Next Article in Journal
Supporting the Development and Adoption of Automatic Lameness Detection Systems in Dairy Cattle: Effect of System Cost and Performance on Potential Market Shares
Next Article in Special Issue
Environmental Impact and Relative Invasiveness of Free-Roaming Domestic Carnivores—a North American Survey of Governmental Agencies
Previous Article in Journal
Objective Measures for the Assessment of Post-Operative Pain in Bos indicus Bull Calves Following Castration
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tech-Savvy Beef Cattle? How Heifers Respond to Moving Virtual Fence Lines
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Animals 2017, 7(10), 75; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7100075

Brazilian Citizens’ Opinions and Attitudes about Farm Animal Production Systems

1
Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-Estar Animal, Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis 88034-001, Brazil
2
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 2 September 2017 / Revised: 22 September 2017 / Accepted: 25 September 2017 / Published: 28 September 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Animal Management in the 21st Century)
Full-Text   |   PDF [1018 KB, uploaded 28 September 2017]   |  

Simple Summary

The inclusion of societal input is needed for food animal production industries to retain their “social license to operate”. Little is known about the knowledge and attitudes of Brazilian citizens regarding food animal production systems. The aim of this study was to explore the beliefs and attitudes of Brazilians not associated with livestock production towards farm animal production systems. Overall, our participants expressed a preference for free-range, cage-free, and more “natural” production systems. They also expressed concerns with livestock production systems that limited the movement or expression of natural behaviours, particularly those that they associated with animal suffering or distress. They recognized farm animals as deserving respect and dignity beyond the provision of basic needs. Our findings indicate that Brazil’s current farm animal housing practices that are associated with restriction of movement may not align with societal expectations.

Abstract

The inclusion of societal input is needed for food animal production industries to retain their “social license to operate”; failure to engage with the public on this topic risks the long-term sustainability of these industries. The primary aim of this study was to explore the beliefs and attitudes of Brazilians citizens not associated with livestock production towards farm animal production. A related secondary aim was to identify the specific beliefs and attitudes towards systems that are associated with restriction of movement. Each participant was shown pictures representing two of five possible major food animal industries (laying hens, beef cattle, pregnant sows, lactating sows, and poultry meat). Participants were presented a six pages survey that included demographic questions plus two sets of two pictures and a series of questions pertaining to the pictures. Each set of pictures represented a particular industry where one picture represented a housing type that is associated with behavioural restrictions and the other picture represented a system that allowed for a greater degree of movement. Participants were asked their perceptions on the prevalence of each system in Brazil, then their preference of one picture vs. the other, and the reasons justifying their preference. Immediately following, the participant repeated the same exercise with the second set of two pictures representing another industry followed by the same series of questions as described above. Quantitative data were analysed with mixed effects logistic regression, and qualitative responses were coded into themes. The proportion of participants that believed animals are reared in confinement varied by animal production type: 23% (beef cattle), 82% (poultry), 81% (laying hens), and 60% (swine). A large majority (79%) stated that farm animals are not well-treated in Brazil. Overall, participants preferred systems that were not associated with behavioural restriction. The preference for free-range or cage-free systems was justified based on the following reasons: naturalness, animals’ freedom to move, and ethics. A minority of participants indicated a preference for more restrictive systems, citing reasons associated with food security and food safety, increased productivity and hygiene. Our results suggest that the majority of our participants, preferred farm animal production systems that provide greater freedom of movement, which aligned with their perception that these systems are better for the animal. Our results provide some evidence that the current farm animal housing practices that are associated with restriction of movement, which are gaining traction in Brazil, may not align with societal expectations. View Full-Text
Keywords: animal welfare; ethics; livestock production; qualitative research; survey animal welfare; ethics; livestock production; qualitative research; survey
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Yunes, M.C.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Hötzel, M.J. Brazilian Citizens’ Opinions and Attitudes about Farm Animal Production Systems. Animals 2017, 7, 75.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Animals EISSN 2076-2615 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top