A Study of West Australian Community on Attitude Towards Animal Welfare

By Thinza Vicky Ohn Khin Vindevoghel

Supervisors: Dr Teresa Collins and Dr Helen Davis

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Animal Science, Murdoch University.

2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... 4

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 4

Declaration ....................................................................................................................... 5

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 6

Chapter 1: Literature Review ............................................................................................. 7 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7 2 What is Animal Welfare? ................................................................................................... 7 3 Animal Ethics ..................................................................................................................... 9 4 Animal Sentience ............................................................................................................. 11 5 Animal-Human Relationships ........................................................................................... 12 6 Future of Animal Welfare................................................................................................. 12 7 Animal Welfare Assessment............................................................................................. 14 8 Consumer Behaviour Patterns .......................................................................................... 16 9 Labelling of Food Products and Welfare Monitoring Schemes ........................................... 18 10 Government Subsidies ................................................................................................. 20 11 Conclusion and hypotheses .......................................................................................... 20 12 References ................................................................................................................... 22

Chapter 2: Scientific Paper .............................................................................................. 27 1 Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 27 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 28

2.1 Increasing Societal Concerns over Animal Welfare........................................................... 28 2.2 The Need to Study West Australian’s perspectives on Animal Welfare ........................... 29

3 Materials and Methods .................................................................................................... 29 4 Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................................... 30 5 Results ............................................................................................................................ 31

5.1 Participants’ Demographics .............................................................................................. 31 5.2 Consumer Behaviour Patterns .......................................................................................... 38

5.2.1 H1 - The public will show more concern than professionals or producers towards animal welfare when purchasing food products ............................................................................................................... 39 5.2.2 H2 - The public is more willing to pay extra than professionals and producer for free-range products ................................................................................................................................................... 39 5.2.3 H3 - There is a positive relationship between stated importance of animal welfare when purchasing food product and the extra amount a person is willing to pay for a free-range food product. 40 5.2.4 H4 - There will be a significant difference between the three stakeholder groups on their rating of importance on various criteria when purchasing food products. ........................................................ 41

5.3 Attitude Towards Livestock Welfare ................................................................................. 42 5.3.1 H1 - The public will show more concern for livestock welfare than professionals or producers 42 5.3.2 H2 - There is a difference in the attitudes of the three stakeholder groups when considering the purpose of farming as providing a humane environment for livestock. .................................................. 43

5.3.3 H3 - The public will be more willing to purchase mostly free-range products than professionals or producers in order to help/improve the welfare of livestock. ............................................................. 44 5.3.4 H4 - There will be a difference between the three stakeholder groups in their agreement with the statement that ‘livestock should have the same moral rights as humans’. ....................................... 44

5.4 Knowledge of husbandry codes of practice ...................................................................... 45 5.4.1 H1 - The public will be less knowledgeable than professionals and producers on husbandry practices. .................................................................................................................................................. 45 5.4.2 H2 - There will be a significant difference between the three stakeholder groups in their knowledge about livestock needs and emotions. .................................................................................... 46 5.4.3 H3 - There will be differences between the three stakeholder groups in how they believe various influences impact their opinions on animal welfare ................................................................... 46 5.4.4 H4 - There is a positive relationship between education and time spent on a farm and how a person rates livestock needs and emotions ............................................................................................. 47

6 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 50 6.1 The impact of Demographics on Animal Welfare ............................................................. 50 6.2 Concerns for Animal Welfare and Willingness to Pay (WTP) ............................................ 51 6.3 Should Animals have the Same Moral Rights as Humans ................................................. 52 6.4 Criteria when Purchasing Food Products .......................................................................... 52 6.5 Perceptions on the Purpose of Livestock Farming in Western Australia .......................... 53 6.6 Knowledge of Common Husbandry Practices and Livestock Needs and Emotions .......... 53 6.7 Types of Influences that Impact Thoughts About Animal Welfare ................................... 54 6.8 The Future of Animal Welfare in Western Australia ......................................................... 54

7 References ...................................................................................................................... 57 8 Appendix A – Participant Survey ...................................................................................... 59 9 Dedication ....................................................................................................................... 71

4

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5.1 – Consideration of pet(s) as a family member .............................................................................. 33 Figure 5.2 – The importance of animal welfare friendliness when buying a food product ............. 34 Figure 5.3 – Types of influence when thinking about animal welfare ...................................................... 34 Figure 5.4 – Main purposes for livestock farming in WA ............................................................................... 35 Figure 5.5 - Willingness to do in order to help the welfare of livestock in Western Australia ....... 37 Figure 5.6 – Average % extra WTP on free-range products ......................................................................... 40 Figure 5.7 – Estimated Marginal Means for Criteria Affecting Purchasing Decisions ........................ 42

LIST OF TABLES Table 5.1 – Participant Demographics (Gender, Age, Place of Birth and Education) ......................... 31 Table 5.2 – Participant demographics (occupation, dietary choices pet ownership and time spent on a rural property or farm) ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 5.3 – Ranking of Influences Affecting Thoughts About Animal Welfare ...................................... 35 Table 5.4 – Stakeholder groups ranking of their willingness to do to help livestock welfare in WA ................................................................................................................................................................ ................................ 38 Table 5.5 – Consumer Behaviour Patterns H1 Means ...................................................................................... 39 Table 5.6 – Consumer Behaviour Patterns H1 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD ......................................................... 39 Table 5.7 – Consumer Behaviour Patterns H2 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD ......................................................... 40 Table 5.8 – Consumer Behaviour Patterns H4 ..................................................................................................... 41 Table 5.9 – Attitudes H1 Means ................................................................................................................................. 42 Table 5.10 – Attitudes H1 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD ................................................................................................. 43 Table 5.11 – Attitudes H2 Means............................................................................................................................... 43 Table 5.12 – Attitudes H2 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD ................................................................................................. 43 Table 5.13 – Attitudes H3 Cross-Tabulation......................................................................................................... 44 Table 5.14 – Attitudes H4 Means............................................................................................................................... 44 Table 5.15 – Attitudes H4 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD ................................................................................................. 44 Table 5.16 – Knowledge H1 Means .......................................................................................................................... 45 Table 5.17 – Knowledge H1 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD ............................................................................................. 45 Table 5.18 – Knowledge H2 Means .......................................................................................................................... 46 Table 5.19 – Knowledge H2 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD ............................................................................................. 46 Table 5.20 – Knowledge H3 MANOVA Results .................................................................................................... 47 Table 5.21 – Knowledge H3 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD ............................................................................................. 47 Table 5.22 – Knowledge H4 Two-Way ANOVA .................................................................................................. 48 Table 5.23 – Correlations of Demographics on the five indices .................................................................. 49

5

DECLARATION This thesis has been composed by myself and has not been accepted in any previous

application for a degree. The work, of which this is a record, has been done by myself and all

sources of information have been cited.

_____________________

Thinza Vicky Ohn Khin Vindevoghel

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my appreciation and thank the following people for helping me with

this project. Firstly I would like to thank my main supervisor, Dr Teresa Collins, for all her

valuable advice and knowledge on animal welfare and ethics. Secondly I would like to thank

my co-supervisor, Dr Helen Davis, for her insightful advice on creating a survey

questionnaire and performing statistical analyses. Thirdly, I would like to thank my ANS 450

unit co-ordinator, Dr David Miller, for answering all my queries and giving me important

guidelines. I also would like to thank Ms. Helen Cole, my statistic tutor, who has been there

when I needed her assistance. Lastly, I thank my husband, Cole Vindevoghel, for his support,

patience and all the help that he had given me throughout the project. These few people have

been very supportive of me both academically and emotionally, and without them I would not

have been able to complete this project successfully. To all those who have participated in

answering my survey questionnaire, your valuable input have been much appreciated. Thank

you all very much!

7

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1 INTRODUCTION Mankind has used animals for various purposes from the beginning of time such as

transportation, entertainment, and notably for food. Animals used for food, particularly

livestock, have been important for the survival of humans and they need to be treated with

care. Studies have been conducted in the past to improve the welfare of livestock, but there is

still room for improvement in how they are being handled, transported and raised. Mankind

will always need to depend on livestock for their survival and it is considered reasonable that

livestock have their needs provided and have freedom to behave naturally during their

lifetime.

The purpose of this review is to explore the concept of animal welfare. This includes first a

history of animal welfare, looking at how animal science emerged as an important field of

science, how scientists developed techniques to assess animal behaviour leading to the

conclusion that animals are sentient beings. Secondly, a review of animal ethics and the

impact of animal-human relationships, will describe how the special bonds people develop

with animals can improve welfare. In addition, a discussion of the future of animal welfare

will provide suggestions on the importance of education, research and transparency in relation

to animal-based food production. Finally, the topics of consumer behaviour patterns, labelling

of food products, welfare monitoring schemes and government subsidies will also be

reviewed.

2 WHAT IS ANIMAL WELFARE? Animal welfare considers a ‘whole-of-life’ concept. It includes what happens before death,

how animals are treated during the last part of their lives, the pre-slaughter period, and finally

the method by which they are killed (Broom 2011). The definition of animal welfare is not

straight forward and as Webster (2005) stated, it is in the nature of those who study animal

welfare to create their own definitions. The term ‘animal welfare’ arose as a reflection of the

concern regarding the treatment of animals, and quality of life, to which people attach

different degrees of importance (Duncan and Fraser 1997). Animal welfare is foremost a

social construct reflecting societal values (Tannenbaum 1991, Sandoe and Simonsen 1992,

Rushen 2003). The most accepted definition of animal welfare is that of Fraser and Broom

8

(1990), “which is the state of an animal as it attempts to cope with the environment”. This

definition recognises animals react to environmental stimuli but does not clarify the nature of

this stimuli or what constitutes good or bad welfare (Webster 2005). A more detailed

approach to define welfare is by addressing three questions (Webster 2005). Firstly, is the

animal living in an environment consistent with what it has evolved and has adapted? Second,

is the animal able to achieve normal growth and function, maintain good health and sustain

fitness in adult life? Finally, is the animal experiencing a sense of mental satisfaction and

freedom from mental distress? Webster (2005) further explained that these three questions are

not mutually exclusive but merely an aid to help us understand what animal welfare means.

Mellor, Patterson-Kane and Stafford (2009) discussed the same concept as Webster, but they

simply classified them as biological function, affective state and the natural state of animals.

With regard to biological function, the welfare state can be deemed good when the animals

are healthy, growing and reproducing well. The affective state emphasises the positive and

negative experiences the animal may encounter, where only positive experiences during their

interaction with people or other animals are considered as good welfare. The natural state

refers to how much the animal is able to express its natural behaviour in its current

environment and that the welfare of an animal would be compromised if its condition is far

from its original wild state (Mellor, Patterson-Kane and Stafford 2009). Therefore, animal

welfare is not just about the prevention of negative behaviours, but also includes promoting

positive ways an animal should be living. Promoting positive and preventing negative

behaviour is also a popular concept in society.

In fact, societal concern for animal welfare has risen over recent decades and may result from

various factors. The media has been an effective communication tool regarding animal

welfare issues both nationally and internationally. McEachern et al. (2007) found that media

information on animal welfare issues (such as television programmes and newspaper reports

investigating the abuse of farm animals) influence consumers’ moral concerns towards food

animals and their subsequent responsibility towards food purchases. The 2011 exposé on the

treatment of exported cattle in Indonesia by ABC television’s Four Corners program is an

example of the media’s power to gain intense public interest (Dingle 2011). The live export

industry has existed since the 1970s, but only in recent times has the public been more aware

of animal welfare issues surrounding the trade due to media coverage (LiveCorp 2004). This

very public scrutiny on the trade highlights the general public’s concern about the welfare of

livestock and was a wake-up call for the industry to acknowledge public perceptions and

9

expectations over such issues (Bolton and Morgan 2012). Similarly, in 2009, there was global

concern over the Australian sheep industry when leading British fashion retailers threatened

to boycott Australian wool over the controversial practices of mulesing (Davies 2009). This

indicates that animal welfare has become an important agenda for consumers both nationally

and internationally. Industries increasingly need to pay extra attention because without

consumers, there will be no market.

Animal welfare is reported as the most emotive consumer issue that surrounds the

consumption of meat and meat products (Eastwood 1995). With changing attitudes towards

animal welfare, consumers expect the treatment and care of food animals to be of a high

standard within the livestock industries. This concern for animal welfare may influence

consumers’ product choices and consequently create market demand (Blokhius et al. 2003).

This underpins or highlights why the study of animal welfare is paramount. It is necessary to

understand what consumers attitudes are towards animal welfare and their perceptions on

current husbandry practices. This will inform the livestock industries about what needs to be

improved or changed within the animal production sector. In order to meet community

expectations, research on community attitudes towards animals will give livestock industries a

chance to know what the community expect. Results may show if there is a lack of

understanding about animal production issues in the community. The scientific study of

animal welfare should be separated from the ethical debate on the use of animals, but no

application of science can occur without understanding arguments about ethical positions

(Broom 2011).

3 ANIMAL ETHICS Animal welfare is a driver for ethical behaviour towards animals. Philosophers and the public

are concerned with the ethics of killing animals for food, clothing, and scientific research or

as unwanted pets (Regan 1990, Fraser 2009). Humans have an ethical ‘duty of care’ towards

the animals in our control and this translates into a practical obligation to keep their welfare at

acceptable levels (Mellor, Patterson-Kane and Stafford 2009). Religions such as Hinduism

and Buddhism, which promote the philosophical principles of ‘right thoughts’ and ‘right

actions’, also play a role in animal ethics (Burgat 2004, Webster 2005). An ‘ethical matrix’

can be used to outline three principles of ethics: (1) Beneficence, a utilitarian respect; (2)

Autonomy, respect for the rights of each individual, and; (3) Justice, respect for the principle

of fairness to all. This matrix recognises the ethical responsibility of all involved to have

10

respect for all concerned life forms. In the case of food production, farmers, animals,

consumers and the living environment are all important (Mepham 1996) to consider when

discussing the acceptability of using animals for food. Rapid growth of scientific interest in

animal welfare in recent years has largely been due to the fact that meat consumers

increasingly demand that animals are reared, transported and slaughtered humanely (Appleby

and Hughes 1997). Concern for animal welfare is a major consideration in meat production

and is based upon the belief that animals can feel pain and suffer (Manteca, Neurophysiology

and Assessment of Welfare 1998). From an ethical perspective, this distinction of sentience in

animals is very important because it helps the public to relate to the experiences of animals.

The area of animal ethics has grown in recent years fuelled by public perceptions of harm in

animal use, which are immune to cruelty prosecution (Rollin 2005). Since the 1970s, various

parts of the world have introduced legislation banning activities such as the use of steel-jawed

traps, tuna nets that can snare dolphins, sow stalls and the slaughter of horses for food. In

addition, the penalties for cruelty have increased (Rollin 2005). The pattern of animal ethical

evolution has been the illumination of unknown areas of animal abuse/atrocity and their

rectification (Rollin 2005). The first modern attempt to protect animals by law started in the

nineteenth century. However, only in the 1970s did the notion of ‘animal rights’ develop

where animals may not be accepted for us to use (Sandoe and Christiansen 2008).

In 1964, Ruth Harrison’s book called ‘Animal Machines’, described farms as factories and

resulted in public outcry, forcing the British government to charter the Brambell Commission

(Rollin 2005, Webster 2005). This investigation concluded that agricultural systems that do

not respect an animal’s basic freedoms will not be morally accepted (Rollin 2005). These Five

Freedoms as described by the Brambell Committee (1965) were; (1) Freedom from thirst,

hunger and malnutrition, (2) Freedom from discomfort, (3) Freedom from pain, injury and

disease, (4) Freedom from fear and distress and (5) Freedom to express normal behaviour

(Webster 2005). They were used as evaluation tools when assessing animal welfare and these

‘five freedoms’ were considered to be an absolute minimum in preventing animals from

suffering (Albright 1998). The Five Freedoms provide a guideline for those working with

animals to ensure these animals are treated and cared for accordingly. However, sometimes

guidelines are not enough to ensure compliance and require legal frameworks.

In addition to debates about the ethical use of animal, there has been the emergence of animal

law in many parts of the world, including Australia (Pullicino 2005). Although animal law has

11

been gaining prominence in the United States and United Kingdom over the past 30 years, the

discipline of animal law has only just begun in Australia (Pullicino 2005). These legal

scholars have proposed strategies for advancing animal rights through cases that erode the

notion of animals as property and grant animals some of the same protections as people

(Miller 2011). Joyce Tischler, a lawyer who started the Animal Legal Defence Fund (ALDF)

in California in 1979, has been a driving force in the growth of animal law. The ALDF’s

efforts include litigation, legislation and education. These animal law pioneers attribute the

field’s rapid growth to a combination of societal change and scientific advances in animal

cognition (Miller 2011). Apart from learning about animals’ cognitive intelligence, scientists

now agree that animals are sentient beings, able to experience both pleasure and suffering.

4 ANIMAL SENTIENCE Animal welfare science has made many important theoretical and practical contributions to

our understanding of what animals need. (Mench 1998). One of the most important

contributions is the understanding of sentience in animals. Sentience can be defined as being

conscious, capable of sensation, aware and responsive to stimuli (Webster 2005). A sentient

animal is therefore a feeling animal, where the word feeling implies much more than simply

responding to sensation although biologists agree that all animals are responsive to stimuli

(Webster 2005). When humans are in pain, they are able to use language to communicate this

sensation into a mental concept. However, an animal without a language is unable to

articulate the pain as a concept. Nonetheless, the distress associated with pain may be

significant. Apart from the primitive sensations such as hunger, pain and anxiety, some

species may also experience other emotions or ‘higher feelings’ such as friendship and grief.

Animal sentience involves conscious feelings and implies that these feelings matter (Webster

2005).

An improved understanding of motivation, cognition and the complexity of social behaviour

in animals has led to the rapid development of animal welfare science in the last 30 years

(Broom 2011). In the past, animal behaviour and brain function were thought to be of minor

importance and veterinarians and research biologists did not think of the study of animal

welfare as a science (Broom 2011). Dawkins (1980, 1993) pioneered the application of

economic theory to the study of motivation in animals by seeking to measure how hard

animals will work to achieve (or avoid) a resource or stimulus that makes them feel good (or

bad). Webster (2005) showed that a hen may be compelled to work harder by pushing heavier

12

doors or walking further away to achieve a desired goal or fulfil a need such as, a nest box. A

need is a requirement, which is part of the basic biology of an animal, to obtain a particular

resource or respond to a particular environmental or bodily stimulus (Broom and Johnson

1993). Motivational systems have evolved and enabled individuals, be it man or animals to

ascribe priorities to certain actions, as well as to determine the timing of actions (Broom

1981). This facilitates adaptation of animals to changes to their environments. Through their

abilities to adapt, such as being domesticated or living indoors, special relationships have

been developed between animal and human.

5 ANIMAL-HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS It is recognized that pets are becoming increasingly important to individuals and are

considered part of the family circle (Franklin 2007). People’s bonds with their pets tend to

foster protective attitudes toward other animals (Miller 2011). Therefore, it can be said that

the changing roles of companion animals in the past decade had made people become

sensitive toward animal welfare as they start to link the bond they have with their pets

towards livestock wellbeing. Webster (2005) identifies the importance of ownership: the duty

of care for both pet owners and livestock producers alike. No one can ensure the welfare of

all their animals all the time. Disease, accident and injury can occur in the best of homes.

However, producers and pet owners alike are responsible to make provisions for welfare

through proper attention to husbandry and preventive medicine, competent and regular

evaluation of the welfare state of the animals in their care and prompt action to resolve

problems as they occur, with professional advice and assistance as appropriate (Webster

2005).

In parallel with these societal changes, research using nonhuman animals has demonstrated

behaviours and traits such as cooperation, altruism, empathy, and a sense of fairness, once

thought to be the exclusive domain of humans, now exist in nonhuman animals (Miller 2011).

The combination of animals’ intelligence and sentience had made people become more aware

of how important animal welfare is. This leads to the next topic of assessing animal welfare in

order to differentiate good and bad welfare.

6 FUTURE OF ANIMAL WELFARE Progress in improving farm animal welfare can be made on a farm and by farmers, but can

only be sustained if supported by the rest of the food chain and ultimately consumers

13

themselves (Bonney 2006). A transparent, enforceable, and traceable monitoring system for

animal welfare friendly products is likely to be important for consumers (Frewer et al. 2005).

Napolitano, Girolami and Braghieri (2010) agreed that the combination of reliable animal

welfare monitoring and effective labelling of animal-based products may help meet the

increasing demand for animal welfare-friendly products, while sustaining the welfare of the

animals.

Knowledge of animal welfare and husbandry practices can be extended through public

education so that consumers are aware of animal-based food productions and shield against

wrong beliefs (Webster 2005). Several studies have found that consumers welcome a public

information campaign supported by detailed posters/brochures in supermarkets and clear

labelling to inform and assist them in their purchasing decisions (Harper and Henson 2001,

Hobbs and Kerr 2006, Meehan, Cowan and McIntrye 2002). In the current European situation

of an economic crisis where price effect on purchasing decisions is growing stronger, the

contradiction between consumers’ stated intentions and their purchasing decisions have

become even more apparent. Therefore, it has become even more important to carry out

welfare information and educational campaigns (European Commission 2009b).

Recent consumer information and educational activities in Europe have been needed to raise

awareness on the farming of animals and origin of livestock products (European Commission

2009a). Algers, Lindstrom and Pajor (2011) suggested that higher education institutions

should be encouraged to develop open educational resources in animal welfare for the benefit

of society and not just for the more obvious target group, such as veterinarians, agricultural

extension workers, and others involved in animal production. Animal welfare education

programmes are necessary in both raising awareness and teaching people ways to contribute

to improve welfare (Lips 2010). This durable positive change in behaviour towards animals

can be achieved if people are taught about animal welfare issues since childhood (Scheib,

Roeper and Hametter 2010).

In addition, the livestock industry should be sensitive to societal demands and should

coordinate new research designs to evaluate production systems and identify practical ways of

improving animal welfare. This should act as a key interface in the transition through

innovation of the food animal sector towards societal acceptance of industries’ ‘licence to

produce’ (Blokhius et al. 2003). Therefore, practical welfare improvement strategies and

reliable on-farm monitoring systems for assessing the animals’ welfare status and evaluating

14

potential risks are urgently required to accommodate societal concerns and market demand

(Blokhius et al. 2003). It is also paramount to define the kind of information that consumers

want to know about the final products through survey and to develop effective strategies for

communicating welfare standards to the public (Blokhius et al. 2003).

A famous British historian once said “Everything secret degenerates, nothing is safe that does

not show how it can bear discussion and publicity”, which applies to food production and

maintaining transparency throughout the entire production line is important (Singer 2006). All

over the world, transparency is increasingly recognised as an important ethical principle and a

safeguard against bad practices. Thus, as consumers we should insist on knowing how our

food is produced (Singer 2006). The above statements are indeed true and, in my opinion, are

valuable quotes to bear in mind. Education is the key factor in assisting communities to make

informed decisions about animal welfare and their purchases on animal based products.

Without adequate knowledge, having transparency in food production will not benefit the

animals or us.

7 ANIMAL WELFARE ASSESSMENT The central issue in animal welfare research is how to assess the welfare state of animals

objectively and scientifically. Without ways to differentiate good welfare from bad welfare, it

becomes increasingly difficult to enforce animal law and regulation. Scientists have

developed many tests that have, under sensitive conditions, aided in understanding animal’s

subjective state (Mellor et al. 2009). This can be approached by looking at two questions;

firstly, is the animal physically healthy; and secondly, does the animal have what it wants?

(Dawkins 2003). Conditions that compromise animal health and/or put them at high risk of

dying are considered bad for welfare (Dawkins 2003). The second question asking if the

animals have what it wants is intended to cover situations in which they are potentially

frustrated or bored though not having certain resources, or situations where they are fearful

and want to escape (Dawkins 2003). Assessments of rates of disease, injury, mortality and

reproductive success ensure good biological functions (Fraser 2009). Methods of assessing

indicators of pain, fear, distress, and frustration would measure affective states. An

assessment of natural living requires research on natural behaviour and the strength of

animals’ motivation to perform different elements of their behaviour (Fraser 2009). There are

parameters that measure both physiological and behavioural function of an animal (Broom

1988).

15

There are a number of scientific measures that can be used to assess welfare such as

parameters of physiology, immune function and behaviour. An additional tool is

neurophysiology, which can assist in providing insight into the similarities between human

and non-human brains and the affective state or kind of emotions and perceptions that animals

are likely to have (Wiepkema and Koolhass 1992). If an animal has the same neural

equipment for detecting damage and processing the information in its central nervous system

as a human, and if it behaves similarly in situations that humans would find painful, the

intuitive rule is that the animal should be treated humanely (Bateson 1991). Physiological

measures such as plasma levels of glucocorticoids, catecholamine, prolactin and endorphins

as well as heart rate are among the most frequently used parameters to study short-term

welfare problems (Broom and Johnson 1993). In addition, levels of neurotransmitters in the

brain, although less frequently used are of interest (Broom and Johnson 1993). Broom (2011)

explained that short-term measures like heart rate and plasma cortisol concentration are

appropriate for assessing welfare during handling or transport, but not during long-term

housing. In contrast, measurements of behaviour, immune system function and disease state

are most appropriate for long-term problems (Broom 2011).

When measurements are aimed at discovering whether or not welfare is poor and how poor it

is, it is better to make several different kinds of measurement, as each individual animal has

several alternative methods of trying to cope with adversity and individuals differ in the

methods, which they favour (Broom 1988). Assessment of suffering will depend on good

observational data about the natural behaviour of the species in question, its normal

requirements, its vulnerability to damage and the ecological conditions in which it lives

(Bateson 2004). Mellor and Stafford (2004) found out that once welfare improves the

mortality of livestock decreases.

Therefore, with good welfare the animals will have a better quality of life (Broom 2011).

However, with any improvement in the management system such as better animal housing

facilities, on-farm monitoring schemes and labelling of animal welfare friendly food products,

there will be a price for consumers. The question is whether consumers will actually pay for

the costs of better animal welfare.

16

8 CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR PATTERNS Over the years, cultural, attitudinal and commercial barriers such as advertisements and lack

of labelling have hampered constructive communication between farmers and their

consumers. This has resulted in a mismatch between public perception on how animals are

farmed and the realities of modern farming practices (Blokhius et al. 2003).

Animal welfare is of increasing significance for European consumers and citizens (Blokhius

et al. 2003). Toma et al. (2012) found that there is a growth in the demand for animal welfare-

friendly food products in Europe, which indicate a high level of consumer concern for animal

welfare. Previously, agricultural production focused mainly on supply, price and competition.

Conversely, some consumers now expect their food to be produced and processed with

greater respect for the welfare of animals (Blokhius et al. 2003). Webster (2005) stated that

there has been an increasing expression of public desire, if not demand, for quality assurance

in relation to standards for food production. Blokhius et al. (2003) found that food quality is

determined by the welfare status of the animals from which it was sourced as well as the

nature and safety of the end product. Concerns for animal welfare may influence the products

consumers choose to purchase and consequently, their market demands (Phillips et al. 2009).

Consumers in some markets are becoming increasingly willing to make purchases based

partly on the animals’ perceived welfare, regardless of whether the information is accurate.

This is potentially a significant problem, as it does not build trust in the agricultural industry.

Consumers may choose products that they consider to be of the highest quality in terms of the

welfare of the animal from which they were derived (Blokhius et al. 2003). A good example

of this is free-range eggs, where the label ‘free-range’ can be generally used, but it is not

standardised or verifiable. Therefore, transparency in food labelling is important, as producers

are concerned that some may claim animals are raised as free-range when in fact they are not.

Perceived responsibility for ensuring satisfactory treatment of animals in food production is a

main determinant of consumer behaviour (Blandford et al. 2002). Consumers will purchase

products associated with good animal welfare if they feel personally responsible for ensuring

that animals are well treated in the production process. In other words, consumers want to feel

that their purchasing behaviour will make a difference for the welfare of these animals (Toma

et al. 2012).

However, one must be aware that consumer claims may not always match their purchasing

patterns because of economic considerations (Blokhius et al. 2003). Education has a

17

significant positive impact on behavioural willingness, as it shows that more educated people

are more willing to enhance their animal welfare friendly purchasing behaviour (Toma et al.

2012). This correlation was supported by findings of Toma et al. (2011) that education was a

significant determinant in purchasing free-range chicken meat. Another determinant is

occupation, which can be considered a proxy for income, as it has a significant impact on

behavioural willingness. Toma et al. (2012) demonstrated that people with a higher income

tend to purchase more welfare friendly products.

In contrast, some studies found that consumer preferences for animal welfare do not vary

significantly with demographic variables (Carlsson, Flykblom and Lagerkvist 2007, Tonsor,

Wolf and Olynks 2009). For example, it is possible that those in lower income categories or

without tertiary education may choose to purchase welfare friendly products, while those with

higher income and a tertiary education may choose not to purchase welfare friendly products.

Toma et al. (2012) found that the relationship between perception of labelling and

behavioural willingness is positive. Namely, the stronger the perceived ease to find

information on welfare friendly products and perceived usefulness of welfare labelling, the

stronger the willingness to change the usual place of shopping in order to be able to buy more

animal welfare friendly food products.

However, the literature soundly fails to address the link between macro-economic conditions

and purchasing patterns. In tough economic periods, it can be assumed that price will play a

much larger role in purchasing decisions than any other factors including income.

Taylor and Signal (2009) found that 10% of Australians in their study were willing to pay

50% or more on welfare friendly food products and majority were willing to pay at least 5%

to 20% more. Bennett (1997) studied on people’s willingness to pay for cage-free eggs, found

that majority of respondents in United Kingdom were willing to pay an extra 20% to 60%

increase of the original price of a dozen eggs. Therefore, there is a need for transparency in

the product quality chain in relation to animal welfare to make consumers aware of what they

are paying for. This is based on the visibility of production process to all stakeholders (e.g.,

public, producers, industries, government) and an understanding or quantification of how

these processes affect animal welfare (Blokhius et al. 2003). The key is to connect animal

husbandry practices to informed animal product consumption (Blokhius et al. 2003).

The building of trust between consumers and producers is crucial and thus food labelling is

necessary. Consumers’ trust in animal welfare friendly products (based on their being

18

informed that certification ensures compliance with farm animal welfare standards)

influenced their willingness to pay for certified animal friendly products (Nocella, Hubbard

and Scarpa 2010). Meehan, Cowan and McIntrye (2002) learned that consumers trust the

animal welfare information received from friends, agencies involved in consumer awareness,

and local butchers’ rather than the government, food industry, farmers and supermarkets. The

lack of information on animal welfare standards together with the lack of availability of

animal welfare-friendly products in supermarkets, and the higher prices of these products are

the most important reasons why most consumer purchasing patterns fail to switch to welfare

friendly products (European Commission 2009b). Harper and Henson (2001) stated that lack

of information is a determinant in the gap between attitude and behaviour. For example,

consumers with strong beliefs in good welfare may not necessarily purchase welfare friendly

products if the right information is not available for them. Due to the credence nature of

animal welfare, trust in the information provided about the ways in which animal-based foods

are produced is a key factor influencing consumer behaviour (Toma et al. 2012).

In these circumstances, it is important that consumers are able to trust regulatory systems and

farm monitoring practices, as well as food labelling that guarantee optimal animal welfare in

farming practices (Frewer et al. 2005).

9 LABELLING OF FOOD PRODUCTS AND WELFARE MONITORING SCHEMES

Legislation has been the main policy approach for protecting the welfare of farm animals

(Bennett 1997). Meat and Livestock Australia (2010) realised that consumers and

communities both in Australia and overseas are becoming increasingly interested in the ethics

of food production, most notably animal welfare and environmental sustainability. One

solution for providing clear communication between producers and consumers is the use of

labelling as suggested by Roe and Sheldon (2007). Mandatory labelling makes more sense in

countries where a large portion of the population care about the attribute in question, while

voluntary labelling is likely to make sense in countries where fewer consumers are concerned

with the attributes in question (Caswell 2000). In the context of animal welfare, mandatory

labelling has the potential to (1) reduce consumer uncertainty regarding production methods

used in rearing farm animals, (2) reduce search costs of consumers valuing higher levels of

farm animals care, and (3) convey more complete information to livestock producers

19

regarding consumer demand for alternative provisions of farm animal care (Tonsor and Wolf

2011).

Consumers trust in labelling is emerging as an important issue, since they need to trust that

food chain suppliers are being honest when promoting animal welfare friendly products. Most

consumers are reluctant to consider the details of animal husbandry systems and issues with

which they feel uncomfortable (Frewer et al. 2005). Even if consumers do not appear to be

highly involved in exactly how animal husbandry is practiced, there seems to be demand for a

labelling system that indicates whether meat and animal products have been produced using

animal friendly methods (Frewer et al. 2005). Most of all, an effective labelling strategy is

dependent on consumer trust in the label itself, and those institutions promoting the label

(Frewer et al. 2005).

Another approach to improving animal welfare and to gain the trust of consumers in the

industries is through legislated animal welfare monitoring schemes. There are a number of

animal welfare monitoring schemes on farms in Australia and other countries, but majority of

them are voluntary rather than legislated (Barnett and Hemsworth 2009). Some of these

welfare schemes were enforced through a number of customer requirements that industries

must meet to gain access to markets (Barnett and Hemsworth 2009). However, only fewer

animal-based measures with specific animal welfare outcomes were used in these animal

welfare-monitoring schemes. Majority were based on measures of resources or management

inputs (Barnett and Hemsworth 2009). On that note, Barnett and Hemsworth (2009) explained

that for a monitoring scheme to be widely accepted and implemented, in practice it has to be

developed and reported so that the general community, customers and government authorities

are confident that acceptable animal welfare standards are met. Therefore, going forward with

the development of welfare monitoring schemes is a government initiative. In Australia, in

addition to legislation, there are a series of Model Codes of Practice developed by the Primary

Industries Standing Committee (PISC) and these resources need to be utilised by

implementing a legislated on-farm animal welfare monitoring schemes. Without the

involvement of government authorities, the future of welfare monitoring schemes looks dim.

This leads on to the next topic of government subsidies. This initiative will encourage

producers to improve on-farm animal welfare by attending trainings to upgrade their

skills/knowledge on animal welfare or improving their facilities. Therefore, producers will not

be penalised for any negligence toward animal welfare once the welfare monitoring schemes

is legislated.

20

10 GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES Bennett (1997) believes that the combination of legislation on animal welfare and producers

subsidies may provide an appropriate policy that improves animal welfare without directly

constraining food consumption choices. When considering the merits of a policy, one of the

criteria of welfare economics is whether those who receive profits can compensate losers.

Therefore, consumers and producers can be broken into two categories; those who will gain

from animal welfare labelling legislation and those who will lose from the implementation of

such legislation. For example, when reviewing non-cage eggs, the losers include those who do

not want new legislation but have to pay extra for eggs if the legislation is implemented

(Bennett 1997). Producers might suffer in the short term if the legislation requires large

capital investment for new equipment (Bennett 1997). Legislation can help to provide a

baseline and government subsidy payments would provide incentives to further improve the

welfare of farm animals as well as reduce the burden on producers. The subsidy payments

would also need to be tiered to reflect the level of welfare achieved by producers (Bennett

1997). This is to ensure that there are positive incentives for producers to achieve a higher

level of welfare.

Mishan (1993) argued that, “in view of the financial temptations, the strictest government

controls such as welfare monitoring schemes will always be necessary if a significant

deterrent to cruel and inhumane treatment of farm and domesticated animals is to prevail”.

Mishan’s argument is that compulsory labelling and improved consumer information will

likely fail to guarantee the welfare of farm animals, unless other programs and incentives are

available. This means that government intervention is necessary to maintain highest level of

animal welfare throughout the production process.

11 CONCLUSION AND HYPOTHESES The literature provides four important points to help improve the welfare of livestock. Firstly,

promoting public awareness on animal welfare though education can have a significant

impact on the public’s perception of animal welfare and husbandry practices. Secondly, the

introduction of an on-farm welfare monitoring schemes is required to ensure producers

maintain the model codes of practice in their husbandry practices. This farm assurance

schemes can also assist in evaluating new production systems to ensure excellent welfare

standards. Thirdly, continuing research of the community is vital in order to know what

consumers’ attitudes and expectations are toward animal welfare. Lastly, research is also

21

required to know how economic factors can affect purchasing patterns, which will help direct

the setting up of schemes effectively that will work in both economic booms and recessions.

Industry aims to meet community expectations and understand what the community want in

terms of animal welfare.

This takes us to the general hypotheses that will be tested which are as follows: (1) The

consumer behaviour patterns of producers and professionals will show less concerns towards

animal welfare than those of public; (2) Public will show more concern over livestock welfare

than professionals and producers and; (3) Public will be less knowledgeable on livestock

husbandry practices than professionals and producers.

Therefore, setting up a survey to test the above hypotheses will be an ideal way to understand

people’s attitudes towards animal welfare and also the communities’ perception on various

husbandry practices. This research can be incorporated with studies of consumers’ attitude

towards animal welfare to gain a clear overall picture of consumer behaviour patterns. This

survey will also tell us what the community is willing to do in order to improve animal

welfare and their consumer behaviour/purchasing patterns. For example, purchasing free-

range ham or free-range eggs may lead to higher demand for such products. Another

component of the survey will test the community’s knowledge on husbandry practices which

will indicate the community’s awareness of common husbandry practices. Hence, it is

imperative to study the attitudes of consumers on animal welfare, their consumer behaviour

patterns as well as their knowledge of husbandry practices as this may help bring

improvement to various husbandry procedures and better levels of animal care.

Results may assist industries and government in making any changes in regards to animal

welfare regulations and legislations. It would be a benefit to consumers, producers and the

animals involved if such combined research were to proceed in Western Australia.

22

12 REFERENCES Albright J L. History and future of animal welfare science. Journal of Applied Animal and

Welfare Science, 1998: 145-166.

Algers A, Lindstrom B, and Pajor E A. A new format for learning about farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2011: 367-379.

Appleby M C and Hughes B O. Animal Welfare. Wallingford: CAB International, 1997.

Barnett J L and Hemsworth P H. Welfare monitoring schemes: Using research to safeguard welfare of animals on the farm. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2009: 114-131.

Bateson P. Assessment of pain in animals. Animal Behaviour, 1991: 827-839.

Bateson P. Do animals suffer like us? - The assessment of animal welfare. The Veterinary Journal, 2004: 110-111.

Bennett R M. Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy, 1997: 281-288.

Blandford D J, Bureau C, Fulponi L, and Henson S. Potential implications of animal welfare concerns and public policies in industrialized countries for international trade. In Global food trade and consumer demand for quality, by Krissoff B, Bohman M and Caswell J A, 77-100. New York: Kluwer, 2002.

Blokhius H J, Jones R B, Geers R, Miele M, and Veissier I. Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: Transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare, 2003: 445-455.

Boltan K, and Morgan M. ABC News - Cattle industry admits to export ban 'wake-up’. ABC News. June 08, 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-08/cattle-export-ban-anniversary-roundup/4060308 (accessed June 12, 2012).

Bonney R J. Farm animal welfare at work. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2006: 140-147.

Brambell F W R. Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Command Report No. 2836, London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1965.

Broom D M. A History of Animal Welfare Science. Acta Biotheoretica, 2011: 121-137.

Broom D M. Biology of behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Broom D M. The Scientific Assessment of Animal Welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 1988: 5-19.

Broom D M and Johnson K J. Stress and Animal Welfare. London: Chapman and Hall, 1993.

23

Burgat F. Non-violence towards animals in the thinking of Gandhi: The problem of animal husbandry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2004: 223-248.

Carlsson F, Flykblom P, and Lagerkvist C J. Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 2007: 321-344.

Caswell J A. Analyzing quality and quality assurance (including labeling) for GMOs. AgBioForum, 2000: 22-24.

Davies C. Fashion chains threaten Australian wool boycott. The Guardian. August 09, 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/09/fashion-chains-wool-australia-mulesing (accessed April 23, 2012).

Dawkins M S. Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. London: Chapman and Hall, 1980.

Dawkins M S. Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of animal welfare. Zoology, 2003: 383-387.

Dawkins M S. Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness. Oxford: Freeman, 1993.

Dingle S. Footage of Indonesian abattoirs prompts move to end live exports. ABC News. May 30, 2011. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3231023.htm (accessed June 12, 2012).

Duncan I and Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare. In Animal Welfare, by Duncan I and Fraser D, 19 -31. Wallingford: CABI, 1997.

Eastwood P J. Farm animal welfare, Europe and the meat manufacturer. British Food Journal, 1995: 4-11.

European Commission. Feasibility study on animal welfare labeling and establishing a Community Reference Centre for Animal Protection and Welfare. Part 1. Animal Welfare Labeling. Final Report Framework Contract for evaluation and evaluation related services. Lot 3. Food Chain, Brussels: European Commission. Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection, 2009a.

European Commission. Impact assessment report accompanying the Options for animal welfare labelling and the establishment of a European Network of Reference Centers for the protection and welfare of animals. European Commission staff working document, Brussels: European Commission, 2009b.

Fisher M W. Defining animal welfare - does consistency matter? New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 2009: 71 - 73.

24

Franklin A. Human-nonhuman animal relationships in Australia: An overview of results from the first national survey and follow-up case studies 2000-2004. Society and Animals, 2007: 7-27.

Fraser D. Assessing Animal Welfare: Different Philosophies, Different Scientific Approaches. Zoo Biology, 2009: 507-518.

Fraser D. Understanding animal welfare: the science in its cultural context. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.

Fraser D and Broom D. Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford: CABI, 1990.

Frewer L J, Kole A, Van De Kroon S M A and De Lauwere C. Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2005: 345-367.

Harper G and Henson S. Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice. Final Report EU Fair CT98-3678, UK: Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading, 2001.

Hobbs J E and Kerr W A. Consumer information, labeling and international trade in agri-food products. Food Policy, 2006: 78-89.

Lips D. Animal welfare education programs. Proceedings of international conference 'Animal welfare education. Everyone is responsible'. Brussels: European Commission, 2010.

LiveCorp. Trade History. 2004. http://www.livecorp.com.au/About/Trade_History.aspx (accessed May 28, 2012).

Manteca X. Neurophysiology and Assessment of Welfare. Meat Science, 1998: 5-18.

McEachern M G, Schroder M J A, Willock J, Whitelock J, and Mason R. Exploring ethical brand extensions and consumer buying behaviour. The RSPCA and the "Freedom Food" brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 2007: 168-177.

Meat and Livestock Australia. Strategic plan 2010-2015. Strategic plan 2010-2015 World-class services and solutions in partnership with industry and government, North Sydney: Meat & Livestock Australia Limited, 2010.

Meehan H, Cowan C, and McIntrye B. Food choice & consumer. Concerns about animal welfare in Ireland. Final report EC-FAIR 'Consumer Concern about Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice', Dublin: TEAGASC, 2002.

Mellor D and Stafford K J. Animal welfare implications of neonatal mortality and morbidity in farm animals. The Veterinary Journal, 2004: 118-133.

Mellor D J, Patterson-Kane E, and Stafford K J. The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Hertfordshire: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

25

Mench J A. Beyond suffering: The Impassible Dream. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1998: 163-166.

Mepham B. Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies: an evaluative framework. Food Ethics, 1996: 101-119.

Miller G. The Rise of Animal Law. SCIENCE, 2011: 28-31.

Mishan E J. Economists versus the Greens: an exposition and a critique. The Political Quarterly, 1993: 222-242.

Napolitano F, Girolami A and Braghieri A. Consumer liking and willingness to pay high welfare animal-based products. Trends in Food Science, 2010: 1-7.

Nocella Hubbard L and Scarpa R. Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust. Results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 2010: 275-297.

Phillips C J, Wojciechowska C J, Meng J and Cross N. Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production. The Animal Consortium, 2009: 1152-1166.

Pullicino P. Animal Law as an Emerging Legal Discipline in Australia. Ethos, 2005: 15-16.

Regan T. Political theory and animal rights. Edited by P, A, B Clarke and A Linzey. London: Pluto Press, 1990.

Roe B and Sheldon I. Credence good labeling: the efficiency and distribution implications of several policy approaches. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2007: 1020-1033.

Rollin B E. Reasonable partiality and animal ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2005: 105-121.

Rushen J. Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2003: 199-214.

Russell W M S and Burch R L. The principles of humane animal experimentation technique. London: Methuen, 1959.

Sandoe P and Simonsen H B. Assessing animal welfare: where does science end and philosophy begin? Animal Welfare, 1992: 257-67.

Sandoe P and Christiansen S B. Ethics of animal use. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.

Scheib M H, Roeper L and Hametter M. Animal welfare education for children. Proceedings of international conference 'Animal welfare education. Everyone is responsible'. Brussels: European Commission, 2010.

Singer P. Look your dinner in the eye. New Scientist, 2006: 22.

26

Tannenbaum J. Ethics and animal welfare: the inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 1991: 1360-76.

Taylor N and Signal T D. Willingness to Pay: Australian Consumers and “On the Farm" Welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2009: 345-359.

Toma L, McVittie A, Hubbard C and Stott A. A structural equation model of the factors influencing British consumers' behaviour towards animal welfare. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 2011: 261-278.

Toma L, Stott W A, Revoredo-Giha C and Kupiec-Teahan B. Consumers and animal welfare. A comparison between European Union countries. Appetite, 2012: 597-607.

Tonsor G T and Wolf C A. On mandatory labelling of animal welfare attributes. Food Policy, 2011: 430-437.

Tonsor G T, Wolf C and Olynk N. Consumer voting and demand behaviour regarding swine gestation crates. Food Policy, 2009: 492-498.

Webster J. Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

Wiepkema P R and Koolhass J M. The emotional brain. Animal Welfare, 1992: 13-18.

27

CHAPTER 2: SCIENTIFIC PAPER

1 ABSTRACT With increasing societal concern over animal welfare and how livestock are treated, it is

important for the livestock industry to better meet the community expectations with respect to

animals. Human behaviour is driven by attitudes and beliefs so there is a need to understand

attitudes in order to change behaviour. Such expectations can be the result of social of cultural

influences, prior experience and/or farming knowledge. This study involving the Western

Australian (WA) community was conducted via an anonymous online survey (Scored) and

recruited 296 participants. Three stakeholder groups were identified; professionals in animal

and veterinary sciences (n=55), livestock producers (n=30) and the general public (n=211).

Three general hypotheses centred around consumer behaviour patterns; attitudes towards

animal welfare and knowledge of husbandry practices were tested using Statistical Package

for the Social Science (SPSS) analytics software version 18. The first hypothesis is that

consumer behaviour patterns of professionals and producers will show less concern for

livestock welfare than those of public. Secondly, the attitudes of public will show more

general concern over livestock welfare than professionals and producers. Lastly, the public

will be less knowledgeable on husbandry practices than professionals and producers. Results

suggested that there are significant numbers of participants who are concern about animal

welfare and that there is a degree of willingness to pay (WTP) extra for ‘animal welfare

friendly’ food products in the WA community. However, the percentage extra that each

stakeholder group will pay differs (p = 0.01). The public stated they were willing to pay 46%

extra, professionals 42% extra and producers 30% extra. Results also showed a significant

difference (p = 0.000) in the area of husbandry knowledge between the public and both

professionals and producers. Identifying the concerns and perceptions regarding animal

production systems is the key to determine market influences. The results of this study can

assist industries and government to determine the readiness for farm assurance schemes and

labelling of animal products certified from farms with high animal welfare standards. In

addition, results indicate the need for targeted education programs to help breach the gaps in

knowledge between stakeholder groups.

28

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 INCREASING SOCIETAL CONCERNS OVER ANIMAL WELFARE Consumers are expressing an increased interest in knowing how their food is produced,

demanding increased transparency and requesting more information on production practices

employed (Tonsor, Wolf and Olynk 2009). An issue of increasing importance to consumers is

whether animals are handled in an ‘animal welfare friendly’ or humane manner (Tonsor and

Olynk 2011). Concern for animal welfare is a major consideration in food animal production

and is based upon the belief that animals can suffer. This concern has led to rapid growth of

scientific interest in animal welfare in recent years (Manteca 1998). It is now well accepted

that animals are sentient and have the ability to feel pain and express emotions. Meat

consumers are increasingly demanding that animals are reared, transported and slaughtered in

a humane way (Appleby and Hughes 1997). However, there have also been polarized views in

the community on animal welfare mainly due to media coverage, social networking and

between those who live in urban and rural areas. The majority of consumers receive

substantial information about food products and technology through the popular press and

television (Hoban and Kendall 1993, Kalaitzandonakas, Marks and Vickner 2004). Animal

welfare can have credence attributes, with consumers forming quality perceptions influenced

by extrinsic cues. The lack of direct information enhances the impact of the media on

consumer demand, as the media provides a viable source of relevant extrinsic cues (Nocella,

Hubbard and Scarpa 2010). There is potentially a gap in knowledge amongst some consumers

about common husbandry practices and how meat is produced which can dampen the trust of

consumers towards retailers and producers. The industry needs to understand consumers’

preferences and how animal handling practices are perceived by consumers as this has

important corresponding implications for the meat industry (Tonsor and Olynk 2011). One of

the aims for industry is to establish a high level of trust among urban Australians that the meat

and livestock industry are doing the right thing by its animals, the environment and

consumers (Meat and Livestock Australia 2010). Thus, research needs to underpin the

development of and education and marketing programs that can assist in developing

transparency in the animal production industry.

29

2.2 THE NEED TO STUDY WEST AUSTRALIAN’S PERSPECTIVES ON ANIMAL WELFARE

Animal welfare is an emotional subject that provokes a wide range of reactions in the

community surrounding the consumption of meat products (Pratt and Wynne 1995). This

study looks at the WA community attitudes towards animal welfare, their consumer behaviour

patterns as well as their knowledge and understanding of common husbandry practices. The

purpose of this research is to find out the community’s perspectives on animal welfare and

based on the results, how animal welfare can be improved. With increasing public concern

over animal welfare both nationally and internationally, it is vital for an animal welfare

research to be conducted in order to improve the animals’ quality of life.

Little research exists examining the community’s attitudes toward animal welfare in Western

Australia. The aim of this research is to identify any differences in consumer behaviour

patterns, attitudes towards animal welfare and general knowledge of husbandry practices

amongst three stakeholder groups: 1) general public, 2) professionals in animal and veterinary

sciences and 3) livestock producers. The three general hypotheses are as follows:

I. Consumer behaviour patterns of professionals and producers will show less concern

for livestock welfare then those of public

II. The public will show more concern over livestock welfare than professionals and

producers

III. The public will be less knowledgeable on husbandry practices than professionals and

producers

In addition, there will be several more specific hypotheses tested and discussed in this paper.

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS This research was approved by Murdoch University Human Ethics Committee. Data was

collected via an anonymous online questionnaire using the Social and Community Online

Research Database (SCORED) of the WA community. Participants were recruited via emails

and poster advertisements and were 18 years or older. They were divided into three

stakeholder groups: general public, professionals in the animal, agricultural and veterinary

sciences and livestock producers. The questionnaires (refer to Appendix A) consist of 77

closed ended questions, which included 37 Likert scales ratings and 40 multiple-choice

30

questions. There were divided into four sections: demographics, food consumption patterns,

attitude towards livestock welfare and knowledge of husbandry practices. Professionals and

producers answered a total of 77 questions and the general public answered 65 questions. The

additional 12 questions for the professionals and producers were in the knowledge section of

the questionnaire and addressed specific husbandry codes of practice questions for pig,

poultry, sheep and cattle.

4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Using SPSS analytic software version 18 and SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to

data analysis using SPSS (2011), a correlation matrix was conducted to check for any

correlations between demographics parameters and the five indices at a p < 0.05 level. One-

way between–group Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were then conducted to explore the

significant differences between the three stakeholder groups. Post-hoc tests were also used to

find out where these differences lie. Effect size (eta2) was also measured to check how much

association between independent and dependent variables (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).

Multiple regression analysis was also carried out to investigate the extent to which the 8

influences impacted on the opinions on animal welfare of the stakeholder groups.

Assumptions for parametric techniques were checked for any violations and to ensure

confidence in p-value. Independence of observations, homogeneity of variance and normal

distribution of data were met. Various hypotheses were generated based on the three main

sections of the survey: 1) Consumer behaviour patterns, 2) Attitudes towards livestock

welfare, and 3) Knowledge of husbandry practices (see Results).

There were five indices created by combing various questions from the same section for

coherent analysis. Prior to combining these questions, Cronbach reliability scale test was

performed to ensure the related questions were suitable to be grouped together and obtained

Cronbach alpha coefficient of > 0.7. The first index is the Animal Welfare Concerns when

Purchasing Index which combined Q15, Q18 (a, b, c, d, e), Q23-25 (Cronbach α = 0.84). The

second index, Concern for Livestock Index consisted Q27-32 (Cronbach α = 0.82). The third

index made up of Q33-37 is the Understanding of Livestock Needs and Emotions Index

(Cronbach α = 0.98). The fourth index is the Stockmanship Attitude Index which was made up

of Q38-44 (Cronbach α = 0.81). The final index is the Knowledge of Husbandry Practices

Index consist of Q51-57 (Cronbach α = 0.75).

31

5 RESULTS

5.1 PARTICIPANTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS There were 296 participants for this study and their demographics summarized in Table 5.1

and Table 5.2. The majority of participants were from the general public (71%), followed by

professionals (19%), and producers (10%). Thus this is not an equal representation of

stakeholder groups as professionals and producers account for less than 30% of the

participants.

Participants’ gender, age, birthplace and educational background are described in Table 5.1

and major findings include:

I. Females represented 70% of the population.

II. Age of participants was spread evenly, with the majority of participants between the

ages of 31 and 50.

III. Less than 30% of participants were born outside of Australia and New Zealand.

IV. More than half of the participants (63%) are well educated as have obtained at least a

Bachelor degree.

Table 5.1 – Participant Demographics (Gender, Age, Place of Birth and Education)

Public Professionals Producers Total

Gender

Male 56 16 17 89

Female 155 39 13 207

Total 211 55 30 296

Age

18 – 30 58 21 79

31 – 50 84 18 12 114

50+ 69 16 18 103

Total 211 55 30 296

Place of Birth

Australia / New Zealand 153 36 24 213

Other 58 19 6 83

Total 211 55 30 296

Educational

Background

Primary / Secondary 32 6 9 47

Trade Cert. or Diploma 42 7 14 63

Degree or above 136 42 7 185

Total 211 55 30 296

32

Participants’ occupation, dietary choices, pet ownership and time spent on a rural property or

farm are described in Table 5.2 and major findings include:

I. The occupation with the largest majority (44%) was white collar workers (doctors,

lawyers, office workers, etc.).

I. Less than 20% of participants classified themselves as vegetarian or vegan

II. Overwhelming majority of participants (79%) are pet owners.

III. Over 51% of participants have only spent 2 months or less on a rural property or farm.

Table 5.2 – Participant demographics (occupation, dietary choices pet ownership and time spent on a rural property or farm)

Public Professionals Producers Total

Occupation

Student 19 20 39

Farming/farm related work 5 30 35

Vets/Animal scientists 1 20 21

White collar 117 13 130

Blue collar 7 7

Military/Government 38 38

Retired/Unemployed 23 2 25

Total 210 55 30 295

Are you a

vegetarian or

vegan?

Yes 42 7 49

No 169 48 30 247

Total 211 55 30 296

Do you

currently own

any pets?

Yes 157 49 29 235

No 54 6 1 61

Total 211 55 30 296

How long have

you lived or

worked on a

farm / rural

property?

<= 2 months 135 16 151

3 - 12 months 16 4 20

> 1 year 60 35 30 125

Total 211 55 30 296

Participants were asked a number question regarding their attitudes toward animal welfare.

The questions are listed below and participants were asked to rank their answers on a Likert

scale. Their responses to the following questions are displayed in Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2,

Figure 5.3, Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 as shown below:

33

I. Do you consider your pet(s) as member of your family?

II. How important is animal welfare friendliness as a criterion to you when buying a

food product?

III. How much influence does the following have on your thoughts when thinking about

animal welfare?

IV. In your opinion, what should be the main purpose of livestock farmers in Western

Australia?

V. Which of the following would you be willing to do in order to help the welfare of

livestock in Western Australia?

Figure 5.1 – Consideration of pet(s) as a family member

Participants were given three options to the questions: Do you consider your pet(s) as a

member of your family? When reviewing whether participants consider their pet as a member

of their family, there were three choices available. A respondent could either have a pet and

consider them as a member of the family (Yes), have a pet and not consider them as a member

of the family (No) or not have a pet (N/A). Greater than 90% of participants considered pets

as a member of their family. More than 90% of the public, 85% of professionals and only

60% of producers considered pets as a member of their family.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Public Professionals Producers

Perc

enta

ge o

f Par

ticip

ants

Yes N/A No

34

Figure 5.2 – The importance of animal welfare friendliness when buying a food product

Responses to the question: How important is animal welfare friendliness as a criterion to you

when buying a food product? are shown in Figure 5.2. The majority of public (75.3%)

indicated that animal welfare friendliness is an important or very important criterion. This

compared to 72.6% of professionals and 56.7% of producers who indicated that animal

welfare friendliness is an important or very important criterion when purchasing food

products. Thus, the public and professionals are more concerned than the producers.

Figure 5.3 – Types of influence when thinking about animal welfare

1 - VeryUnimportant

2 -Unimportant 3 - Neutral 4 - Important 5 - Very

ImportantPublic 2.84% 3.79% 18.01% 27.01% 48.34%Professionals 3.64% 3.64% 20.00% 29.09% 43.64%Producers 3.33% 6.67% 33.33% 50.00% 6.67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Perc

enta

ge o

f Par

ticip

ants

0

1

2

3

4

5

Media Education Religion Friends Family PersonalExperience

SignificantPerson

OwnResearch

Ave

rage

Sco

re

Public Professionals Producers

35

Participants were asked to rank by asking the following question: How much influence

the eight specific items had on their thoughts when thinking about animal welfare? The items

were listed as Media, Education, Religion, Friends/Society, Family, Personal experience,

Own research or Significant person e.g., veterinarian/scientist. Options for each eight items

were scored 5 (Very Significant) to 1 (Very Insignificant). The above graph is a

representation of the average scores for each item. The most effective way to compare the

overall importance of each influence for each stakeholder group is through a rank order

system (see below).

Table 5.3 – Ranking of Influences Affecting Thoughts About Animal Welfare

Public Professionals Producers 1. Personal Experience Personal Experience Personal Experience 2. Education Education Own Research 3. Own Research Own Research Education 4. Media Significant Person Significant Person 5. Significant Person Media Family 6. Family Family Friends 7. Friends Friends Media 8. Religion Religion Religion

The top 3 influences for each stakeholder group are Personal Experience, Education and Own

Research. In addition, the most common items chosen as least important are Friends, Family

and Religion. When viewing the rank order, a pattern emerges where all of the influences are

relatively consistent across the 3 stakeholder groups. With the exception of Media which

ranked 4th highest in the public group.

Figure 5.4 – Main purposes for livestock farming in WA

0

1

2

3

4

5

Provide anadequatereturn on

investment forfarmers

Provideaffordable food

for localcommunities

Provide amajor

contribution tothe economy

Provide healthyand nutritious

food

Provide forlivestock in a

humanemanner

Provide anattractivelandscape

Provide foodthat is safe to

eat

Providesustainable

foodproduction

Ave

rage

Sco

re

Public Professionals Producers

36

Participants were asked, In your opinion, what should be the main purposes for livestock

farmers in Western Australia? Responses available are shown in Figure 5.4 and participants

ranked each as 5 (Very Important) to 1 (Very Unimportant). All stakeholder groups ranked

‘Providing food that is safe to eat’ as one the most important purpose for livestock farmers.

Professionals stated that ‘Providing food that is safe to eat’ was equally as important as

‘Providing for livestock in a humane manner’ and producers ranked ‘Providing food that is

safe to eat’ as equal to ‘Providing sustainable food production’. All stakeholder groups

agreed that providing an attractive landscape was the least important purpose for livestock

farmers in Western Australia.

Providing for livestock in a humane manner was ranked first for professionals, second for

public and third for producers.

37

Figure 5.5 - Willingness to do in order to help the welfare of livestock in Western Australia

Above graph showed what participants were willing to do in order to assist in the improvement of livestock welfare. Participants were allowed to choose more than one option out of eight options given in way(s) they are willing to do in order to improve livestock welfare.

6.7%

40.0%

10.0%

0.0%

33.3%

76.7%

36.7%

20.0%

7.3%

72.7%

45.5%

25.5%

45.5%

74.5%

58.2%

70.9%

4.7%

76.3%

53.6%

36.5%

45.0%

69.2%

35.1%

82.5%

5.4%

72.0%

47.6%

30.7%

43.9%

70.9%

39.5%

74.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

None of the above

Pay extra for products that are animal welfare friendly

Get involved/make donations to an animal welfare society(e.g. RSPCA)

Get involved/support animal rights groups (e.g. PETA)

Seek information/education on current husbandry practices

Share knowledge about livestock welfare with family andfriends

Get involved/support organizations while ensurestockpeople obtain accredited livestock handling training

Purchase mostly free-range products

Average %

Way

s to

help

live

stoc

k w

elfa

re

Overall Public Professionals Producers

38

Table 5.4 – Stakeholder groups ranking of their willingness to do to help livestock welfare in WA

Public Professionals Producers 1. Purchase mostly free-range

products Share knowledge about livestock welfare with family and friends

Share knowledge about livestock welfare with family and friends

2. Pay extra for products that are animal welfare friendly

Pay extra for products that are animal welfare friendly

Pay extra for products that are animal welfare friendly

3. Share knowledge about livestock welfare with family and friends

Purchase mostly free-range products

Get involved/support organizations which ensure stockpersons obtain accredited livestock handling

4. Get involved/make donations to an animal welfare society

Get involved/support organizations which ensure stockpersons obtain accredited livestock handling

Seek information/education on current husbandry practices

5. Seek information/education on current husbandry practices

Seek information/education on current husbandry practices & Get involved/make donations to an animal welfare society

Purchase mostly free-range products

6. Get involved/support animal rights groups

Get involved/support animal rights groups

Get involved/make donations to an animal welfare society

7. Get involved/support organizations which ensure stockpersons obtain accredited livestock handling

Table 4.4 shows responses of what people are willing to do to help livestock welfare. The

public were most likely to choose Purchase free-range products. In contrast, the professionals

and producers were most likely to choose Share knowledge about livestock welfare with

family/friends. All three groups favoured Pay extra for products that are animal welfare

friendly. Getting involved/supporting animal rights groups was ranked lowest as the least

likely action people are willing to do for the public and professionals and no producers

choosing this as an option.

5.2 CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR PATTERNS To compare the consumer behaviour patterns of the public to those of professionals and

producers, a series of one-way between groups ANOVA were conducted. Where a significant

effect for stakeholder group emerged, post-hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD were used to

identify which groups differed significantly. Cross tabulation analysis was performed to find

out what percentage extra people were willing to pay for free-range food products. Results are

tabulated below each hypothesis as Mean and SE = standard error.

39

5.2.1 H1 - The public will show more concern than professionals or producers towards animal welfare when purchasing food products

H1 explored the effect of stakeholder groups on the concern for animal welfare friendliness

when buying food products. The question asked each respondent to rank the importance of

animal welfare friendliness when purchasing from 5 (Very Important) to 1 (Very

Unimportant).

Table 5.5 – Consumer Behaviour Patterns H1 Means

Public Professionals Producers Mean= 4.14

SE=0.71 Mean= 4.05 SE= 0.14

Mean=3.50 SE= 0.12

There was a statistically significant difference between the three stakeholder groups at the p =

.006. The actual difference in mean scores is fairly small, as demonstrated by the small effect

size (eta2 = 0.03). Post-hoc comparisons indicated that even though the public does not show

significantly more concern for animal welfare than professionals when buying a food product,

they do show significantly greater concern than producers. Therefore, we can partially accept

our hypothesis, that the public show more concern than producers.

Table 5.6 – Consumer Behaviour Patterns H1 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD

Mean Difference Significance Public Professionals 0.008 0.837 Public Producers 0.642* 0.004 Professionals Producers 0.555* 0.045

5.2.2 H2 - The public is more willing to pay extra than professionals and producer for free-range products

H2 determined by the effect of stakeholder groups on the amount extra for free-range

products. Each participant ranked the maximum amount they would be willing to pay for a

specific product, which was then translated into % increments. The tipping point mean for the

public was 38-54% extra, depending on the type of free-range product (egg, ham, chicken)

chosen. For professionals and producers, the tipping point mean was 36-46%, and 23-33%,

respectively as shown in Figure 5.6.

40

Figure 5.6 – Average % extra WTP on free-range products

There was a statistically significant difference between the three stakeholder groups at the p =

0.01. However, the difference in mean scores is small, as demonstrated by the small effect

size (eta2 = 0.031). Post-hoc comparisons indicated that even though the public are willing to

pay significantly more for a free-range product than producers, they are not willing to pay

significantly more than professionals. Therefore, we can partially accept our hypothesis, that

the public are more willing than producers to pay extra for free-range products.

Table 5.7 – Consumer Behaviour Patterns H2 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD

Mean Difference Significance Public Professionals 0.219 0.555 Public Producers 0.821* 0.008 Professionals Producers 0.602 0.140

5.2.3 H3 - There is a positive relationship between stated importance of animal welfare when purchasing food product and the extra amount a person is willing to pay for a free-range food product.

The relationship between the stated importance of animal welfare when buying food products

(see H1 above) and the extra amount a person is willing to pay for a free-range food product

(see H2 above) was investigated using Pearson product-movement correlation coefficient.

There was a strong positive correlation p < 0.01 between the two variables. This indicates that

as a respondent ranks the importance of animal welfare when purchasing higher, they are

more willing to pay extra to purchase a free-range food product.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

A dozen eggs 1kg of chicken 1kg of ham Overall

Ave

rage

% E

xtra

Public Professionals Producers

41

5.2.4 H4 - There will be a significant difference between the three stakeholder groups on their rating of importance on various criteria when purchasing food products.

A one-way between-groups multivariate ANOVA was performed to investigate whether there

was a significant difference between the three stakeholder groups for a variety of criteria used

when purchasing food products. Shown in Figure 5.2 and Table 5.8, our independent variable

was the stakeholder grouping, while our dependent variables were the criterion of price,

brand, taste/flavour, religion, ingredients, nutrition, Australian made, vegan/vegetarian and

animal welfare. Participants ranked each criterion as 5 (Very important) to 1 (Very

unimportant). With no assumptions violated, it was found that there was no statistically

significant difference between the three stakeholder groups on the criteria when purchasing

food products.

When each of the criterion were considered separately (Table 5.8), it was found that brand,

Australian made, vegetarian/vegan and animal welfare were the only criteria that reached

statistical significance between all three groups.

Table 5.8 – Consumer Behaviour Patterns H4

PRICE Mean = 2.22, SE = 0.051, p = 0.700

BRAND Mean = 2.75, SE = 0.058, p = 0.003

TASTE/FLAVOUR Mean = 1.57, SE = 0.037, p = 0.428

RELIGION Mean = 4.42, SE = 0.053, p = 0.125

INGREDIENTS Mean = 2.33, SE = 0.068, p = 0.258

NUTRITION Mean = 1.81, SE = 0.042, p = 0.929

AUST.MADE Mean = 1.97, SE = 0.055, p = 0.007

VEGAN/VEGETARIAN Mean = 3.57, SE = 0.085, p = 0.004

ANIMAL WELFARE Mean = 4.06, SE = 0.060, p = 0.006

42

Figure 5.7 – Estimated Marginal Means for Criteria Affecting Purchasing Decisions

5.3 ATTITUDE TOWARDS LIVESTOCK WELFARE To compare attitudes towards livestock welfare of the public to those of professionals and

producers, a series of one-way between groups ANOVA were conducted. Where a significant

effect for stakeholder groups emerged, post-hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD were used to

identify which groups differed significantly. Cross tabulation analysis was performed to find

out what percentages of people were willing to take various actions to help/improve the

welfare of livestock.

5.3.1 H1 - The public will show more concern for livestock welfare than professionals or producers

H1 explored the effect of stakeholder groups on the concern for livestock welfare index. The

livestock welfare index, (see Methods), is a combination of questions giving an overall mean

score on livestock welfare.

Table 5.9 – Attitudes H1 Means

Public Professionals Producers Mean= 24.59

SE= 0.304 Mean= 23.07 SE= 0.558

Mean= 19.00 SE= 0.614

There was a statistically significant difference between the three stakeholder groups at the p =

0.000. The difference in mean scores is large, as demonstrated by the relatively large effect

size (eta2 = 0.137). Post-hoc comparisons indicated that even though the public does not show

1

2

3

4

5

Est

imat

ed M

argi

nal M

eans

Public Professionals Producers

43

significantly more concern for livestock welfare than professionals, they do show

significantly greater concern than producers. Therefore, we can only partially accept our

hypothesis, stated that the public show more concern for livestock welfare than producers.

Table 5.10 – Attitudes H1 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD

Mean Difference Significance Public Professionals 1.520 0.051 Public Producers 5.592* 0.000 Professionals Producers 4.073* 0.000

5.3.2 H2 - There is a difference in the attitudes of the three stakeholder groups when considering the purpose of farming as providing a humane environment for livestock.

H2 explored the effect of stakeholder groups on how important participants considered the

purpose of farming as providing a humane environment for livestock.

Table 5.11 – Attitudes H2 Means

Public Professionals Producers Mean= 4.64

SE= 0.039 Mean= 4.69 SE= 0.077

Mean= 4.47 SE= 0.115

There was not a statistically significant difference between the three stakeholder groups at the

p<0.05 level: F (2,293) = 1.54, p = 0.217. The difference in mean scores is small, as

demonstrated by the small effect size (eta2 = 0.01). Post-hoc comparisons indicated that there

is no significant difference in attitudes between the public, professionals and producers when

considering the purpose of farming as providing a humane environment for livestock.

Therefore, the hypothesis is rejected.

Table 5.12 – Attitudes H2 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD

Mean Difference Significance Public Professionals -0.056 0.796 Public Producers 0.168 0.289 Professionals Producers 0.224 0.198

44

5.3.3 H3 - The public will be more willing to purchase mostly free-range products than professionals or producers in order to help/improve the welfare of livestock.

A cross tabulation was done to compare the three groups in their willingness to purchase free-

range products in order to help/improve the welfare of livestock. The hypothesis was accepted

as the proportion of the public (85%) is higher than professionals (70.9%) and producers

(20%), in their willingness to purchase free-range products.

Table 5.13 – Attitudes H3 Cross-Tabulation

Public 82.5% Professionals 70.9 % Producers 20.0 %

5.3.4 H4 - There will be a difference between the three stakeholder groups in their agreement with the statement that ‘livestock should have the same moral rights as humans’.

H4 determined the effect of stakeholder groups on the response to whether livestock should

have the same moral rights as humans.

Table 5.14 – Attitudes H4 Means

Public Professionals Producers Mean= 3.77

SE= 0.082 Mean= 3.18 SE= 0.174

Mean= 2.13 SE= 0.172

There was a statistically significant difference between the three stakeholder groups at the p =

0.000. The difference in mean scores is large, as demonstrated by the large effect size (eta2 =

0.155). Post-hoc comparisons indicated there is a significant difference between the public,

professionals and producers in their agreement whether livestock should have the same moral

rights as humans. Therefore, we can accept our hypothesis.

Table 5.15 – Attitudes H4 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD

Mean Difference Significance Public Professionals 0.586* 0.004 Public Producers 1.634* 0.000 Professionals Producers 1.048* 0.000

45

5.4 KNOWLEDGE OF HUSBANDRY CODES OF PRACTICE To compare knowledge of husbandry practices of the public to those of professionals and

producers, a series of one-way between groups ANOVA were conducted. Where a significant

effect for stakeholder group emerged, post-hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD were used to

identify which groups differed significantly. Regression analysis was also carried out to

investigate whether participant’s educational background and time spent on a farm affect their

knowledge on rating livestock emotions and needs.

5.4.1 H1 - The public will be less knowledgeable than professionals and producers on husbandry practices.

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance analysed the effect of stakeholder grouping

on the level of knowledge index regarding husbandry practices. The knowledge index (see

Methods), is a combination of questions giving an overall mean score of husbandry

knowledge.

Table 5.16 – Knowledge H1 Means

Public Professionals Producers Mean= 9.3

SE= 0.130 Mean= 10.75 SE= 0.182

Mean= 11.60 SE= 0.148

There was a statistically significant difference between the three stakeholder groups at the p =

0.000. The difference in mean scores is large, as demonstrated by the large effect size (eta2 =

0.189). Post-hoc comparisons confirmed these results by indicating there is a significant

difference between the public, professionals and producers when considering knowledge

about current husbandry practices. Thus, the hypothesis was accepted as the public are less

knowledgeable about husbandry practices.

Table 5.17 – Knowledge H1 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD

Mean Difference Significance Public Professionals -1.461* 0.000 Public Producers -2.316* 0.000 Professionals Producers -0.855* 0.076

46

5.4.2 H2 - There will be a significant difference between the three stakeholder groups in their knowledge about livestock needs and emotions.

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of a

respondent’s stakeholder grouping on their level of knowledge regarding livestock needs and

emotions using the livestock needs and emotions index (see Methods).

Table 5.18 – Knowledge H2 Means

Public Professionals Producers Mean= 219.1

SE= 1.659 Mean= 223.9 SE= 1.874

Mean= 212.5 SE= 3.725

There was no statistically significant difference between the three stakeholder groups at the p

= 0.78. The difference in mean scores is small, as demonstrated by the small effect size (eta2 =

0.017). Post-hoc comparisons confirmed that there is no significant difference between the

public, professionals and producers when considering how knowledgeable each stakeholder

group in regarding livestock needs and emotions. Therefore, we reject our hypothesis.

Table 5.19 – Knowledge H2 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD

Mean Difference Significance Public Professionals -4.825 0.334 Public Producers 6.533 0.289 Professionals Producers 11.358 0.064

5.4.3 H3 - There will be differences between the three stakeholder groups in how they believe various influences impact their opinions on animal welfare

A one-way between-groups multivariate ANOVA was performed to investigate the whether

there was a significant difference between the three stakeholder groups for a variety of criteria

used when purchasing food products. Shown in the table below, our independent variable was

the stakeholder grouping, while our dependent variables were the different influences on

thoughts about animal welfare: Media, Education, Religion, Friends/Society, Family, Personal

Experience, Significant Person, and Own Research. With no assumptions violated, it was

found that there was not a statistically significant difference between the three stakeholder

groups on the combined criteria used when purchasing food products.

47

When each of the criterion were considered separately (Table 5.20), all forms of influence except for Significant Person and Own Research were statistically significant at a p < 0.05 level.

Table 5.20 – Knowledge H3 MANOVA Results

MEDIA Mean = 3.268, SE = 0.082, p = 0.000 EDUCATION Mean =4.148, SE = 0.063, p = 0.040 RELIGION Mean = 1.992, SE = 0.092, p = 0.014 FRIENDS/SOCIETY Mean = 3.254, SE = 0.078, p = 0.000 FAMILY Mean = 3.425, SE = 0.080, p = 0.006 PERSONAL EXPERIENCE Mean = 4.594, SE = 0.056, p = 0.004 SIGNIFICANT PERSON Mean = 3.840, SE = 0.084, p = 0.215 OWN RESEARCH Mean = 4.211, SE = 0.072, p = 0.099

However, after post-hoc comparisons there was no statistically significant difference between

the three stakeholder groups. Therefore, there is a difference between groups, but we cannot

determine which specific groups differ. Thus, our hypothesis is supported.

Table 5.21 – Knowledge H3 Post-Hoc Tukey HSD

Mean Difference Significance Public Professionals 0.12 0.310 Public Producers 0.02 0.978 Professionals Producers -0.10 0.702

5.4.4 H4 - There is a positive relationship between education and time spent on a farm and how a person rates livestock needs and emotions

A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the effect of

education and time spent on farm on how a person rated their knowledge of livestock needs

and emotions using the needs and emotions index (see Methods). Education was categorized

as Tertiary or Non-tertiary and time spent on farm was divided into less than 6 months or

more than 6 months. There was no statistically significant main effect for time spent on a farm

(p = 0.984) or education (p = 0.601). However, the interaction effect between education and

time spent on farm does show potential significant effect (p = 0.055). Even though the

hypothesis was rejected as the results do not show strong significance, there is still a

possibility of showing a significant relationship between education and time spent on a farm

with a person’s rating of livestock needs and emotions (Figure 5.8).

48

Table 5.22 – Knowledge H4 Two-Way ANOVA

Time on farm vs. Education No Tertiary Yes Tertiary TOTAL Less than 6 months Mean: 223.213

SE: 3.254 Mean: 216.536 SE: 2.127

Mean: 219.875 SE: 1.944

More than 6 months Mean: 218.016 SE: 2.810

Mean: 221.840 SE: 2.576

Mean: 219.928 SE: 1.906

TOTAL Mean: 220.614 SE: 2.150

Mean: 219.188 SE: 1.670

Figure 5.8 – Interaction effect between education and time spent on farm Figure 5.8 showed that with an increase in education and time spent on a farm, a person

understanding of livestock needs and emotions can be improved. It highlighted the

importance of having experience with livestock as education alone is not enough.

49

Table 5.23 – Correlations of Demographics on the five indices

Beta values are shown and statistically significant values are indicated (*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.005)

Conc

ern

for a

nim

al

wel

fare

whe

n pu

rcha

sing

fo

od p

rodu

cts i

ndex

Conc

erns

for l

ives

tock

w

elfa

re in

dex

Und

erst

andi

ng o

f liv

esto

ck n

eeds

and

em

otio

ns in

dex

Stoc

kman

ship

att

itude

in

dex

Know

ledg

e ab

out

husb

andr

y pr

actic

es

inde

x

Gender 1: Male, 2: Female 0.329*** 0.443*** 0.258*** 0.222*** -0.045 Age 1: 18-25, 2: 26-30, 3: 31-40, 4: 41-50, 5: 51-60,

6: 60+ 0.099 -0.057 0.020 -0.027 0.220***

Place of Birth 0: Other, 1: Australia/New Zealand -0.048 -0.030 -0.042 0.021 -0.072 Highest Education Completed 1: Primary School; 2: High School,

3: Apprenticeship/Trade Certificate, 4: Diploma/Certificate, 5: Bachelor Degree, 6: Master Degree/PhD

-0.056 -0.080 -0.088 -0.039 0.013

Occupation 1 through 23. See appendix A for description -0.005 0.108 0.068 -0.064 - Annual Household Income 1: < $20,000, 2: $20,000 - $39,000,

3: $40,000 - $59,000, 4: $60,000 – $79,000, 5: $80,000 – $119,000, 6: >= $120,000

0.116* -0.031 0.042 0.091 0.125*

Place of Residence 1: Urban, 2: Rural -0.013 -0.175*** -0.188*** -0.029 0.334*** Are you a vegan or vegetarian? 1: Yes; 2: No 0.094 -0.405*** -0.213*** 0.279*** 0.059 Do you currently own any pets? 1: Yes; 2: No -0.113 -0.119 -0.190*** -0.069 -0.290*** Do you consider your pet(s) as a member of your family?

1: Yes; 2: No -0.187*** -0.381*** -0.310*** -0.332*** -0.005

How long have you lived or worked on a farm or rural property?

1: < 1 month, 2: 1-2 months, 3: 3-5 months, 4: 6-12 months, 5: 1-3 years, 6: > 3 years

-0.041 -0.202*** 0.022 0.190*** 0.482***

Have you ever visited a farm with intensive farming/husbandry practices?

1: Yes, 2: No 0.014 0.175*** 0.005 0.172*** -0.361***

How important is animal welfare friendliness when purchasing a food product?

1: Very Unimportant to 5: Very Important 0.590*** 0.665*** 0.452*** 0.583*** -0.018

50

6 DISCUSSION This survey was developed to review the perspectives of Western Australians towards animal

welfare for the livestock industry. To achieve this aim, there were multiple hypotheses

evaluated to address consumer behaviour patterns, attitudes towards animal welfare and

knowledge husbandry practices. This discussion will first focus on which demographical

factors impacted on animal welfare indices and then discuss the results surrounding concerns

for welfare, the willingness to pay extra for free-range products, the moral rights of animals,

the criteria when purchasing food and the perceived purposes of livestock farming. In

addition, I will review the knowledge differences around husbandry practices, views on

livestock needs and emotions, and what influences people in their opinions about animal

welfare. Finally, this study will discuss the future of animal welfare in Australia and what

these results mean for the animal production industry.

6.1 THE IMPACT OF DEMOGRAPHICS ON ANIMAL WELFARE In our results, both gender and considering pet(s) as member(s) of the family showed strong

positive correlations for all five indices (Table 5.23). Females made up 70% of the

participants, which may be because more females are involved in food purchasing and

females traditionally show more empathy for animal welfare (Heleski, Mertig and Zanella

2004), hence a greater willingness to participate in an animal welfare survey. Women

consistently score higher in the Animal Attitude Scale (AAS) than men (Herzog 2007, Taylor

and Signal 2009). Participants’ age also influences their perceptions, with young adults more

concerned about animal welfare then older people (Kellert and Berry 1987). However, there

was no strong correlation shown in our study against age with concerns for animal welfare

(Table 5.23). The 79% of participants who are pet owners is slightly higher than the average

Australian household (68%) that own animals (Frankin 2007). It has been stated that those

with greater levels of education will show more empathy towards animal welfare (Kellert and

Berry 1987) but our results did not have the same effect on concern for animal welfare with

higher education level (Table 5.23). In contrast, our results showed age and level of education

did not show any similarities with previous studies. The average age of all participants was 42

years old and no producers below the age of 30. This represents the general producer

population, as the majority of producers are older, with an average age of 52 (National

Farmers' Federation 2012). A possible limitation to our study is that 46% of the participants

are white collar workers, having attained a bachelor’s degree or higher (Table 5.1). This is not

51

representative of the general population, as noted by (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008).

This came about because SCORED users were invited to participate in the survey, making up

40% of our total participants and they were mostly Murdoch University alumni or staff

members.

Our results have shown that participants who rated highly on choosing food products that

were animal welfare friendly also correlated strongly on all welfare indices (Table 5.19). This

was expected, as a willingness to choose animal welfare friendly products indicates general

animal welfare is important to the participant.

Other demographic factors such as place of birth, occupations and income had weak to no

correlation against all five indices. Overall, we found that the demographics apart from

education and gender represented the WA community well.

6.2 CONCERNS FOR ANIMAL WELFARE AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP) Despite our prediction that the public would show more concern for welfare than producers

and professionals, both the public and professionals showed significantly more concern than

producers. Our prediction that the public would show significantly more WTP extra for

products than producers was supported.

Previous studies have shown that those who taught or were engaged in areas of husbandry

practices had considerably lower concerns for farm animal welfare (Heleski, Mertig and

Zanella 2004). Our study was similar in that it showed that knowledge about husbandry

practices was inversely related to concern for animal welfare. The public showed a higher

concern for animal than producers, but were less knowledgeable of husbandry practices.

Interestingly, the professionals should be considered closer to the public in their concern for

welfare despite the fact that they possess greater knowledge of husbandry practices than the

public.

When reviewing WTP for free-range products, there was a clear positive relationship between

the importance of animal welfare in purchasing decisions and the WTP extra for free-range

products. This is not uncommon, as the public traditionally associate free-range with animal

welfare friendly. Only questions regarding free-range eggs, ham and chicken meat products

were asked as they are common free-range products found in supermarkets across WA. In

addition, the public were WTP significantly more than professionals and producers, with an

average tipping point of 46% across the three types of free-range products. This includes 54%

52

extra for a dozen free-range eggs, 46% extra for 1kg of free-range chicken breast meat and

38% extra for 1kg of free-range ham (Figure 5.6). The average WTP across all three groups

was 39% (Figure 5.6). These results suggest that the public are WTP more for food that

comes from farms with higher animal welfare standards. Dransfield et al. (2005) found that

consumers are prepared to pay an average of 5% extra for pork from outdoor raised pigs with

one-fifth declaring to be WTP 20% extra. In another study conducted in European Union

(EU), 57% of respondents stated they were prepared to pay from 5% to 25% or more extra for

eggs from animal-welfare friendly production systems (European Commission 2005). Results

from similar studies conducted in USA, 64% of respondents declared WTP 5% to 10% extra

for food from animals raised humanely (Swanson and Mench 2000).

6.3 SHOULD ANIMALS HAVE THE SAME MORAL RIGHTS AS HUMANS When asked if animals should have the same moral right as humans, there was a significant

difference between the three groups. The public agreed with animals having the same moral

rights as humans more than professionals and producers. This was expected as the public were

the most concerned over livestock welfare thus indicative of their strong belief on animal

moral rights. Franklin (2007) surveyed the Australian community and found that 55% agreed

with the proposition that animals should have the same moral rights as human beings. This

was similar to our findings in that 90% of the public and 94.5% of professionals and 65% of

producers, considered pets as family members. Thus, regardless of whether people live in

urban or rural areas, experiences with companion animals are likely to influence how people

think about livestock. This concern for moral rights is consistent with the recent increase in

popularity and support of organisations that represent animal rights. There was a negative

correlation between the time spent on a farm and concern for livestock welfare (Table 5.23),

which is not surprising given producers spend the most time with animals and may be more

likely to be desensitized rather than have a lack of empathy or compassion.

6.4 CRITERIA WHEN PURCHASING FOOD PRODUCTS When choosing criteria for food products, all three stakeholder groups chose animal welfare

as one of the important criteria along with ‘taste/flavour’ and ‘Australian made’ of also

importance. Producers also put high importance on brand, which may be due to economic

concerns if they provide their product to specific brand/retailers. As the majority indicated a

high importance toward Australian made, there is a preference for local products and those

that are animal welfare friendly. Most importantly, our study found that the least important

criteria amongst all stakeholder groups when purchasing was religion. Therefore, it is best that

53

any future actions to influence consumer behaviour do not focus on religious groups, but

rather on components such as Australian made, brand or taste/flavour.

6.5 PERCEPTIONS ON THE PURPOSE OF LIVESTOCK FARMING IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

All three stakeholder groups agreed that one of the main purposes of livestock farming is to

provide for livestock in a humane manner. Coupled with the earlier results where an increase

in knowledge showed a decrease in concern, we can theorise that because producers believe

they are providing for their livestock in a human manner, they are less concerned about their

livestock’s welfare. In addition, all stakeholder groups identified that providing farmers with

an adequate return on investment was an important purpose of farming but the producers rated

it more highly. Combining this with the importance of Australian-made expressed in the

criteria of importance question, we can see that the WA community is interested in supporting

their local farmers and that they are not economically hurt by any welfare-related changes.

6.6 KNOWLEDGE OF COMMON HUSBANDRY PRACTICES AND LIVESTOCK NEEDS AND EMOTIONS

From our study, it was clear that the producers and professionals were more knowledgeable

about husbandry practices than the public. This is to be expected, as there were more urban

participants with 51% of all participants having spent 2 months or less on a farm. Without the

exposure to farming practices, it is understandable that the public do not have the knowledge

base of producers.

However, the question on knowledge of livestock needs and emotions showed that all three

groups were equally knowledgeable. The results revealed an interesting fact that even though

producers may show less concern over livestock welfare, they are fully aware of the extent of

animals’ needs and emotions. This is a very good result for producers, as it shows that they do

understand the needs/emotions of their livestock, but because they are more knowledgeable,

they feel less concern about their welfare. In addition, results showed no significant difference

in how the group understands livestock needs and emotions and this was independent of their

educational levels or time spent on a farm. This suggests that understanding of livestock

needs and emotions has developed through participants’ attitudes and having a strong bond

with their pet(s). This is proven by a correlation between pet ownership and the four indices,

which also support the findings by Miller (2011) that those who share a strong bond with their

pets, also foster protective attitudes towards other animals. However, knowledge of animal

emotional needs is problematic because there is no universal agreement as to the extent that

54

animals can experience a range of emotions and one can really only infer that an animal is

feeling a particular way. In our study, we asked about the extent to which people attribute

emotions of animals.

6.7 TYPES OF INFLUENCES THAT IMPACT THOUGHTS ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE

According to the types of influences that impact ones’ thoughts on animal welfare, it was seen

that the top three influences in each stakeholder group were personal experience, education

and own research. However, these influences are not directly controllable in short term and

cannot be changed without sizeable investment, it was of interest to determine that the

‘media’ and ‘significant person’ were the next top influences. Therefore, the most effective

approach to changing participant’s attitudes towards animal welfare would be to find a

community leader, or a person who is well-known and trusted in the community. For

producers, having a significant person conducting farm visits or by having farm day outings

would be the most effective way at approaching the producers. By having a significant person

appearing on the television will also have the largest impact for both professionals and public.

Such strategies can be used when educating the public, informing professionals or producers

about latest animal welfare friendly procedures and ensuring effective changes within across

the three stakeholder groups. Again, it was interesting to learn that family, friends and religion

will not significantly impact on how one thinks about animal welfare.

6.8 THE FUTURE OF ANIMAL WELFARE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA Media and industry reports suggest that Australian consumers are becoming increasingly

concerned about the welfare of animals in Australia’s livestock industries. Specific aspects of

some animal production sectors have been accused of being unethical; sow stalls, caged hens,

and live export. Hence, Australian producers are concerned about consumer perceptions of

how livestock are treated and the potential impacts on the industry. Methods to address these

concerns include; researching the impacts of production systems on animals, to establish

standards for animal management, and to communicate producers’ ‘values’ to the consumers.

However, it is unclear on how to deliver such information and to what extent consumers will

understand the economic effects of any management change or to what extent if any, changes

in practice will affect the purchasing behaviour of consumers. The results from this study

indicated that all participants showed concern over livestock welfare, with the public showing

the highest level of concern. Results showed there is a lack of knowledge about husbandry

practices in the general public yet producers were just as knowledgeable about livestock needs

55

and emotions compare with the public and professionals. Interestingly, different influences on

animal welfare were identified among the stakeholder groups. Targeted education will be the

key factor in bridging any knowledge gaps as well as developing further trust in agriculture.

Education programs for the public including an understanding of the economic cost of any

animal management changes will assist consumers in making informed choices when

purchasing food products and likely to create appreciation and support for the producer’s

diligence in farming efforts. Educating members of the public can be best achieved by

utilising a significant person to broadcast information using the mass media. Similarly, any

advances in scientific findings concerning the impact of production systems on animals or

knowledge about public opinion and consumer preferences, should be communicated to

producers by having a significant person that producers trust to visit farms or hold town hall

meetings in a face-to-face environment. It may be useful for producers to communicate their

‘values’ to consumers to again build trust in the industry.

Knowing that professionals and producers are willing to purchase and pay up to 36% extra for

animal welfare friendly products indicates that WA could be ready to introduce a type of farm

assurance schemes. Currently, no farm assurance schemes exist in WA except for the national

RSPCA accredited foods. Without farm assurance schemes, retailers are unable to promote

welfare friendly products. In addition, without a clear animal welfare definition for

consumers, a loosely defined and unregulated free-range product continues to be viewed by

consumers as welfare friendly, even if research does not support these labels. An added

benefit of a farm assurance scheme could be the opportunity to increase the public and

professionals’ association to local brands, making them a differentiating point from overseas

or interstate products. A study conducted in the UK reported that a 164% increase in year-on-

year sales of products produced under the Freedom Food Schemes, a farm assurance and food

labelling schemes encouraging farmers to adopt and maintain higher welfare standards

(Kehlbacher, Bennett and Balcombe 2012, RSPCA 2010). This proven WTP for welfare

friendly products far exceed the average 39% extra WTP from the three stakeholder groups in

this study.

There are some limitations with our study that need to be acknowledged which could be

addressed through future research projects. More robust results could be achieved with a

larger sample size surveying a sample population that is more representative of the general

population in terms of level of education. In addition, it was noted that because no ‘animal

welfare friendly’ certified products exist in WA, ‘free-range products’ were used in questions

56

to determine that consumer behaviour patterns for those seeking products with above average

welfare. Welfare is a long term implication that needs to be looked in both the physical and

behaviour aspect of the animal.

Lastly, the willingness to pay statements ideally needs to be directly correlated to the actions

of consumers, as sometimes socially controversial topics such as animal welfare or economic

considerations can have an impact on the stated willingness to pay extra for products, while

actual actions do not reflect this willingness. Further research on these items that are actually

purchased by various stakeholders will help to provide a more realistic view of purchasing

habits of the community. In Europe, there has been a consumer/retailer driven movement to

identify animal-friendly production methods. Animal welfare is of considerable concern to

consumers in Europe and food quality not only includes the nature and safety of the product

but also the perceived welfare of the animal from which the food is produced. Thus various

forms of animal welfare labelling associated with farm assurance programs exist in the UK.

Some producers engaged in these assurance schemes are optimistic about market

opportunities and consumer responses, whilst other producers have little faith in consumer

willingness to pay for animal welfare quality products (Kjaernes, Roe and Bock 2007). The

effectiveness of these farm assurance and labelling programs on livestock welfare at the farm

level are yet to be proven.

In conclusion, all stakeholder groups in WA can be encouraged by the general consensus

about their concern for animal welfare, as well as a stated willingness to change behaviour to

ensure a higher standard of animal welfare exists in the future. It is encouraging to know that

industry is attempting to respond to the concerns of the community and with further research

and understanding between all stakeholders; further improvements in animal welfare should

result.

57

7 REFERENCES Appleby, M C, and B O Hughes. "Introduction. In animal welfare. eds Appleby M C and

Hughes B O." CAB International, 1997: xi-xii.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2006 Census QuickStats : Western Australia. Febuary 10, 2008. http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ProductSelect?newproducttype=QuickStats&btnSelectProduct=View+QuickStats+%3E&collection=census&period=2006&areacode=5&geography=&method=&productlabel=&producttype=&topic=&navmapdisplayed=true&javascrip (accessed October 30, 2012).

Dransfield, E, T M Ngapo, N A Nielsen, L Bredahl, P O Sjoden, and M Magnusson. "Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearence, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production." Meat Science, 2005: 61-70.

European Commission. "Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals." Special Eurobarometers 229, Wave 63.2. TNS Opinion and Social. 2005. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_229_en.pdf (accessed October 30, 2012).

Frankin, A. "Human-Nonhuman animal relationships in Australia: An overview of results from the First National Survey anf Follow up case studies 2000-2004 ." Society and Animals, 2007: 7-27.

Franklin, J H. Animal rights and moral philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

Heleski, C R, A G Mertig, and A J Zanella. "Assessing attitudes toward farm animal welfare: A national survey of animal science faculty members." Journal of Animal Science, 2004: 2806-2814.

Herzog, H. "Gender differences in human-animal interactions: A review." Anthrozoos, 2007: 7-21.

Hoban, T J, and P A Kendall. Consumer attitudes about food biotenchology. Extension Report, North Carolina: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, 1993.

Kalaitzandonakas, N, L A Marks, and S S Vickner. "Media coverage of biotech foods and influence on consumer choice." American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2004: 1238-1246.

Kehlbacher, A, R Bennett, and K Balcombe. "Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling." Food Policy, 2012: 627-633.

Kellert, S B, and J K Berry. "Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviours towards wildlife as affected by gender." Wildlife Society Bulletin, 1987: 363-371.

58

Kjaernes, U, E Roe, and B Bock. "Societal concerns on farm animal welfare. Assuring animal-welfare: from societal concerns to implementation." Second Welfare Quality skateholder conference. Berlin, 2007. 13-18.

Manteca, X. "Neurophysiology and assessment of welfare." Meat Science, 1998: 205-218.

Meat and Livestock Australia. Strategic plan 2010-2015 World-class services and solutions in partnership with industry and government. Strategic plan 2010-2015, North Sydney: Meat & Livestock Australia Limited, 2010.

Miller, G. "The Rise of Animal Law." SCIENCE, 2011: 28-31.

National Farmers' Federation. Farm Facts 2012: Farmers are batting above the average. March 1, 2012. http://www.nff.org.au/read/2527/farm-facts-2012-farmers-are-batting.html (accessed October 30, 2012).

Nocella, G, L Hubbard, and R Scarpa. "Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust. Results of a cross-national survey." Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 2010: 275-297.

Pallant, J. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2011.

Pratt, J H, and A Wynne. "The livestock industry: Some controversial issues." Nutrition & Food Science, 1995: 24-28.

RSPCA. Record-breaking demand for freedom food. 2010. http://www.rspca.org.uk/freedomfood/aboutus/-/article/FF_AboutUs (accessed October 30, 2010).

Swanson, J C, and J A Mench. "Animal welfare: Consumer viewpoints." Kansas State University and University of Califonation-Davis. 2000. http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/Avian/swanson.pdf (accessed October 30, 2012).

Tabachnick, B G, and L S Fidell. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 2007.

Taylor, N, and T, D Signal. "Willingness to Pay: Australian Consumers and "On the Farm" Welfare." Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2009: 345-359.

Tonsor, G T, and N J Olynk. "Impacts of animal well-being and welfare media on meat demand." Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2011: 59-72.

Tonsor, G T, C Wolf, and N Olynk. "Consumer voting and demand behaviour regarding swine gestation crates." Food Policy, 2009: 492-498.

Webster, J. "Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden." In Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden, by J Webster, 5-6. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

59

8 APPENDIX A – PARTICIPANT SURVEY

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

9 DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this project to all those who are working towards improving livestock welfare, to all the hardworking producers and their livestock.

“I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we’ve got to do it right. We’ve got to give those animals a decent life and we’ve got to give them a painless death. We owe the animals respect” ~ Temple Grandin~