Farmers' opinions on welfare, health and production practices in extensive hill sheep flocks in Great Britain

Morgan-Davies, C; Waterhouse, A.; Milne, Catherine E.; Stott, Alistair W.

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.04.024

Cited by 31 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These aspects received a very high perceived importance score by citizens and yielded a relatively strong difference with the respective farmers' importance scores, even though also at farmer level a relatively high score was found. The difference regarding the ability to engage in natural behaviour is in correspondence with the two additional values that citizens include within their frame of reference as described in previous studies: freedom to move and freedom to fulfill natural desires (Te Velde et al, 2002;Lassen et al, 2006;Marie, 2006;Morgan-Davies et al, 2006;Milne et al, 2007). Also, from a farmers' perspective, animal welfare is judged positive, since a fast growth and a satisfactory food conversion -two issues farmers relate to good animal welfare -are strived for and usually also realized.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Farmers rely on their daily experience and practical knowledge of how their livestock will optimally produce, which is something they positively relate to animal welfare. However, they are rather indifferent towards possible other aspects of animal welfare, for instance the ability to engage in natural behaviour (Te Velde et al, 2002;Marie, 2006;Morgan-Davies et al, 2006;Milne et al, 2007). Due to an increasing dissociation of citizens from farming practices as a consequence of agricultural intensification and growing urbanization, citizens' knowledge of the circumstances in which meat livestock is produced is much more limited (Harper and Henson, 2001;Harper and Makatouni, 2002;Frewer et al, 2005;Verbeke, 2005;Maria, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?

Vanhonacker

Verbeke

Poucke³

et al. 2008

Livestock Science

308

247

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?

Vanhonacker

Verbeke

Poucke³

et al. 2008

Livestock Science

308

247

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Motivation is limited when farmers distrust the economic advantages of implementing strategies or when the benefits are simply unknown (Bock and van Huik, 2007;Gocsik et al, 2015). Motivation is also reduced by a perceived lack of time, skilled labour (Morgan-Davies et al, 2006), or knowledge (de Lauwere et al, 2012). Commercial pig farmers have little choice but to farm animals in a way that will retain their competitive position in the market (Webster, 1982), and pig farmers are motivated markedly by economic factors (Bock and van Huik, 2007).…”

Section: The Gap Between Research and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

The translation of animal welfare research into practice: The case of mixing aggression between pigs

Peden

Turner

Boyle

et al. 2018

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aggression between unfamiliar pigs at mixing is a major animal welfare problem in commercial farming. It has been studied since the 1970s and remains an important topic in animal welfare research. Methods to reduce pig aggression at mixing have been reviewed previously, but there has been little translation of the advocated techniques and building designs into practice. As a result, the problem persists on many commercial units. A similar situation exists for many other animal welfare issues. This article takes a new approach in not only reviewing the recent scientific literature, but also reviewing the evidence of uptake in industry. Firstly, the current state of aggression mitigation research is reviewed; including the most successful recent developments in breeding against aggression, early life socialisation, the use of pheromones and nutrition. Secondly, information is extracted from both peer reviewed and industry literature to establish the extent to which these strategies have been transferred from research to practice. Finally, we discuss why in spite of the amount of research on reducing aggression at mixing the problem has not reduced in intensive farming systems. The limited uptake in practice appears to be due to low prioritisation of the problem, the practicalities of implementation, lack of information on cost-effectiveness and ineffective communication of research to the farming community. To bridge this gap, industry must be involved in the design of practical solutions and the cost-effectiveness of these must be quantified. This approach should also be considered for other animal welfare issues under investigation. We recommend a better alignment between research questions and industry interests to increase the success of research efforts to improve animal welfare in practice.

show abstract

“…what others within their peer group are doing; [14]) and the way they generally see the farming industry may also influence the undertaking of preventive measures [15-18]. The role of social behaviour and personality traits in the decision making process of producers and the subsequent effect on on-farm levels of disease or the use of preventive measures has been investigated [15,17,19-36]. Some studies have considered health behaviour theories when exploring behaviours in an animal based context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cattle producers’ perceptions of biosecurity

Brennan

Christley²

2013

BMC Vet Res

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe limited use of biosecurity practices by many in the farming community is likely to be due to a range of factors; further understanding of this issue is required. In this study, attitudes and behaviours of producers relating to selected biosecurity practices and the farming industry were studied by interviewing cattle farmers within a 100 km2 study area in north-west England using an interview-based questionnaire.ResultsMost producers appeared to be familiar with the broad concept of the term biosecurity, although risks due to indirect contacts, rather than direct (animal) contacts, were more frequently highlighted. Most producers felt the nominated biosecurity practices were in some way useful, however there was not always agreement between the usefulness of a practice and it being undertaken, and vice versa. In agreement with other studies conducted in the UK, farmers most preferred to obtain information and advice on biosecurity from private veterinarians, but also highlighted DEFRA as a source.ConclusionsThis study highlights the importance of understanding the motivators and barriers behind the uptake of biosecurity practices on farms, as perceptions are variable. Further understanding of these issues is needed in order to more effectively communicate information in regards to herd health and disease prevention. By identifying differences in producers’ attitudes, programs can be tailored specifically to individuals’ needs.

show abstract

Farmers' opinions on welfare, health and production practices in extensive hill sheep flocks in Great Britain

Cited by 31 publications

References 19 publications

Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?

Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?

The translation of animal welfare research into practice: The case of mixing aggression between pigs

Cattle producers’ perceptions of biosecurity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About