Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production

Abstract

The opinions of seven respondent groups about the relative importance of different practices pertaining to the welfare of Australian beef cattle, sheep and goats were surveyed. Respondent groups comprised farmers, livestock transportation representatives, veterinarians, meat processors, animal welfare advocates, animal welfare scientists and government officers. The survey consisted of a web-based adaptive conjoint analysis questionnaire, which was administered to a sample population that was selected randomly for large respondent groups and comprehensively for small groups. The hierarchy of opinion concerning the importance of the different beef cattle practices was: stockmanship . ground (road and rail) transport . spaying . food supply . dehorning . stunning . shelter . identification . pretransport food and water deprivation . castration . sea transport . mustering . confinement. For sheep/goat practices the hierarchy was: parasite control . mulesing . shelter . stockmanship . tail docking . ground transport . feeding . predation . stunning . castration . pretransport food and water deprivation . sea transport . mustering. The method of performing invasive procedures was perceived as less important than the provision of pain relief. Differences in opinion were evident between respondent groups, with animal welfare advocates tending to focus on painful procedures more than those with direct involvement in the industry.

Validating indicators of sheep welfare through a consensus of expert opinion

“…Pre-meeting consultation also found that both lameness and poor body condition were consistently identified as sheep welfare issues (Table 1). Interestingly, the welfare issues suggested by this expert panel concur with the expert opinion regarding the welfare issues for extensively managed sheep (Waterhouse et al, 2003), and for sheep managed in Australia (Cronin et al, 2002;Phillips et al, 2009;Phillips and Phillips, 2010). In contrast to other studies (Cronin et al, 2002;Rousing et al, 2007;Phillips et al, 2009;Phillips and Phillips, 2010), the suggested welfare issues were not ranked in terms of their importance.…”

“…Interestingly, the welfare issues suggested by this expert panel concur with the expert opinion regarding the welfare issues for extensively managed sheep (Waterhouse et al, 2003), and for sheep managed in Australia (Cronin et al, 2002;Phillips et al, 2009;Phillips and Phillips, 2010). In contrast to other studies (Cronin et al, 2002;Rousing et al, 2007;Phillips et al, 2009;Phillips and Phillips, 2010), the suggested welfare issues were not ranked in terms of their importance. Ranking can be used to create an overall welfare index (Fernie et al, 2008), or to identify a set number of measures that are used to assess on-farm welfare standards (Rousing et al, 2007).…”

“…By judging the suitability and relevance of each measure, expert opinion provides consensual and face validity to the selection of welfare indicators (Abramson, 1974;Johnsen et al, 2001;Scott et al, 2001;Bracke et al, 2002). Previously, expert opinion has identified a number of welfare indicators for cattle, poultry and pigs (Capdeville and Veissier, 2001;Whay et al, 2003a;Botreau et al, 2009) and has also been used to identify a number of welfare issues for sheep (Cronin et al, 2002;Waterhouse et al, 2003;Pines et al, 2007;Phillips et al, 2009).…”

Building ‘cowshed cultures’: A cultural perspective on the promotion of stockmanship and animal welfare on dairy farms

“…him or her and more sensitive to the animal's responses to handling" (Coleman et al, 2003, 198 e also see Hanna et al, 2009;Hemsworth et al, 2009). Further, while empathy for animals is, in part, an inherited trait, Phillips et al (2009) argues that the evidence that empathy can be influenced experientially indicates it is also influenced by environmental and social factors. Consequently, interviewees' frequent observations of the human similarities mirrored in individual cows may be an important component in developing empathy.…”

An attempt to assess the welfare of horses maintained in herd systems

“…Paying attention to the varied needs, i.e. nutrition, movement, relaxation and companionships, including social and reproductive as well as grooming of animals, encourages improvements in maintenance and use (Mellor & Bayvel 2008, Tadich et al 2008, Phillips et al 2009, Rushen et al 2011. Various health indicators and physiological parameters, including behaviour and productivity, serve to measure animal welfare.…”