Skip to main content
×
Home

Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production

  • C. J. C. Phillips (a1), J. Wojciechowska (a1), J. Meng (a1) and N. Cross (a1)
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.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
E-mail: c.phillips@uq.edu.au
References
Hide All
Abernethy J, Evgeniou T, Toubia O 2008. Eliciting consumer preferences using robust adaptive choice questionnaires. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 20, 145155.
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, 445455.
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, 534550.
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.
Duncan IJH, Fraser D 1997. Understanding animal welfare. In Animal welfare (ed. MC Appleby and BO Hughes), pp. 1931. CAB International, Oxon, UK.
Eastwood PJ 1995. Farm animal welfare, Europe and the meat manufacturer. British Food Journal 97, 411.
Garson GD 2006. Data levels and measurement. North Carolina State University. Retrieved February 2006, from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/datalevl.htm
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, 419431.
Gregory N 2004. Physiology and behaviour of animal suffering. Blackwell Scientific Press, Oxford, UK.
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.pdf
Henderson DC 1990. The veterinary book for sheep farmers. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK.
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, 113.
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.
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, 11211125.
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, 79104.
Orme B 2002. ACA user manual. Version 5. Sawtooth Software. Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequim, WA, USA.
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, 10341039.
Petherick JC 2005. Animal welfare issues associated with extensive livestock production: the northern Australian beef cattle industry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92, 211234.
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, 10281033.
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. 6373. AVCare Ltd, Canberra, Australia, ISBN:0-9750845-1-8.
Phillips CJC 2009. A review of mulesing and other methods to control flystrike (cutaneous miasis) in sheep. Animal Welfare (in press).
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, 489498.
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.
Salant P, Dillman DA 1994. How to conduct your own survey. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
Sawtooth Software 2003. The ACA/HB module for hierarchical Bayes estimation v2.0. Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series. Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequim, WA, USA.
Stafford KJ, Mellor DJ 1993. Castration, tail docking and dehorning – what are the constraints? Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 53, 189194.
SCA (Standing Committee on Agriculture) 1992. National guidelines for beef cattle feedlots in Australia. SCA Report Number 44. CSIRO, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sudman S, Bradburn NM 1982. A practical guide to questionnaire design. Jossey-Bass, Washington, USA.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

animal
  • ISSN: 1751-7311
  • EISSN: 1751-732X
  • URL: /core/journals/animal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 25
Total number of PDF views: 262 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 310 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 12th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.