Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:18:11.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2009

C. J. C. Phillips ,
J. Wojciechowska ,
J. Meng  and
N. Cross
C. J. C. Phillips*
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
J. Wojciechowska
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
J. Meng
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
N. Cross
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
*
†E-mail: c.phillips@uq.edu.au
Get access

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.

Keywords

beef cattlesheepgoatslivestockanimal welfare
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 8 , August 2009 , pp. 1152 - 1166
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abernethy, J, Evgeniou, T, Toubia, O 2008. Eliciting consumer preferences using robust adaptive choice questionnaires. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 20, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M, Veissier, I 2003. Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, GM, Barnett, JL, Edge, JK, Hemsworth, PH 2002. Identifying animal welfare issues for sheep in Australia. International Journal of Sheep and Wool Science 50, 534–550.Google Scholar
DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 2006. Cattle spaying, preamble. Retrieved March 2006, from http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-A2200060B0A00774.Google Scholar
Duncan, IJH, Fraser, D 1997. Understanding animal welfare. In Animal welfare (ed. MC Appleby and BO Hughes), pp. 19–31. CAB International, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Eastwood, PJ 1995. Farm animal welfare, Europe and the meat manufacturer. British Food Journal 97, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garson, GD 2006. Data levels and measurement. North Carolina State University. Retrieved February 2006, from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/datalevl.htmGoogle Scholar
González, LA, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Rúiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Calsamiglia, S, Devant, M, Bach, A 2008. Effect of the number of concentrate feed places per pen on performance, behaviour and welfare indicators of Friesian calves during the first month after arrival at the feedlot. Journal of Animal Science 86, 419–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, N 2004. Physiology and behaviour of animal suffering. Blackwell Scientific Press, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, MB 2006. Online survey response rates and times. SuperSurvey, Tercent. Retrieved February 2006, from http://www.supersurvey.com/papers/supersurvey_white_paper_response_rates.pdfGoogle Scholar
Henderson, DC 1990. The veterinary book for sheep farmers. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK.Google Scholar
Hogan, JP, Petherick, JC, Phillips, CJC 2007. The nutritional impact on sheep and cattle of feed and water deprivation prior to and during transport. Nutrition Research Reviews 20, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kongsved, SM, Basnov, M, Holm-Christensen, K 2007. Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: a randomized study of Internet versus paper-and-pencil versions. Journal of Medical Internet Research 9, article number e25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lay, DC, Friend, TH, Bowers, CL, Grissom, KK, Jenkins, OC 1992. A comparative physiological and behavioural study of freeze and hot-iron branding using dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 70, 1121–1125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manfreda, KL, Bosnjak, M, Berzelak, J, Haas, I, Vehovar, V 2008. Web surveys versus other survey modes – a meta-analysis comparing response rates. International Journal of Market Research 50, 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orme, B 2002. ACA user manual. Version 5. Sawtooth Software. Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequim, WA, USA.Google Scholar
Paull, DR, Colditz, I, Lee, C, Atkinson, SJ, Fisher, A 2008. Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and epidural anaesthesia in reducing the pain and stress responses to a surgical husbandry procedure (mulesing) in sheep. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1034–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, JC 2005. Animal welfare issues associated with extensive livestock production: the northern Australian beef cattle industry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettitford, GM, Ferguson, DM, Lea, JM, Lee, C, Paul, DR, Reid, MT, Hinch, GM, Fisher, AD 2008. Effects of loading practices and six-hour road transport on the physiological responses of yearling cattle. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1028–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC 2005. The effects of ectoparasites and their control on the welfare of livestock. In Ectoparasiticide use on sheep and cattle in Australia today (ed. P Holdsworth), pp. 63–73. AVCare Ltd, Canberra, Australia, ISBN:0-9750845-1-8.Google Scholar
Phillips, CJC 2009. A review of mulesing and other methods to control flystrike (cutaneous miasis) in sheep. Animal Welfare (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pines, M, Petherick, JC, Gaughan, JB, Phillips, CJC 2007. The opinion of stakeholders in the Australian live export industry concerning welfare indicators for sheep and cattle exported by sea. Animal Welfare 16, 489–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PISC (Primary Industries Standing Committee) 2004. Model code of practice for the welfare of animals – cattle, 2nd edition. CSIRO, PISC Report Number 85. CSIRO, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Salant, P, Dillman, DA 1994. How to conduct your own survey. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Sawtooth Software 2003. The ACA/HB module for hierarchical Bayes estimation v2.0. Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series. Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequim, WA, USA.Google Scholar
Stafford, KJ, Mellor, DJ 1993. Castration, tail docking and dehorning – what are the constraints? Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 53, 189–194.Google Scholar
SCA (Standing Committee on Agriculture) 1992. National guidelines for beef cattle feedlots in Australia. SCA Report Number 44. CSIRO, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
SCARM (Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management) 1997. National guidelines for beef cattle feedlots in Australia, 2nd edition. SCARM Report Number 47. CSIRO, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
SCA (Standing Committee on Agriculture) 1999. Australian model code of practice for the welfare of animals – land transport of cattle. SCA Report Number 23. CSIRO, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Standing Committee on Agriculture (Animal Health Committee) 1991a. Model code of practice for the welfare of animals – the sheep. CSIRO, Report Number 17. CSIRO, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Standing Committee on Agriculture (Animal Health Committee) 1991b. Model code of practice for the welfare of animals – the goat. Animal Health Committee, East Melbourne, VIC. CSIRO, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
SCARM (Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management) 2001. Model code of practice for the welfare of animals – livestock at slaughtering establishments. CSIRO, SCARM Report Number 79. CSIRO, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Sudman, S, Bradburn, NM 1982. A practical guide to questionnaire design. Jossey-Bass, Washington, USA.Google Scholar