Dataset Information

Citizens' and Farmers' Framing of 'Positive Animal Welfare' and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication.

ABSTRACT: Human perception can depend on how an individual frames information in thought and how information is framed in communication. For example, framing something positively, instead of negatively, can change an individual's response. This is of relevance to 'positive animal welfare', which places greater emphasis on farm animals being provided with opportunities for positive experiences. However, little is known about how this framing of animal welfare may influence the perception of key animal welfare stakeholders. Through a qualitative interview study with farmers and citizens, undertaken in Scotland, UK, this paper explores what positive animal welfare evokes to these key welfare stakeholders and highlights the implications of such internal frames for effectively communicating positive welfare in society. Results indicate that citizens make sense of positive welfare by contrasting positive and negative aspects of welfare, and thus frame it as animals having 'positive experiences' or being 'free from negative experiences'. Farmers draw from their existing frames of animal welfare to frame positive welfare as 'good husbandry', 'proactive welfare improvement' or the 'animal's point of view'. Implications of such internal frames (e.g., the triggering of 'negative welfare' associations by the word 'positive') for the effective communication of positive welfare are also presented.

SUBMITTER: Vigors B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6523948 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Citizens' and Farmers' Framing of 'Positive Animal Welfare' and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication.

Vigors Belinda B

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI 20190404 4

Human perception can depend on how an individual frames information in thought and how information is framed in communication. For example, framing something positively, instead of negatively, can change an individual's response. This is of relevance to 'positive animal welfare', which places greater emphasis on farm animals being provided with opportunities for positive experiences. However, little is known about how this framing of animal welfare may influence the perception of key animal welf ...[more]

PMID: 30987330

Similar Datasets

Project description:The paper analyses the uptake of animal health and welfare technologies by livestock farmers focusing on the identification of different behavioral patterns occurring in subpopulations of farmers and the assessment of the effect socio-economic and attitudinal factors have on these patterns. The technologies of interest include new genomic technologies, animal electronic identification (EID) for farm management, cattle surveillance, welfare qualitative behavioral assessment, anaerobic digestion, pedometers or activity monitors to detect oestrus and increase fertility/conception, and webcams/smart phones/tablets for animal husbandry. We use latent class analysis modeling and cross-section survey data to construct typologies of farmers based on technological uptake and heterogeneous characteristics. Our results suggest that, while three fifths of the farmers are "non-adopters," a third is classified as "current adopters" of animal EID for farm management, and a twelfth as "future adopters" of either or more types of animal health and welfare technologies. Age, agricultural income, perceived difficulty to invest in new technologies, agri-environmental scheme membership, and frequency of access to information on animal EID for farm management and cattle surveillance through British Cattle Movement Service, are significant predictors of typology membership. The findings are policy relevant as they give quantitative evidence on the factors influencing technological uptake and, as such, help identify the most likely adopters and optimize the cost of targeting them. As information access was found to be among the factors influencing multiple technology adoption, policy instruments should include the provision of training as regards the implementation of technologies and their combined impact on farm. Farmers' adoption of interrelated innovations suggests the need to coordinate individual policies aimed at encouraging uptake of different technologies. As shown here, this would concern not only synchronizing animal health and welfare policies, but also their interaction with others such as agri-environmental ones. Moreover, the results show that animal health policies requiring regulatory compliance may lead to voluntary uptake of additional or complementary technologies which relate to not just meeting but exceeding standards of animal welfare and health practices.

Project description: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.

Project description:Accredited zoological facilities are committed to fully understanding the behavioral, mental, and physical needs of each species to continuously improve the welfare of the animals under their professional care and detect when welfare has diminished. In order to accomplish this goal, internally consistent and externally valid indicators of animal welfare are necessary to advance our understanding of the current welfare status of individual animals. Historically, efforts have focused on monitoring visible or observable signs of poor health or problem behavior, but lack of signs or problems does not necessarily demonstrate that an individual animal is thriving. The current study examined fecal hormone metabolite levels and behavior for two species of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus and Tursiops aduncus) from 25 different accredited zoological facilities. At the time of the study, all facilities were accredited by the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums and/or the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. This was part of the multi-institutional study 'Towards understanding of the welfare of cetaceans in zoos and aquariums" commonly referred to as the Cetacean Welfare Study. Behavioral diversity was calculated using the Shannon Diversity Index on species-appropriate behavioral events. Behavioral diversity was compared to the fecal metabolites of cortisol, aldosterone, and the ratio of cortisol to dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) as well as the stereotypic behavior of route tracing. Similar to previous studies on other species, there was a significant inverse relationship between behavioral diversity and both fecal cortisol metabolites and route tracing. Additionally, a significant inverse relationship also exists between behavioral diversity and the ratio of fecal cortisol to DHEA metabolites. Behavioral diversity and fecal aldosterone metabolites were not associated. Additional research is still needed to validate behavioral diversity as an indicator of positive animal welfare for bottlenose dolphins and across species. However, based on current results, facilities could utilize behavioral diversity combined with other measures of welfare to more comprehensively evaluate the welfare of bottlenose dolphins.

Project description:Consumers, industrial stakeholders, and the legislature demand a stronger focus on animal welfare of all livestock at the farm level by using suitable indicators in self-assessments. In order to deduce farms' animal welfare status reliably, factors that influence indicators' results need to be identified. Hence, this study aimed to apply possible animal welfare indicators for unweaned dairy calves on conventional dairy farms with early cow-calf separation and evaluate influencing factors such as age and sex of calves or climatic conditions on the applied indicators' results. An animal welfare assessment using 7 resource-based and 14 animal-based indicators was conducted at 42 typical Western German dairy farms (844 calves) in 2018 and 2019 by two observers. The effect of influencing factors was calculated by binary and ordinal logistic regressions and expressed as odds ratios. Although every unweaned calf was assessed during the farm visits, most farms had relatively few unweaned calves (average number of calves ± standard deviation = 20.1 ± 6.7 calves), with six farms having not more than 10 calves. The small sample sizes question the usage of those indicators to compare between farms and to set thresholds at the farm level. Only one assessed indicator (cleanliness core body) was not statistically affected by the evaluated influencing factors. Calf age was identified as the most decisive factor, as it affected 16 of 21 evaluated indicators, and calf age distribution on-farm varied greatly. Climatic conditions (ambient temperature and rainfall) influenced resource-based indicators such as access to concentrate and water or the cleanliness of feeding implements and bedding as well as animal-based cleanliness indicators and the occurrence of health-related impairments such as coughing and diarrhea. The authors found differences between calves on farms assessed by the different observers not only in resource-based hygiene indicators but also in animal-based indicators such as hyperthermia or hypothermia, highlighting the need for further evaluation of quality criteria in dairy calf welfare assessments. Nevertheless, animal welfare assessments by farmers themselves could be useful tools to sensitize farmers to animal welfare and thereby improve calves' welfare.

Dataset Information

Citizens' and Farmers' Framing of 'Positive Animal Welfare' and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication.

Publications

Citizens' and Farmers' Framing of 'Positive Animal Welfare' and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets