Farmers’ self-reported perceptions and behavioural impacts of a welfare scheme for suckler beef cattle in Ireland

Irish Veterinary Journal

Alison J Hanlon⁴  Kenneth McKenzie²  Martin Blake³  Simon J More¹  Andrea M Dwane⁴ 

[1] UCD Centre for Veterinary Epidemiology and Risk Analysis, UCD School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland;UCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland;Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Agriculture House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2, Ireland;UCD School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

关键词: Scheme;    Policy impact;    Ireland;    Focus groups;    Farmer behaviour;    Beef cattle;    Attitude;    Animal welfare;   

Others  :  810842
DOI  :  10.1186/2046-0481-66-1

 received in 2012-08-14, accepted in 2013-01-16,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

To date, there have been a limited number of studies on the impact of government-incentivised farm animal welfare programmes or ‘schemes’, and on farmers’ attitudes regarding such schemes. In this study, focus groups were used to gain insight into Irish farmers’ perceptions of such a scheme for suckler cattle and its behavioural impacts on farmers.

Results

The findings were categorised into 46 codes and ultimately yielded two Global themes: 1) Beliefs and Evidence and 2) Logic and Logistics. The former theme covered farmers’ attitudes and observations regarding the Scheme. The latter dealt with factors such as workload and costs. The Global themes allowed for comprehensive reporting of the strongest messages from focus groups. There was consensus that Scheme measures for the minimum calving age and for weaning had a positive impact on welfare. Two aspects criticized by participants were firstly disbudding, due to the logistics for anaesthetic application, and secondly the administrative workload associated with data capture and utilisation. The majority anticipated that data being collected via the Scheme would help to inform farm management decisions in future.

Conclusions

Farm animal welfare schemes, which incentivise participants to implement certain practices, aspire to long-term behavioural change after scheme conclusion. Our research showed that this Scheme increased farmer awareness of the benefits of certain practices. It also demonstrated the importance of stakeholder participation in the design stages of welfare initiatives to ensure scheme measures are practical and relevant, to address any perceived controversial measures, and to plan for training and adding value to schemes.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Dwane et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Terms and Conditions Animal Welfare, Recording and Breeding Scheme for Suckler Herds 2010. 2010. [Ireland] Available at: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/farmerschemespayments/sucklerherdswelfarescheme2008-2012/awrbs2010/ webcite
• [2]Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Value for money review Animal Welfare, Recording and Breeding Scheme for Suckler Herds -December 2011. 2011. [Ireland] Available at: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2012/SucklerVFMReview310112.pdf webcite
• [3]Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Terms and conditions. Animal welfare, recording and breeding scheme for suckler herds (1 January 2009). 2009. Accessed 13 April 2012 at: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/farmerschemespayments/sucklerherdswelfarescheme2008-2012/awrbs2009/ webcite
• [4]Kauppinen T, Vainio A, Valros A, Rita H, Vesala KM: Improving animal welfare: qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers’ attitudes. Anim Welf 2010, 19:523-536.
• [5]Hemsworth PH: Ethical Stockmanship. Aust Vet J 2007, 85:194-200.
• [6]Heleski CR, Mertig AG, Zanella AJ: Stakeholder attitudes toward farm animal welfare. Anthrozoös 2006, 19(4):290-307.
• [7]Fraser D: Animal welfare assurance programs in food production: a framework for assessing the options. Anim Welf 2006, 15:93-104.
• [8]Bock BB, van Huik M: Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 2007, 11:931-944.
• [9]Attride-Stirling J: Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qual Res 2001, 1(3):385-405.
• [10]Spooner JM, Schuppli CA, Fraser D: Attitudes of Canadian beef producers toward animal welfare. Anim Welf 2012, 22(2):273-283.
• [11]Soulsby L, Morton DB (Eds): In FRAME/RSM conference on: Pain: Nature and management in man and animals: 30/31 March 2000; London, UK. 2001. See chapter by Maria Fitzgerald
• [12]Ellis-Iversen J, Cook AJC, Watson E, Nielen M, Larkin L, Woolridge M, Hogeveen H: Perceptions, circumstances and motivators that influence implementation of zoonotic control programs on cattle farms. Prev Vet Med 2010, 93:276-285.
• [13]Grandin T: Animal Welfare Audits for Cattle, Pigs, and Chickens that use the HACCP Principles of Critical Control Points with Animal Based Outcome Measures (Updated September 2011). 2011. Accessed 23 March 2012 at: http://www.grandin.com/welfare.audit.using.haccp.html webcite
• [14]Bruges M, Smith W: Participatory approaches for sustainable agriculture: A contradiction in terms? Agriculture and Human Values 2008, 25:13-23.
• [15]Main DCJ: Applications of welfare assessment to commercial livestock production. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2009, 12:97-104.
• [16]Kitzinger J: Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. Br Med J 1995, 311:299-302.
• [17]Brod M, Tesler LE, Christensen TL: Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research Journal 2009, 18:1263-1278.
• [18]Onwuegbuzie AJ, Dickinson WB, Leech NL, Zoran AG: A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(3):1-21.
• [19]Lewis M: Focus Group Interviews in Qualitative Research: A Review of the Literature. 2000. [Action Research E-Reports, 2] University of Sydney-Health Science Education. Accessed April 2009 at: http://www.fhs.usyd.edu.au/arow/arer/002.html webcite
• [20]Whay HR: The journey to animal welfare improvement. Anim Welf 2007, 16:117-122.