Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T14:50:45.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farmer perspectives on welfare outcome assessment: learnings from four farm assurance scheme consultation exercises

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2023

L van Dijk ,
S Elwes ,
DCJ Main ,
SM Mullan  and
J Jamieson
L van Dijk*
Affiliation:
Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
S Elwes
Affiliation:
RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
DCJ Main
Affiliation:
Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
SM Mullan
Affiliation:
Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
J Jamieson
Affiliation:
Soil Association, South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: lisa.vandijk@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, several farm assurance schemes in the United Kingdom have been adopting innovative approaches, such as welfare outcome assessment, into their routine procedures. In this paper, we present the findings of four consultation exercises, undertaken as part of a review process that examined farmer perspectives on planned or implemented changes to their current certification visits as members of UK-based dairy and laying hen schemes. The changes included the introduction of welfare outcome assessment by assessors, joint-scoring of welfare-outcome measures by farmers and assessors and self-assessment of welfare outcome measures by farmers between assessor visits. This study also explores the challenges that arise when schemes are aiming to adopt a scheme-level continuous improvement approach to promote welfare improvement on participating farms. The key challenges fall under three themes: the purpose and value for the farmer of the assessment of welfare outcomes as part of a farm assurance assessment process; the potential conflict rather than concordance with the role of the farmer in caring for their animals; and finally the technicalities of the assessment process, such as sample sizes for assessment being calibrated for gauging welfare prevalence at a scheme rather than farm level and the role of the farm assurance assessors both to assess impartially compliance against the standards and to provide welfare advice to support improvement. This study highlights that the involvement of farmers at all stages in the development and in the evaluation of outcome assessment initiatives is likely to be beneficial for welfare improvement on-farm.

Keywords

animal welfaredairyfarm assurance schemesfarmer perspectiveslaying hensoutcome-based measures
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Anneberg, I, Vaarst, M and Sandøe, P 2013 To inspect, to motivate — or to do both? A dilemma for on-farm inspection of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 22: 185–194. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.2.185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, R, Pacey, A and Thrupp, LA 1989 Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications: London, UK. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780440149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar, MP and Demeritt, D 2017 Paperwork and the decou-pling of audit and animal welfare: The challenges of materiality for better regulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 35(1): 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16646771Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) 2005 Report on the welfare implications of farm assurance schemes. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fawc-report-on-the-welfare-implications-of-farm-assurance-schemesGoogle Scholar
Fearne, A and Walters, R 2004 The costs and benefits of farm assur-ance to livestock producers in England. Imperial College: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Foods Standards Agency (FSA) 2012 Food Certification and Assurance Schemes. Foods Standards Agency: UK. http://www.gov.uk/guidance/kitemarks-in-farmed-meat-and-produceGoogle Scholar
Hagmann, J, Chuma, E, Murwira, K and Connolly, M 1999 Putting process into practice: operationalising participatory extension. Agren Network Paper No 94. ODI Agricultural Research & Extension Network ODI: London, UK. https://www.odi.org/resources/docs/5134.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P, Barnett, J and Coleman, G 2009 The integration of human-animal relations into animal welfare monitoring schemes. Animal Welfare 18: 335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joffe, H and Yardley, L 2004 Content and thematic analysis. Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. Sage: CA, USAGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, P, Johannesson, T and Sandøe, P 2001 Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Science 51: 26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langford, FM, Rutherford, K, Jack, MC, Sherwood, L, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, MJ 2009 A comparison of management practices, farmer-perceived disease incidence and winter housing on organic and non-organic dairy farms in the UK. Journal of Dairy Research 76: 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029908003622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeb, C, Whay, B and Main, D 2004 Incorporation of convention-al animal welfare assessment techniques into organic certification and farming. http://orgprints.org/6613/Google Scholar
Main, D, Kent, J, Wemelsfelder, F, Ofner, E and Tuyttens, F 2003 Applications for methods of on-farm welfare assessment. Animal Welfare 12: 523–528Google Scholar
Main, D and Mullan, S 2012 Economic, education, encouragement and enforcement influences within farm assurance schemes. Animal Welfare 21: 107–111. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, D, Mullan, S, Atkinson, C, Bond, A, Cooper, M, Fraser, A and Browne, W 2012b Welfare outcomes assessment in laying hen farm assurance schemes. Animal Welfare 21: 389–396. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, D, Mullan, S, Atkinson, C, Cooper, M, Wrathall, J and Blokhuis, H 2014 Best practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes. Trends in Food Science & Technology 37: 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, D, Rogerson, I, Crawley, M, Avizenius, J, Fraser, A and Mullan, S 2012a Welfare outcomes assessment in dairy farm assurance schemes. Cattle Practice 20: 142–145Google Scholar
Main, DC 2009 Application of welfare assessment to commercial livestock production. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888700902719658CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, S, Szmaragd, C, Cooper, MD, Wrathall, JHM, Jamieson, J, Bond, A, Atkinson, C and Main, DCJ 2016 Animal welfare initiatives improve feather cover of cage-free laying hens in the UK. Animal Welfare 25: 243–253. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.2.243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östlund, U, Kidd, L, Wengström, Y and Rowa-Dewar, N 2011 Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 48: 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pretty, JN 1995 Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23: 1247–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(95)00046-FCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Red Tractor Assurance (RTA) 2013 Q&A on dairy standard changes. Red Tractor Assurance, UK. http://assurance.redtrac-tor.org.uk/contentfiles/Farmers-5913.pdfGoogle Scholar
Roe, E, Buller, H and Bull, J 2011 The performance of farm ani-mal assessment. Animal Welfare 20: 69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) 2013 Welfare standards for laying hens. RSPCA: Horsham, UK. https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/farmani-mals/standards/layinghensGoogle Scholar
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) 2016 About us. RSPCA: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C, Richards, G and Nicol, C 2010 Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science 51: 488–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.502518CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soil Association (SA) 2016 Farming and Growing standards. Soil Association, UK. https://www.soilassociation.org/certification/farming/organic-certification-for-farmers-and-growers/our-standards/Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

van Dijk et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 178.5 KB