Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:58:40.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Would it sell more pork?’ Pig farmers’ perceptions of Real Welfare, the welfare outcome component of their farm assurance scheme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2019

J. Hockenhull Open the ORCID record for J. Hockenhull [Opens in a new window] ,
D. C. J. Main  and
S. Mullan
J. Hockenhull*
Affiliation:
Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
D. C. J. Main
Affiliation:
Royal Agricultural University, Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 6JS, UK
S. Mullan
Affiliation:
Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In the UK, the pig industry is leading the way in the adoption of welfare outcome measures as part of their farm assurance scheme. The welfare outcome assessment (WOA), known as Real Welfare, is conducted by the farmers’ own veterinary surgeon. For the first time, this has allowed the pig industry to evaluate welfare by directly assessing the animal itself and to document the welfare of the UK pig industry as a whole. Farmer perspectives of the addition of a welfare outcome assessment to their farm assurance scheme have yet to be explored. Here, we investigate how the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol has been perceived by the farmers involved, what value it has (if any), whether any practical changes on farm have been a direct consequence of Real Welfare and ultimately whether they consider that the welfare of their pigs has been improved by the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol. Semi-structured interviews with 15 English pig farmers were conducted to explore their perceptions and experiences of the Real Welfare process. Our findings fall into three key areas: the lived experience of Real Welfare, on-farm changes resulting from Real Welfare and suggested improvements to the Real Welfare process as it currently stands. In all the three areas, the value farmers placed on the addition of WOA appeared to reflect their veterinary surgeon’s attitude towards the Real Welfare protocol. If the vet was engaged in the process and actively included the farmer, for example through discussion of their findings, the farmers interviewed had a greater appreciation of the benefits of Real Welfare themselves. It is recommended that future similar schemes should work with veterinary surgeons to ensure their understanding and engagement with the process, as well as identifying and promoting how the scheme will practically benefit individual farmers rather than assuming that they will be motivated to engage for the good of the industry alone. Retailers should be encouraged to use Real Welfare as a marketing tool for pig products to enhance the perceived commercial value of this protocol to farmers.

Keywords

animal-based measuresanimal welfarefarmer perspectivespigwelfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 12 , December 2019 , pp. 2864 - 2875
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2017. Real Welfare: baseline report 2013–2016 measuring welfare outcomes in pigs. Retrieved on 22 April 2017 from https://pork.ahdb.org.uk/media/273110/real-welfare-report-2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Alberto, M 2007. Italian pig producers’ attitude toward animal welfare. British Food Journal 109, 870–878.Google Scholar
Atkinson, DJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM 2017. Benchmarking passive transfer of immunity and growth in dairy calves. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 3773–3782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atkinson, O 2010. Communication in farm animal practice 1. Farmer–vet relationships. In Practice 32, 114–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, AM, Main, DCJ, Haase, AM, Whay, HR, Roe, EJ and Reyher, KK 2017. The future of veterinary communication: partnership or persuasion? A qualitative investigation of veterinary communication in the pursuit of client behaviour change. PLoS ONE 12, e0171380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1995. Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4, 207–220.Google Scholar
Bergstra, T, Hogeveen, H, Erno Kuiper, W, Oude Lansink, AGJM and Stassen, EN 2017. Attitudes of Dutch citizens toward sow husbandry with regard to animals, humans, and the environment. Anthrozoös 30, 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, BB and van Huik, MM 2007. Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109, 931–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM 2007. Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 229–231.Google Scholar
Brandt, P, Rousing, T, Herskin, MS, Olsen, EV and Aaslyng, MD 2017. Development of an index for the assessment of welfare of finishing pigs from farm to slaughter based on expert opinion. Livestock Science 198, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbone, L 2010. Expertise and advocacy in animal-welfare decision making: considerations for a veterinary curriculum in animal welfare. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 37, 36–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carmen, H, Michael, B and Guy, G 2007. Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109, 919–930.Google Scholar
Clark, B, Frewer, JL, Panzone, AL and Stewart, BG 2017. The need for formal evidence synthesis in food policy: a case study of willingness-to-pay. Animals 7, 23. doi: 10.3390/ani7030023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) 2018. Honest labelling. Retrieved on 11 March 2019 from https://www.ciwf.org.uk/our-campaigns/honest-labelling/ Google Scholar
Cornish, A, Raubenheimer, D and McGreevy, P 2016. What we know about the public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare in food production in developed countries. Animals 6, 74. doi: 10.3390/ani6110074CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Snoo, GR, Lokhorst, AM, van Dijk, J, Staats, H and Munsters, CJM 2010. Benchmarking biodiversity performance of farmers. Aspects of Applied Biology 100, 311–318.Google Scholar
Ellis, KA, Billington, K, McNeil, B and McKeegan, DEF 2009. Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cow welfare. Animal Welfare 18, 267–282.Google Scholar
European Union 2008. Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved on 22 April 2017 from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0120&from=ENGoogle Scholar
Hansen, F, Smith, M and Hansen, RB 2002. Rewards and recognition in employee motivation. Compensation & Benefits Review 34, 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hars, A and Ou, S 2002. Working for free? Motivations for participating in open-source projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6, 25–39.Google Scholar
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 2003. The welfare of farmed animals (England) (Amendment) regulations. Retrieved on 22 April 2017 from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/299/pdfs/uksi_20030299_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hockenhull, J, Olmos, G, Whatford, L, Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Roderick, S and Buller, H 2014. The role of trusted individuals and the community in the effective communication of animal health and welfare research. Poster presented at the 6th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level (WAFL) 3–5 September 2014, Clermont-Ferrand, France.Google Scholar
Hubbard, C 2012. Do farm assurance schemes make a difference to animal welfare? Veterinary Record 170, 150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubbard, C, Bourlakis, M and Garrod, G 2007. Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109, 919–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J and Lam, TJGM 2012. The role of communication in improving udder health. Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice 28, 363–379.Google ScholarPubMed
Labelling Matters 2011. Labelling Matters. Retrieved on 11 March 2019 from https://labellingmatters.org/home/about-us/Google Scholar
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! – conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, N, Kaler, J, Ferguson, E, O’Kane, H and Green, LE 2018. Sheep farmers’ attitudes to farm inspections and the role of sanctions and rewards as motivation to reduce the prevalence of lameness. Animal Welfare 27, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Mullan, S, Atkinson, C, Bond, A, Cooper, M, Fraser, A and Browne, WJ 2012. Welfare outcomes assessment in laying hen farm assurance schemes. Animal Welfare 21, 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Mullan, S, Atkinson, C, Cooper, M, Wrathall, JHM and Blokhuis, HJ 2014. Best practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes. Trends in Food Science & Technology 37, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Webster, AJF and Green, LE. 2001. Animal welfare assessment in farm assurance schemes. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A — Animal Science 51(sup030), 108–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossop, L, Gray, C, Blaxter, A, Gardiner, A, MacEachern, K, Watson, P, Whittlestone, K and Robbé, I 2015. Communication skills training: what the vet schools are doing. Veterinary Record 176, 114–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, S, Browne, WJ, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2009a. The effect of sampling strategy on the estimated prevalence of welfare outcome measures on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR, Edwards, S and Main, DCJ 2010. Consultation of pig farmers on the inclusion of some welfare outcome assessments within UK farm assurance. Veterinary Record 166, 678–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Ward, M, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2011a. Welfare science into practice: a successful case example of working with industry. Animal Welfare 20, 597–601.Google Scholar
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ. 2009b. Interdependence of welfare outcome measures and potential confounding factors on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2011b. A pilot investigation of Farm Assurance assessors’ attitude to farm animal welfare as a confounding factor to training in pig welfare outcome measures. Animal Welfare 20, 413–421.Google Scholar
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2011c. Inter-observer reliability testing of pig welfare outcome measures proposed for inclusion within farm assurance schemes. The Veterinary Journal 190, e100–e109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ngapo, TM, Dransfield, E, Martin, JF, Magnusson, M, Bredahl, L and Nute, GR 2004. Consumer perceptions: pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and Denmark. Meat Science 66, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nordquist, ER, van der Staay, JF, van Eerdenburg, JF, Velkers, CF, Fijn, L and Arndt, SS 2017. Mutilating procedures, management practices, and housing conditions that may affect the welfare of farm animals: implications for welfare research. Animals 7, 12. doi: 10.3390/ani7020012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osborne, CA 2002. Client confidence in veterinarians: how can it be sustained? Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221, 936–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandolfi, F, Kyriazakis, I, Stoddart, K, Wainwright, N and Edwards, SA 2017a. The “Real Welfare” scheme: identification of risk and protective factors for welfare outcomes in commercial pig farms in the UK. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 146, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandolfi, F, Stoddart, K, Wainwright, N, Kyriazakis, I and Edwards, SA 2017b. The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs. Animal 11, 1816–1824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phythian, C, Phillips, K, Wright, N and Morgan, M 2014. Sheep health, welfare and production planning 1. Recording and benchmarking performance indicators of flock health and production. In Practice 36, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronan, G and Cleary, G 2000. Best practice benchmarking in Australian agriculture: issues and challenges. Paper presented at the 44th Annual Conference of Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Inc, 23–25 January 2000, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Ruston, A, Shortall, O, Green, M, Brennan, M, Wapenaar, W and Kaler, J 2016. Challenges facing the farm animal veterinary profession in England: a qualitative study of veterinarians’ perceptions and responses. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 127, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Słrensen, JT and Fraser, D 2010. On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: issues and possible solutions. Livestock Science 131, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, HM, Green, MJ and Freeman, SL 2011. Prevalence of obesity in a population of horses in the UK. Veterinary Record 168, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, CL, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM 2018. How benchmarking motivates farmers to improve dairy calf management. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 3323–3333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Te Velde, H, Aarts, N and Van W oerkum, C 2002. Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 15, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorslund, CAH, Aaslyng, MD and Lassen, J 2017. Perceived importance and responsibility for market-driven pig welfare: literature review. Meat Science 125, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEL 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, L, Elwes, S, Main, DCJ, Mullan, SM and Jamieson, J 2018. Farmer perspectives on welfare outcome assessment: learnings from four farm assurance scheme consultation exercises. Animal Welfare 27, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Weerd, HA, Docking, CM, Day, JEL, Breuer, K and Edwards, SA 2006. Effects of species-relevant environmental enrichment on the behaviour and productivity of finishing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99, 230–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, GA, Hobson-West, P, Cobb, K, Craigon, J, Hammond, R and Millar, KM 2011. Canine obesity: is there a difference between veterinarian and owner perception? Journal of Small Animal Practice 52, 622–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hockenhull et al. supplementary material

Hockenhull et al. supplementary material 1

Download Hockenhull et al. supplementary material(File)
File 15.1 KB