Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:25:54.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restricting the ability of sows to move: a source of concern for some Brazilians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MC Yunes ,
MAG von Keyserling  and
MJ Hötzel
MC Yunes
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada
MAG von Keyserling
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada
MJ Hötzel*
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-Estar Animal, Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil
*
∗ Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: maria.j.hotzel@ufsc.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Gestation stall housing for pregnant sows (Sus scrofa) has been, or is being, phased out in many parts of the world in response to public criticism. However, in Brazil, one of the largest global producers and exporters of pork, gestation stall housing is still common. The objective of this study was to explore the views of Brazilians, including participants associated (ALP) or not with livestock production (NotALP), on gestation stall housing. Participants were provided the option of accessing a short text describing the housing system and a video of pregnant sows housed in either individual or group housing. Participants (ALP; n = 176, NotALP; n = 173) were asked to state their position on housing pregnant sows in individual stalls and to provide the reason(s) justifying their position. More NotALP (87%) participants than ALP (69%) participants rejected individual stalls. More participants (85%) that accessed the optional information rejected the stalls than those (71%) that did not. Qualitative analyses revealed that animal welfare, most often in reference to animal sentience, freedom of movement and ethics, was the main justification given for rejecting gestation stalls. Those in favour of individual stalls justified their position with statements such as improved production, handling and animal health, and reduced aggression. This qualitative, exploratory study, based on a convenience sample of participants, does not represent the views of Brazilian society; however, it identified some shared values between participants associated with livestock production and those that are not. Our findings highlight that opposition to gestation stalls for sows reflects an ethical position regarding the treatment of livestock and should not be interpreted as support for group housing in confined systems.

Keywords

animal welfaregestation stallshousingpig productionpublic viewssurvey
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 379 - 392
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

ABPA 2015 Brazilian Association of Animal Protein - Annual Report. Protein BAoA: São Paulo, SP, Brazil. http://abpa-br.com.br/files/publi-cacoes/c59411a243d6dab1da8e605be58348ac.pdfGoogle Scholar
A Hora do Ovo 2017 Varejistas brasileiros já convivem com exigên-cias do bem-estar animal. Bastos, São Paulo. http://www.ahoradoo-vo.com.br/no-mundo-do-ovo/noticias/?id=1209%7Cvarejistas-brasileiros-ja-convivem-com-exigencias-do-bemestar-animal [Title translation: Retailers already deal with animal welfare demands]Google Scholar
AviSite 2017 Bem-estar das galinhas vira desafio para os varejistas http://www.avisite.com.br/index.php?page=noticiasclippings&id=30002. [Title translation: Hens’ welfare becomes a challenge for retailers]Google Scholar
Bayvel, ACD 2004 Science-based animal welfare standards: the international role of the Office International des Epizooties. Animal Welfare 13: 63–69Google Scholar
Benard, M and de Cock Buning, T 2013 Exploring the poten-tial of Dutch pig farmers and urban-citizens to learn through frame reflection. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 26:1015–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9438-yGoogle Scholar
Binngiesser, J, Wilhelm, C and Randler, C 2013 Attitudes toward animals among German children and adolescents. Anthrozoös 26: 325–339. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713X13697429463475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonamigo, A, Bonamigo, CBSS and Molento, CFM 2012 Broiler meat characteristics relevant to the consumer: focus on animal welfare. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 41: 1044–1050Google Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Bock, BB, Oosting, SJ, Wiskerke, JSC and van der Zijpp, AJ 2011a Social acceptance of dairy farming: The ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 24: 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9256-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Boekhorst, LJS, Oosting, SJ and Sørensen, JT 2011b Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen per-ceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Science 140:189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.028Google Scholar
Broad, GM 2016 Animal production, Ag-gag laws, and the social production of ignorance: Exploring the role of storytelling. Environmental Communication 10: 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.968178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRF 2016 BRF Commitments to Animal Welfare. BRF: Brazil. https://www.brf-global.com/brasil/en/brfs-animal-welfare-practi-ces-receive-international-recognitionGoogle Scholar
Cantrell, R, Lubben, B and Reese, D 2013 Perceptions of food animal welfare in extension: Results of a two-state survey. Journal of Extension 51: 2FEA7Google Scholar
Cardoso, C, von Keyserlingk, M and Hötzel, M 2017 Brazilian citizens: Expectations regarding dairy cattle welfare and aware-ness of contentious practices. Animals 7: 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, CS, Hötzel, MJ, Weary, DM, Robbins, JA and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2016 Imagining the ideal dairy farm. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 1663–1671. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9925CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassuto, DN and Eckhardt, C 2016 Don't be cruel (anymore): A look at the animal cruelty regimes of the United States and Brazil with a call for a new animal welfare agency. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 43: 1Google Scholar
Centner, TJ 2010 Limitations on the confinement of food animals in the United States. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 23: 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9225-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B, Stewart, GB, Panzone, LA, Kyriazakis, I and Frewer, LJ 2016 A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 29: 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9615-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Barcellos, MD, de Melo Saab, MS, Pérez-Cueto, FA, Perin, MG, Neves, MF and Verbeke, W 2011a Pork consumption in Brazil: challenges and opportunities for the Brazilian pork production chain. Journal on Chain and Network Science 11: 99–114. https://doi.org/10.3920/JCNS2011.Qpork3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Barcellos, MD, Krystallis, A, de Melo Saab, MS, Kuegler, JO and Grunert, KG 2011b Investigating the gap between citi-zens’ sustainability attitudes and food purchasing behaviour: empirical evidence from Brazilian pork consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 35: 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00978.xGoogle Scholar
Degeling, C and Johnson, J 2015 Citizens, consumers and ani-mals: What role do experts assign to public values in establishing animal welfare standards? Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 28: 961–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9571-xGoogle Scholar
Dias, CP, da Silva, CA and Manteca, X 2015 The Brazilian pig industry can adopt european welfare standards: a critical analysis. Ciencia Rural 45: 1079–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurobarometer 2007 Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal wel-fare. Special Eurobarometer 270/ave 66.1 - TNS Opinion & Social. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/index_en.htmGoogle Scholar
FAO 2014 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - 2014 International Year of Family Farming. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome Italy. http://www.fao.org/family-farming-2014/en/Google Scholar
Gama, M 2017 Consumidor rejeita sofrimento animal e quer transpa-rencia, diz pesquisa. Folha de São Paulo. UOL: São Paulo, Brazil.[Title translation: Consumers reject animal suffering and want transparency, says survey]Google Scholar
GPA 2017 Animal welfare commitment in egg sourcing. http://www.gpabr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Posicionamento-do-GPA-sobre-oferta-de-ovos_ingl%C3%AAs_mar%C3%A7o-2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hazel, SJ, Signal, TD and Taylor, N 2011 Can teaching veteri-nary and animal-science students about animal welfare affect their attitude toward animals and human-related empathy? Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 38: 74–83. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.38.1.74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heleski, CR, Mertig, AG and Zanella, AJ 2004 Assessing atti-tudes toward farm animal welfare: A national survey of animal sci-ence faculty members. Journal of Animal Science 82: 2806–2814. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.8292806xGoogle Scholar
Heleski, CR, Mertig, AG and Zanella, AJ 2005 Results of a national survey of US veterinary college faculty regarding attitudes toward farm animal welfare. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 226: 1538–1546. 1546. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2005.226.1538Google ScholarPubMed
Heleski, CR, Mertig, AG and Zanella, AJ 2006 Stakeholder attitudes toward farm animal welfare. Anthrozoös 19: 290–307. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, HA 2007 Gender differences in human-animal interactions: A review. Anthrozoös 20: 7–21. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, L 2004 Showing and telling farming: agricultural shows and re-imaging British agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 20: 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hötzel, MJ 2016 Letter to the editor: Engaging (but not ‘educating’) the public in technology developments may contribute to a socially sustainable dairy industry. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 6853–6854. 10.3168/jds.2016-11393Google Scholar
Hötzel, MJ, Roslindo, A, Cardoso, CS and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2017 Citizens’ views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing information increase acceptability? Journal of Dairy Science 100: 4150–4160. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11933CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hötzel, MJ and Sneddon, JN 2013 The role of extensionists in Santa Catarina, Brazil, in the adoption and rejection of providing pain relief to calves for dehorning. Journal of Dairy Science 96:1535–1548. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HSI 2017 Brazilian food industry leaders meet to discuss animal welfare. http://www.hsi.org/news/press_releases/2017/11/brazil-business-cage-free-egg-roundtable-112717.html?referrer=https://t.co/ta7qYBGSHjGoogle Scholar
HSI Brasil 2015 JBS se compromete a abandonar o confinamento de porcas reprodutoras em gaiolas de gestação. Humane Society International. http://www.hsi.org/portuguese/news/press_releas-es/2015/06/jbs-gaiolas-de-gestacao-060315.html. [Title translation: JBS agrees to abandon the confinement of breeding sows in gestation cages]Google Scholar
Huberman, AM and Miles, MB 1994 Data management and analysis methods. In: Denzin, NK and Lincoln, YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research pp 643. SAGE: Thousand Oaks, USAGoogle Scholar
IBGE 2011 Sinopse do Censo Demográfico 2010. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística: Brasília, Brazil. http://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visua-lizacao/livros/liv49230.pdf. [Title translation: Synopsis of the 2010 demographic census]Google Scholar
Kendall, HA, Lobao, LM and Sharp, JS 2006 Public concern with animal well-being: Place, social structural location, and indi-vidual experience. Rural Sociology 71: 399–428. https://doi.org/10.1526/003601106778070617Google Scholar
Krystallis, A, de Barcellos, MD, Kuegler, JO, Verbeke, W and Grunert, KG 2009 Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livestock Science 126: 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.05.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupsala, S, Jokinen, P and Vinnari, M 2013 Who cares about farmed fish? Citizen perceptions of the welfare and the mental abilities of fish. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 26:119–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9369-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Anneberg, I 2016 For the sake of pro-duction. How agricultural colleges shape students’ views on ani-mal welfare. In: Olsson, IAS, Araújo, SM and Vieira, MF (eds) Food Futures pp 67–71. Wageningen Publishers: The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-834-6_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2006 Happy pigs are dirty! conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008Google Scholar
Loughnan, S, Haslam, N and Bastian, B 2010 The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite 55: 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macnaghten, P 2004 Animals in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and ‘Nature’. Sociology 38: 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038504043217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAF 2011 What New Zealanders really think about animal welfare. MAF: New Zealand. http://www.maf.govt.nz/news-resources/publications.aspxGoogle Scholar
Maria, GA 2006 Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livestock Science 103: 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2006.05.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, MPM, Van Der Lans, IA and Huirne, RBM 2007 Consumer preferences for pork supply chain attributes. Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54: 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(07)80021-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miele, M 2010 Report concerning consumer perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare. Official Experts Report EAWP (task 1.3), Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Miele, M, Veissier, I, Evans, A and Botreau, R 2011 Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20: 103–117Google Scholar
Millet, S, Moons, CPH, Van Oeckel, MJ and Janssens, GPJ 2005 Welfare, performance and meat quality of fattening pigs in alternative housing and management systems: a review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85: 709–719. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, P, Knight, S and Lesley, S 2012 Belief in animal mind: Does familiarity with animals influence beliefs about animal emotions? Society & Animals 20: 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341234Google Scholar
Ngapo, TM, Dransfield, E, Martin, JF, Magnusson, M, Bredahl, L and Nute, GR 2004 Consumer perceptions: pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and Denmark. Meat Science 66: 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00076-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, ES and Podberscek, AL 2000 Veterinary education and students’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record 146:269–272. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.10.269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pettersson, IC, Weeks, CA, Wilson, LRM and Nicol, CJ 2016 Consumer perceptions of free-range laying hen welfare. British Food Journal 118: 1999–2013. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2016-0065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, R and Hötzel, MJ 2012 The five freedoms in the global animal agriculture market: Challenges and achievements as opportu-nities. Animal Frontiers 2: 22–30. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2012-0045Google Scholar
Prickett, RW, Norwood, FB and Lusk, JL 2010 Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: results from a telephone sur-vey of US households. Animal Welfare 19: 335–347Google Scholar
R Core Team 2017 A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Robbins, JA, Franks, B, Weary, DM and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2016 Awareness of ag-gag laws erodes trust in farmers and increases support for animal welfare regulations. Food Policy 61:121–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.02.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, JA, Weary, DM, Schuppli, CA and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2015 Stakeholder views on treating pain due to dehorning dairy calves. Animal Welfare 24: 399–406. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.4.399Google Scholar
Rucinque, DS, Souza, APO and Molento, CFM 2017 Perception of fish sentience, welfare and humane slaughter by high-ly educated citizens of Bogotá, Colombia and Curitiba, Brazil. PLoS ONE 12: e0168197. https://doi.org/10.137 1/journal.pone.0168197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, EB, Fraser, D and Weary, DM 2015 Public attitudes to housing systems for pregnant pigs. PLoS ONE 10: e0141878. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141878CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sato, P, Hötzel, M and von Keyserlingk, M 2017 American cit-izens’ views of an ideal pig farm. Animals 7: 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7080064Google ScholarPubMed
Spooner, JM, Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D 2012 Attitudes of Canadian beef producers toward animal welfare. Animal Welfare 21: 273–283. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.2.273Google Scholar
Spooner, JM, Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D 2014 Attitudes of Canadian pig producers toward animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27: 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9477-4Google Scholar
Suinocultura Industrial 2015 JBS is committed to leave the con-finement of sows in gestation crates. Gessulli Agribusiness. http://www.suinoculturaindustrial.com.br/imprensa/jbs-se-com-promete-a-abandonar-o-confinamento-de-porcas-reprodutoras-em-gaiolas-de-gestacao/20150606-132441-o088Google Scholar
Te Velde, H, Aarts, N and Van Woerkum, C 2002 Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 15: 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015012403331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Vanhonacker, F, Langendries, K, Aluwe, M, Millet, S, Bekaert, K and Verbeke, W 2011 Effect of information provisioning on attitude toward surgical castration of male piglets and alternative strategies for avoiding boar taint. Research in Veterinary Science 91: 327–332.Google ScholarPubMed
Tuyttens, FAM, Vanhonacker, F, Van Poucke, E and Verbeke, W 2010 Quantitative verification of the correspon-dence between the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livestock Science 131: 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.03.008Google Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Vanhonacker, F, Verhille, B, De Brabander, D and Verbeke, W 2012 Pig producer attitude towards surgical castration of piglets without anaesthesia versus alternative strate-gies. Research in Veterinary Science 92: 524–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.02.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008 Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116: 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventura, BA, Von Keyserlingk, MAG, Schuppli, CA and Weary, DM 2013 Views on contentious practices in dairy farming: The case of early cow-calf separation. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 6105–6116. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6040Google ScholarPubMed
Ventura, BA, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Wittman, H and Weary, DM 2016 What difference does a visit make? Changes in animal welfare perceptions after interested citizens tour a dairy farm. PLoS ONE 11: e0154733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Keyserlingk, MAG and Hötzel, MJ 2015 The ticking clock: Addressing farm animal welfare in emerging countries. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 28: 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9518-7Google Scholar
Walker, JK, McGrath, N, Handel, IG, Waran, NK and Phillips, CJC 2014a Does owning a companion animal influence the belief that animals experience emotions such as grief? Animal Welfare 23: 71–79. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, JK, McGrath, N, Nilsson, DL, Waran, NK and Phillips, CJC 2014b The role of gender in public perception of whether ani-mals can experience grief and other emotions. Anthrozoös 27: 251–266. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303714X13903827487601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Ventura, BA and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2016 Societal views and animal welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories. Animal 10: 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001160Google ScholarPubMed
Weible, D, Christoph-Schulz, I, Salamon, P and Zander, K 2016 Citizens’ perception of modern pig production in Germany: a mixed-method research approach. British Food Journal 118: 2014–2032. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2015-0458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, DL and Hepper, PG 1997 Pet ownership and adults’ views on the use of animals. Society & Animals 5: 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853097X00213Google Scholar
You, X, Li, Y, Zhang, M, Yan, H and Zhao, R 2014 A survey of Chinese citizens’ perceptions on farm animal welfare. PLoS ONE 9: e109177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109177Google ScholarPubMed
Yunes, MC, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Hötzel, MJ 2017 Brazilian citizens’ opinions and attitudes about farm animal production systems. Animals 7: 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7100075Google ScholarPubMed