Abstract
Simple SummaryAnimal protection laws are written and enforced differently depending on the category of animals they are assigned to. This generates inconsistencies in the recognition of animal maltreatment. We studied sheep farmers’ and other citizens’ opinions regarding animal maltreatment by discussing the risk of sheep maltreatment in regular farming practices in Southern Brazil. We surveyed the perception of 56 farmers and 209 citizens regarding general animal and specific on-farm sheep maltreatment issues. The understanding of some key components of animal maltreatment was similar for both respondent groups: failing to provide for the basic animal needs and aggression or physical abuse towards animals. However, citizens were more sensitive than farmers to animal stress, suffering, fear and pain. More citizens than sheep farmers believed that animal maltreatment occurs in sheep farming; nevertheless, nearly half of the farmers recognized sheep maltreatment within normal production practices. Most citizens and all of the farmers were unaware of the Brazilian animal protection laws. Most citizens stated that they would not purchase products from animals exposed to maltreatment. We suggest painful procedures as the main risk of animal maltreatment in sheep farming and a priority issue. The level of cognitive dissonance in sheep farmers and contradictions between farmers and other citizens observed in our results indicate that mitigation policies are urgently needed.We aimed to study the gaps between the law and sheep farmer and citizen opinions regarding animal maltreatment by discussing the risk of sheep maltreatment in regular farming practices in Southern Brazil. We surveyed the perception of 56 farmers and 209 citizens regarding general animal and specific on-farm sheep maltreatment issues. The main themes from these two groups about the key components of animal maltreatment were similar: failing to provide for the basic animal needs (27.0%; 96 of 355 total quotes) and aggression or physical abuse (23.9%; 85/355). However, citizens (19.8%; 60/303) were more sensitive than farmers (9.6%; 5/52) to animal stress, suffering, fear, pain or painful procedures (p < 0.05). The perspective of citizens was closer than that of farmers to expert definitions for three situations: emaciation, movement restriction and tail docking without anesthetic use (p < 0.05). More citizens (71.6%; 116/162) than sheep farmers (49.0%; 24/49) believed that animal maltreatment occurs in sheep farming (p < 0.05), but nearly half of the farmers recognized sheep maltreatment within regular production practices. Most citizens (86.4%; 140/162) and all farmers (100.0%; 0/51) were unaware of any Brazilian animal protection law. Most citizens (79%; 131/167) stated that they would not purchase products from animals exposed to maltreatment. We suggest painful procedures as a major risk of animal maltreatment in sheep farming and a priority issue. With the many decades of animal protection laws and scientific recognition of animal sentience and welfare requirements, the level of cognitive dissonance and practical contradictions observed in our results indicate that mitigation policies are urgently needed.
Highlights
Questions regarding the ethics of farm animal production are being raised in parallel with the pressure for increasing total food production in the world
Answers to the question on what constitutes animal maltreatment (Table 4) by 65.4% (36/55) of farmers and 66.5% (139/209) of citizens cited the same two main ideas: failure to provide for the basic animal needs (27.0%; 96 of 355 total quotes) and aggression or physical abuse (23.9%; 85/355)
This highlights the importance of bringing academic knowledge and research to the citizens by open access to such material and by publicizing scientific content in less academic formats, such as short videos, podcasts and press releases, amongst others. In addition to these demographic biases, the ‘snowballing’ technique used to encourage citizens and sheep farmers to participate meant that the responses were not entirely independent, and the influence of some early responders may be considerable. This is the first study aiming to understand the differences of opinion of citizens and sheep farmers regarding animal maltreatment
Summary
Questions regarding the ethics of farm animal production are being raised in parallel with the pressure for increasing total food production in the world. We refer to animal welfare as the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies, considering that an animal experiences good welfare if the animal is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress and is able to express behaviors that are important for its physical and mental state [2]. Even though the speed with which ethical concerns related to animals is growing in each country is variable, society’s demand for better animal welfare in modern animal production seems clear Due to this increasingly strong public concern related to farm animals, welfare policies have been gradually developed and implemented worldwide, which is an ongoing process. Broom [4] published a list of European Union (EU) animal welfare policy and legislation, registering a period of these developments
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
