Favorability and Impact of Common Terms Around the Topics of Animal Care and Welfare Utilized by Zoological Facilities.

Simple SummaryThe field of animal welfare science studies the well-being of animals, including an animal’s physical and emotional state. Previous studies have investigated veterinary students’ perceptions of animal welfare, although few studies have focused on animal science students’ perceptions of the topic. The aim of this study was to determine if animal science students’ perceptions of animal welfare differed across a multitude of animal categories, including agricultural animals, cats and dogs, horses and other equids, research animals, and wildlife. Results indicate that most survey respondents agreed that animal welfare was important for all animal categories. In qualitative analyses of the open-ended survey questions, basic needs and human interaction were identified by respondents as key welfare components for all animal categories; however, the frequency with which identified welfare themes was mentioned differed by category. Results also highlighted perception differences within different agricultural animal species; fewer respondents agreed that poultry and swine are raised with an appropriate level of welfare compared to dairy and beef cattle. Understanding animal science students’ perceptions of animal welfare may lead to a greater understanding of how they will assess and manage animal welfare issues as part of their future careers in the agricultural and animal-related sectors.Animal welfare is an increasingly important topic across multiple academic disciplines; however, few studies have investigated student perceptions of animal welfare outside of veterinary medicine. The objective of the study was to evaluate animal science students’ perceptions of animal welfare to determine if perceptions differ across animal categories. An online survey was distributed to animal science programs at institutions across the United States. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on 624 responses. Almost all respondents agreed welfare was important for all animal categories (≥97%). The survey asked respondents to rate the level of importance of 12 welfare parameters and there was evidence that the level of importance differed by animal category (p < 0.0001), e.g., fewer respondents indicated having positive interactions with humans was important for agricultural animals. In a subset of questions about agricultural animals, fewer respondents agreed that swine (325, 52.1%) and poultry (268, 43.0%) are raised with an appropriate level of welfare compared to dairy (425, 68.1%) and beef cattle (421, 67.5%). Four free-response questions asked respondents to report their general perceptions of welfare. Thematic analysis identified multiple themes, such as basic needs and human interaction, with most responses (75%) including two or more themes.

Many festivals use animals in the name of continuing traditions and religious acts of historical and cultural relevance, as well as for tourist entertainment; however, the welfare of these animals has been overlooked in favor of maintaining cultural identity or making economic profits. The criticism of animal-based festivals has been growing along with the increased public awareness of animal rights. However, this change in public perception has not yet been translated into actual government policies in Korea. This study addresses the unethical practices and challenges regarding animal welfare at festivals from the perspective of visitors to understand the public perception of the need for institutional and regulatory interventions to improve the treatment of animals at festivals. An online survey (N = 1000) is conducted to examine the public perception of animals and animal welfare at festivals and how strongly online survey participants support organizer- and state-level actions to protect the welfare of festival animals. Logistic regression analyses identify gender, pet ownership, pro-animal attitude, visiting experience, sensitivity to criticism regarding animal issues, and perception of animal welfare at festivals as significant predictors of online survey participants’ support for actions ensuring the welfare of animals used in festivals. Our findings also suggest that people sympathize with the need to enhance animal welfare but have low levels of sensitivity to the maltreatment of animals at festivals, indicating the existence of cognitive dissonance. Establishing guidelines and regulations for improving animal welfare can help festivals use animals in a more sustainable way and make visitors rethink and re-establish human–animal relationships.

Simple SummarySince farmers’ perceptions of animal welfare affect the way they treat their animals, it is important to study the formation of the attitudes of future farmers and farm workers. Using individual and focus group interviews, we studied how education affects Danish agricultural students’ view of animal welfare. We also interviewed teachers at the agricultural colleges to see how they perceive the importance of animal welfare. Our results show that students, both older and younger, often see animal welfare as valuable if it can be combined with productivity. To an extent, the students also focused on the importance of having a personal, positive relationship with the animals. Older teachers indicated that animal welfare has a much bigger impact today than it did 20 years ago, and all the teachers felt it should be included across all relevant subjects. However, animal welfare is not defined in any particular way in the relevant curricula. Agricultural education ought to have an important role in teaching about animal welfare in a society where farmers are increasingly required to engage in market-driven improvements in animal welfare.Farmers’ perceptions of animal welfare have been found to affect the way they treat their animals, and there is growing awareness of the range of ethical views today’s farmers take on animal welfare. The purpose of this study was to examine how perceptions of animal welfare develop among prospective farmers and farm workers in Denmark during their studies at agricultural colleges. We also examined the experiences of college teachers and their views on the inclusion of animal welfare in livestock courses. Drawing on individual interviews and focus group interviews at four Danish agricultural colleges, we used systematic text condensation to identify three major themes among the students: 1. The importance of balancing welfare and productivity, 2. Concerns about the animal itself, 3. Concerns relating to the students themselves. Our interviews with teachers revealed a growing awareness of the inclusion of animal welfare in Danish agricultural colleges, but also disagreements over the way animal welfare should be understood. We conclude that the education of future farmers in Danish agricultural colleges today embraces animal welfare but should leave more room in the future to introduce students to the issue of market-driven welfare and consumer interest in animal-friendly production.

The public expects zoos to provide high standards of animal care. Failing to meet public expectations can have detrimental impacts on public experiences and behavior, which in turn can compromise zoos’ organizational goals relative to conservation and public education. Despite increased research interest in understanding how the public perceives animal welfare in zoo settings, to date the factors that influence such perceptions are still unclear. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted a mixed methods systematic review using a PRISMA approach to identify the factors that influence public perceptions of zoo animal welfare and the potential ramifications of these perceptions on public attitudes, experiences, and behaviors. A total of 114 peer reviewed journal articles were analyzed: 43 provided qualitative data for thematic synthesis and 85 reported quantitative data for content analysis. Three main groupings were identified that impacted public perception of animal welfare in zoos: human, animal, and environmental factors. Within the human factors, ethical justifications, direct interactions, and inappropriate visitor behaviors were important. For the animal factors, animals’ behavior, apparent health status, and the suitability of certain taxa for captivity were found to be key. Finally, several aspects of the environment – conditions of the facility, the exhibit, and welfare-related educational material – were influential. Overall, negative perceptions of animal welfare resulted in negative visitor attitudes towards zoos, detrimentally impacted experiences, and lowered likelihood to visit zoos and engagement in conservation efforts. The articles in this review provided valuable insights into the factors affecting public perception of zoo animal welfare; however, future research may benefit from a more structured approach to increase comparability and validity of results across studies. We conclude by proposing seven recommendations to increase the robustness and validity of future research in this area.

Simple SummaryLambs are simultaneously subjected to several routine husbandry practices that cause pain. One of the main factors that limit the use of analgesics in lambs is the difficulty in pain recognition by sheep farmers. This study aimed to determine how husbandry practices are carried out in Chilean farms, the sheep farmers’ perception of animal welfare and pain, and the factors that affect them, as well as the level of agreement among farmers in the recognition of pain associated with these practices. Farmers were invited to participate in a workshop and they were asked through a survey about their sociodemographic information, how husbandry practices are being performed in their farms, and were asked to score the intensity of pain associated to seven of these practices. Castration and tail docking were perceived as the most painful practices and farmers agreed among them that these routine husbandry practices cause severe pain to animals. Several factors were associated with the farmers’ pain perception, such as the method used for the specific husbandry practices and the farmers’ educational level. In general, routine husbandry practices were carried out without using analgesics and with painful methods despite the agreement among farmers regarding the recognition of pain associated with these procedures.Considering the public concern about the welfare of farm animals during routine husbandry practices, this study aimed to determine how husbandry practices are carried out in Chilean farms, sheep farmers’ perceptions of animal welfare and pain, and factors that affect them, as well as the level of agreement among farmers in the recognition of pain associated with these practices. Using a self-administered survey, participants were asked about their sociodemographic information, how husbandry practices are carried out in their farms, and their pain perception for seven of these common husbandry procedures using a numerical rating scale (0 to 10). A total of 165 farmers completed the survey and perceived castration and tail docking as the most painful practices in lambs (median pain score 10 vs. 8, p < 0.05). Pain perception was associated with the method used for the specific husbandry practices, the farmers’ educational level, the farm size, and flock size (p < 0.05). There was a fair to good level of agreement beyond chance (p < 0.05) in the recognition of pain associated with the most painful practices. In general, husbandry practices are not carried out in young animals, use painful methods, without using analgesics, which may have a negative impact on animal welfare.

African and Asian elephants are popular within zoos, however there is currently limited information on how viewing them impacts zoo visitors. The goal of the current study was to examine the relationship between viewing elephants in zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and zoo visitors' reported conservation intent and perceptions of animal welfare. Visitors were systematically selected to fill out questionnaires following elephant observation at nine facilities throughout North America. Questions included information on conservation predispositions, exhibit experience, exhibit perceptions, animal welfare perceptions, emotional experience, learning outcomes, conservation intent, and demographics. Results suggest that observing elephants engaged in a variety of species-typical behaviors and having an up-close experience was significantly correlated to visitors having a positive emotional response. The positive emotional response, combined with visitor conservation predisposition had a significant positive relationship with reported interest in getting involved in conservation. Perceptions of animal welfare were significantly related to a positive emotional experience driven by seeing animals engaged in a variety of active species-typical behaviors as well as exhibit perceptions and whether or not visitors thought it was important to have elephants in zoos. Exhibit perception was primarily correlated with exhibit size. The results provide factors that could help to increase visitor interest in conservation as well as the potential impact of viewing elephants in an accredited zoo. Facilities can use this information to help ensure their visitors have similar type experiences in order to inspire visitors' interest in conservation as well as positive perceptions of animal welfare.

With an increasing focus on the uptake of healthy and sustainable diets, a growing body of research has explored consumer perceptions and understanding of the environmental impacts and safety of foods. However, this body of research has used a wide range of methods to recruit participants, which can influence the results obtained. The current research explores the impact of different recruitment methods upon observed estimations of the carbon footprint (gCO2e), energy content (Kcal), food safety and animal using three different online recruitment platforms; Qualtrics (N= 397), Prolific (N= 407), Zooniverse (N~601, based on unique IP addresses). Qualtrics and Prolific participants rated the carbon footprint, energy content, food safety and animal welfare of all foods in the survey. Zooniverse citizens rated the carbon footprint or energy content then food safety or animal welfare of all foods in the survey. Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square analyses compared the energy content and carbon footprint estimations with validated values, and differences in estimate accuracy and perceptions between recruitment methods. Participants were unable to accurately estimate the carbon footprint and energy content of foods. The carbon footprint of all foods were overestimated, with the exception of beef and lamb which was underestimated. The calorie content of fruits and vegetables are typically overestimated. Perceptions of animal welfare and food safety differed by recruitment method. Zooniverse citizens rated animal welfare standards to be lower for meat products and eggs, compared to Qualtrics and Prolific participants. Overall, Qualtrics participants typically held the highest food risk perceptions, however this varied by food type. The lack of knowledge about the carbon footprint and energy content of foods demonstrates the need for consumer education and communication to enable the move toward healthier and more sustainable diets. Perceptions of food safety and animal welfare demonstrate a baseline from which to develop consumer focused communications and governance. We have shown that different recruitment tools can result in differences in observed perceptions. This highlights the need to carefully consider the recruitment tool being used in research when assessing participant knowledge and perceptions.

‘Animal welfare' (动物福利) is a foreign term in China, and stakeholder interpretations can affect receptiveness to the concept. Our aim was to explore workers' perceptions of animal welfare on two dairies in China. We used a mini-ethnographic case study design, with the first author (MC) living for 38 days on one farm and 23 days on a second farm. MC conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 13) and participant observations (n = 41) with farm management and staff. We used template analysis to generate key themes from the ethnographic data. Responses revealed a connection between human and animal welfare. Workers saw human welfare as a prerequisite to animal welfare, and cattle welfare as potentially mutually beneficial to humans. Some workers also saw an ethical obligation toward providing cattle with good welfare. Though some workers were unfamiliar with the term ‘animal welfare,' in daily practice caring for cattle led farm workers to ponder, prioritize, and make decisions relevant to welfare including lameness, morbidity, and nutrition. Workers in management positions appeared to embrace evidence-based animal care improvements, especially those which were perceived to also benefit people. Based on our findings, we suggest animal welfare initiatives should (1) consider worker welfare, (2) clearly communicate the concept of ‘animal welfare,' (3) identify mutual benefits, and (4) provide pragmatic, evidence-based strategies to improve welfare.

Zoos are increasingly turning to ambassador animal programs to address animal welfare issues and visitors’ empathic responses. However, little is known, if or how, animal handling practices and interpretation impact attendees’ perceptions of animal welfare and/or empathy. To evaluate these effects, eight ambassador animal program videos were created employing varying combinations of animal handling (traditional/free choice), interpretive messaging (traditional/empathy-based), and choice and control language (present/absent). Online questionnaires ( N = 1,185) were used to assess participants’ environmental and empathic predispositions before viewing and perceptions of animal welfare and empathic reactions immediately after viewing a video. Results revealed that empathic reactions were moderately correlated with perceptions of animal welfare ( r = .53, p &lt; .001) and mean empathic responses were higher for free choice handling and empathic messaging videos versus traditional handling and messaging. Programming recommendations are discussed that can improve visitors’ perceptions of animal care and elicit strong empathic reactions.

This study was part of a larger study conducted by Texas AgriLife Extension Service surveying livestock producers, livestock market employees, and students studying animal agriculture to determine their perceptions of animal agriculture's animal welfare practices as well as their understanding of Beef Quality Assurance (BQA). This paper focuses on students engaged in the study of production animal agriculture. To identify students' overall perception of animal welfare in production agriculture, five constructs were developed. The five constructs of animal welfare used in this study were: (1) production agriculture; (2) production methods; (3) attitudes toward animals in general; (4) attitudes toward animals in production agriculture; and (5) production practices. In addition, students were surveyed to assess their basic knowledge of BQA practices. Overall, results indicated that students felt production agriculture was doing a good job as it relates to animal welfare, with favorable attitudes toward current animal agriculture production practices. Student responses to the BQA-related questions indicated a lack of knowledge of BQA principles.

In response to undercover videos of poor farm animal welfare, livestock industry groups in the USA and Australia have lobbied for the introduction of laws designed to limit the ability of such investigations to occur. These ‘Ag-gag’ laws have garnered a great deal of media attention and public debate. This online study assessed support of USA participants (n=715) for these laws and experimentally tested whether awareness of these laws has any unintended reputational consequences. Opposition to these laws was high (74% opposed) and when participants became aware of them (as a result of participating in our survey) their perception of animal welfare on farms became more negative, as did their willingness to trust farmers as sources about animal welfare. Exposure to the ‘Ag-Gag’ laws also negatively affected the perceptions of participants regarding issues unrelated to animal welfare (e.g. environmental stewardship, food safety, worker rights, etc.). These results suggest that policies perceived as limiting transparency are perceived negatively and undermine public trust in agriculture.

The students' perception provides information to design strategies aimed at teaching animal welfare, creating awareness of the quality of animal life, creating values in the student towards respect and care for animals. The objective was to analyze the perception of two groups in MSBA of Veterinary Medicine about the importance of animal welfare, use and protection of animals. 91% from Jalisco, 8% from other states and 1% foreign (data from 51 women and 36 men). The performance of both groups was favorable. 100% have a basic concept and consider animal welfare important. There are no differences between groups, in relation to animal welfare, being an essential issue that provides values and ethics. There is a relationship between animal welfare and veterinary medicine, it creates awareness to protect the health of animals, correct management and the conditions necessary for a better quality of life.

Simple SummaryConsumers are currently more sensitive regarding the way animals are kept and handled and, in general, have increased their awareness towards animal welfare. There is a close link between welfare of animals and stakeholders’ perception of their needs. This study aimed at investigating stakeholders’ perception of the welfare of equines, small ruminants, and turkeys using a text mining approach to analyze their answers to open-ended questions. A total of 270 surveys were collected from respondents of 32 different countries. Independently from the species, respondents considered that an animal needs appropriate nutrition to be fit, healthy, and productive. The “environment” was considered particularly important for turkey stakeholders, whereas housing factors were relevant for goat stakeholders. Horse stakeholders also considered “exercise”, “pasture” and “proper training” important. Although the sample was too small to analyze variation in welfare perception among stakeholders of different species, text mining analysis seems to be a promising method to investigate stakeholders’ perception of animal welfare, as it emphasizes their real perception, without the constraints deriving by close-ended questions. Welfare of animals significantly depends on how stakeholders perceive their needs and behave in a way to favor production systems that promote better welfare outcomes. This study aimed at investigating stakeholders’ perception of the welfare of equines, small ruminants, and turkeys using text mining analysis. A survey composed by open-ended questions referring to different aspects of animal welfare was carried out. Text mining analysis was performed. A total of 270 surveys were filled out (horses = 122, sheep = 81, goats = 36, turkeys = 18, donkeys = 13). The respondents (41% veterinarians) came from 32 different countries. To describe welfare requirements, the words “feeding” and “water” were the most frequently used in all the species, meaning that respondents considered the welfare principle “good feeding” as the most relevant. The word “environment” was considered particularly important for turkeys, as well as the word “dry”, never mentioned for other species. Horses stakeholders also considered “exercise” and “proper training” important. Goat stakeholders’ concerns are often expressed by the word “space”, probably because goats are often intensively managed in industrialized countries. Although the sample was too small to be representative, text mining analysis seems to be a promising method to investigate stakeholders’ perception of animal welfare, as it emphasizes their real perception, without the constraints deriving by close-ended questions.

This study was conducted to assess the current status of famers’ perceptions of animal welfare and technical efficiency in broiler farms using a stochastic frontier analysis (SFA). In this study, 355 farms registered in Heilongjiang Province, China were surveyed, with 240 of them responding. The results showed that 75% of farmers recognize the importance of animal welfare, and 56.3% of them expressed their willingness to implement animal welfare on their farms without conditions or having a negative attitude. The technical efficiency of the farmers’ ranged from 55% to 99%. All the variables assessed in this study had a statistical influence on production. Education, experience, and gender of farmers were significant variables and increased efficiency, while age and distance of a farm to the main road increased inefficiency. Based on our survey, we suggest that the implementation of animal welfare measures will require government subsidy or incentive, which could encourage 35% of farmers to implement animal welfare measures. To increase production efficiently, farmer needs to control the mortality rate, but the contribution of vaccine during production is below 1% (0.09%).

The study compared the perception of ordinary citizens from Curitiba, Brazil (OB) and Clermont-Ferrand, France (OF), as well as OB, Brazilian veterinarians (VB), biologists (BB) and animal scientists (AB), concerning animal welfare and sentience. An online survey containing 18 open-ended, multiple choices and Likert scale questions was conducted from November 2014 to May 2016. The survey covered questions on demographics, perception of animal welfare, sheep welfare, sentience and animals’ emotional capacities. In total, 1103 respondents participated in the survey (388 OB, 350 OF, 248 VB, 92 BB and 25 AB); data were compared using non-parametric tests. Brazilian citizens (46.9%) believed more than OF (3.7%) that welfare is not considered for farm animals and OB attributed higher scores of suffering to sheep during management procedures (median 4, severe suffering) than OF (3, moderate suffering). Additionally, OB gave higher scores of emotions to animals (5) than OF (4). In general, OB and BB had similar perceptions; OB and BB differed from VB and AB who were similar to each other. Citizens (46.9%) and BB (29.3%) believed more than VB (18.5%) and AB (12.0%) that welfare is not considered for farm animals; OB and BB also attributed higher scores of suffering to sheep during management procedures than VB and AB. Women and older respondents showed higher perception of animal welfare issues. There was no clear correlation between perception of animal welfare or sentience and education. Overall, ordinary citizens differed on their perceptions of welfare and sentience in livestock and specifically in sheep, and sheep suffering during management procedures. Ordinary citizens from Curitiba showed higher perception of animal welfare issues as compared to respondents from Clermont-Ferrand and to veterinarians and animal scientists. Ensuring a better consideration of welfare at farm level and in educational programs seems warranted according to the results of this study.