Salvin Hannah, Monk Jessica E, Cafe Linda M, Harden Steven, Lee Caroline
NSW Department of Primary Industries, Livestock Industries Centre, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
CSIRO Agriculture and Food, FD McMaster Laboratory, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia.
Animals (Basel). 2024 Sep 13;14(18):2666. doi: 10.3390/ani14182666.
A voluntary, producer-driven welfare benchmarking system has been explored as a way of incentivising welfare improvement in pasture-based beef cattle and providing transparency and accountability to the industry. This study aimed to determine the acceptability and feasibility of measures for inclusion in a welfare benchmarking system and how this is influenced by respondents' attitudes and beliefs. A survey was disseminated online to Australian producers in July 2020. Producers were asked to indicate the welfare measures ( = 59) they thought most important to check to determine if cattle on pasture-based farms have a good quality of life (QOL) and the feasibility of collecting animal-based welfare data and completing a stockperson attitudes questionnaire. Basic demographic and attitude data were also collected. Responses from 274 producers were included (52% male) with median land size 340 Ha (range 4-500,000) and herd size 200 head (2-200,000). Feasibility was related to QOL attitudes for 11 of the 17 animal-based measures ( < 0.01-0.02). Feasibility was also related to land or herd size but was not affected by other demographics, such as gender. In all significant dependencies, feasibility was reported as greater in those who thought it important to check the corresponding welfare measure. Producers who rated QOL as very important were also more likely to perceive the collection of animal-based data as feasible. A well-designed and targeted programme to educate producers on why certain welfare measures are important will be crucial to increase uptake and retention in a voluntary producer-driven welfare benchmarking scheme.
一个由生产者自主推动的自愿性福利基准体系已被探索，作为激励以牧场为基础的肉牛福利改善，并为该行业提供透明度和问责制的一种方式。本研究旨在确定纳入福利基准体系的措施的可接受性和可行性，以及这如何受到受访者态度和信念的影响。2020年7月，一项在线调查在澳大利亚生产者中展开。生产者被要求指出他们认为检查以确定牧场养殖的牛是否拥有良好生活质量（QOL）最为重要的福利措施（n = 59），以及收集基于动物的福利数据和完成畜牧人员态度问卷的可行性。还收集了基本的人口统计和态度数据。纳入了274名生产者的回复（52%为男性），土地面积中位数为340公顷（范围4 - 500,000公顷），畜群规模为200头（2 - 200,000头）。对于17项基于动物的措施中的11项，可行性与生活质量态度相关（P < 0.01 - 0.02）。可行性也与土地或畜群规模相关，但不受其他人口统计学因素影响，如性别。在所有显著的相关性中，认为检查相应福利措施很重要的人报告的可行性更高。将生活质量评为非常重要的生产者也更有可能认为收集基于动物的数据是可行的。一个精心设计且目标明确的项目，向生产者传授某些福利措施为何重要，对于在由生产者自主推动的自愿性福利基准计划中提高参与度和持续参与率至关重要。
