Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:30:13.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic, education, encouragement and enforcement influences within farm assurance schemes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

DCJ Main  and
S Mullan
DCJ Main*
Affiliation:
School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
S Mullan
Affiliation:
School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
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.

Farm assurance schemes are voluntary certification schemes that aim to provide consumers and retailers with assurances on animal welfare, environment and food safety standards. Whilst current schemes have often been focused on resource-based standards there has been interest in schemes including more outcome-based assessments. In order to maximise the likely impact of including these outcome assessments it is important to consider the economic, education, encouragement and enforcement drivers that may improve welfare. Using dairy cattle lameness as an example, the potential mechanisms to use these drivers within farm assurance schemes is reviewed. Future development of schemes should focus on encouraging the active participation of farmers in monitoring and managing outcome measures. Economic and educational approaches have a role in supporting change. Where possible, economic drivers need to be working in the same direction as welfare (ie provide win-win situations). Educational initiatives, such as providing generic technical information and farm-specific advisory support, need to be available when requested. Finally, enforcement tools, based on existing noncompliance procedures, may be needed to stimulate activity if other initiatives prove ineffective on individual farms.

Keywords

animal welfareeconomiceducationencouragementenforcementfarm assurance
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Making animal improvements: Economic and other incentives and constraints’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , May 2012 , pp. 107 - 111
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Atkinson, O 2010 Communication in farm animal practice 2. Effecting change. In Practice 32: 163–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/inp.c1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, ZE, Leach, KA, Whay, HR, Bell, NJ and Main, DCJ 2010 Assessment of lameness prevalence and associated risk factors in dairy herds in England and Wales. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 932–941. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2309CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, NJ, Bell, MJ, Knowles, TG, Whay, HR, Main, DCJ and Webster, AJF 2009 The development, implementation and testing of a lameness control programme based on HACCP principles and designed for heifers on dairy farms. Veterinary Journal 180: 178–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.05.020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruijnis, MRN, Hogeveen, H and Stassen, EN 2010 Assessing economic consequences of foot disorders in dairy cattle using a dynamic stochastic simulation model. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 2419–2432. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2721CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DairyCo 2008 DairyCo Mobility Score. http://www.dairyco.org.uk/news/technical-articles/november-2008/new-industry-standard-for-mobility-scoring-from-dairyco.aspx. (Accessed 27 June 2011)Google Scholar
Dekkers, JCM, Van Erp, T and Schukken, YH 1996 Economic benefits of reducing somatic cell count under the milk quality program of Ontario. Journal of Dairy Science 79: 396–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(96)76378-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAWC 2005 Report on welfare implications of farm assurance schemes. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2009 Opinion on the welfare of the dairy cow. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Green, LE, Hedges, VJ, Schukken, YH, Blowey, RW and Packington, AJ 2002 The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 2250–2002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heffernan, C, Nielsen, L, Thomson, K and Gunn, G 2008 An exploration of the drivers to bio-security collective action among a sample of UK cattle and sheep farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 87: 358–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.05.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huijps, K, Hogeveen, H, Antonides, G, Valeeva, NI, Lam, TJGM and Oude Lansink, AGJM 2010 Sub-optimal economic behaviour with respect to mastitis management. European Review of Agricultural Economics 37: 553–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International HIV/AIDS Alliance 2006 Tools together now! 100 participatory tools to mobilise communities for HIV/AIDS. International HIV/AIDS Alliance: Hove, UKGoogle Scholar
KilBride, AL, Mason, SA, Honeyman, PC, Pritchard, DG, Hepple, S and Green, LE 2011 Associations between membership of farm assurance and organic certification schemes and compliance with animal welfare legislation. The Veterinary Record 170: 152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.100345CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, E and Jakobsen, EB 2011 Challenging the myth of the irrational dairy farmer; understanding decision-making related to herd health. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 59: 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2011.547162CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leach, KA, Whay, HR, Maggs, CM, Barker, ZE, Paul, E and Main, DCJ 2010a Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Research in Veterinary Science 89: 318–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.02.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, KA, Whay, HR, Maggs, CM, Barker, ZE, Paul, E and Main, DCJ 2010b Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. Research in Veterinary Science 89: 311–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.02.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle. Veterinary Record 153: 227–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.153.8.227CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, DCJ, Whay, HR, Leeb, C and Webster, AJF 2007 Formal animal-based welfare assessment in UK certification schemes. Animal Welfare 16: 233–236Google Scholar
McKenzie-Mohr, D and Smith, W 1999 Fostering Sustainable Behaviour. An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. New Society Publishers: CanadaGoogle Scholar
NFU 2010 DairyCow Welfare Strategy. National Farmers Union: Stoneleigh, UKGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 2011 Animal rights as a mainstream phenomenon. Animals 1: 102–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani1010102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, Butterworth, A and Swanson, JC 2011 Farm animal welfare assurance: science and application. Journal of Animal Science 89: 1219–1228. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3589CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaarst, M and SØrensen, JT 2009 Danish dairy farmers’ perceptions and attitudes related to calf-management in situations of high versus no calf mortality. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 89: 128–133CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valeeva, NI, Lam, TJGM and Hogeveen, H 2007 Motivation of dairy farmers to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 4466–4477. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0095CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2009 Improving animal welfare: practical approaches for achieving change. In: Grandin, T (ed) Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach pp 227–251. Colorado State University: Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Leach, KA, Barker, ZE, Sedgewick, AK, Maggs, CM, Stokes, JE, Bell, NJ and Main, DCJ 2012 Reducing dairy cattle lameness: a novel approach to implementation of existing knowledge. Proceedings of Making Animal Welfare Improvements: Economic and Other Incentives and Constraints. UFAW International Animal Welfare Symposium. 28-29 June 2011, Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UKGoogle Scholar
Willshire, JA and Bell, NJ 2009 An economic review of cattle lameness. Cattle Practice 17: 136–141Google Scholar