals 10 01524 g003 550
Figure 3. Range (%) of topics in the reviewed articles (n = 96) focused on farmers’ perceptions, attitudes, values, knowledge on farm animal welfare (FAW).
 
 

References

  1. Amos, N.; Sullivan, R. The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare 2016 Report. SSRN Electron. J. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Freire, R.; Nicol, C.J. A bibliometric analysis of past and emergent trends in animal welfare science. Anim. Welf. 2019, 28, 465–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dwyer, C.M.; Conington, J.; Corbiere, F.; Holmoy, I.H.; Muri, K.; Nowak, R.; Rooke, J.; Vipond, J.; Gautier, J.M. Invited review: Improving neonatal survival in small ruminants: Science into practice. Animal 2015, 10, 449–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Green, L.E.; Kaler, J.; Wassink, G.J.; King, E.M.; Grogono Thomas, R. Impact of rapid treatment of sheep lame with footrot on welfare and economics and farmer attitudes to lameness in sheep. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. European Commission, European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_eu_strategy_19012012_en.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2020).
  6. Seabrook, M.F. The psychological interaction between the stockman and his animals and its influence on performance of pigs and dairy cows. Vet. Rec. 1984, 115, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hemsworth, P.H.; Barnett, J.L.; Coleman, G.J.; Hansen, C. A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1989, 23, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Adler, F.; Christley, R.; Campe, A. Invited review: Examining farmers’ personalities and attitudes as possible risk factors for dairy cattle health, welfare, productivity, and farm management: A systematic scoping review. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3805–3824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Peden, R.S.E.; Akaichi, F.; Camerlink, I.; Boyle, L.A.; Turner, S.P. Factors Influencing Farmer Willingness to Reduce Aggression between Pigs. Animals 2018, 9, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vaärikkala, S.; Artukka, S.M.; Hänninen, L.; Nevas, M. Finnish cattle and pig farmers’ perceptions of animal welfare inspections. Anim. Welf. 2018, 27, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hansson, H.; Lagerkvist, C.J.J. Dairy farmers’ use and non-use values in animal welfare: Determining the empirical content and structure with anchored best-worst scaling. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 579–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Heise, H.; Theuvsen, L. German dairy farmers’ attitudes toward farm animal welfare and their willingness to participate in animal welfare programs: A cluster analysis. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2018, 21, 1121–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. von Hardenberg, L.; Heise, H. German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes Towards Farm Animal Welfare And Their Willingness To Participate In Animal Welfare Pro-grams: An Empirical Study. Proc. Food Syst. Dyn. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Becker, J.; Reist, M.; Steiner, A. Factors influencing the attitudes of cattle veterinarians, farmers, and claw trimmers towards the pain associated with the treatment of sole ulcers and the sensitivity to pain of dairy cows. Vet. J. 2014, 200, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Vaarst, M.; Paarup-Laursen, B.; Houe, H.; Fossing, C.; Andersen, H.J. Farmers’ Choice of Medical Treatment of Mastitis in Danish Dairy Herds Based on Qualitative Research Interviews. J. Dairy Sci. 2002, 85, 992–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Horseman, S.V.; Roe, E.J.; Huxley, J.N.; Bell, N.J.; Mason, C.S.; Whay, H.R. The use of in-depth interviews to understand the process of treating lame dairy cows from the farmers’ perspective. Anim. Welf. 2014, 23, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dessart, F.J.; Barreiro-Hurlé, J.; van Bavel, R. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ani10091524

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback