The Perception of Brazilian Livestock Regarding the Use of Precision Livestock Farming for Animal Welfare
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Recruitment and Survey Implementation
2.2. Construction of the Questions
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Producer’s Profile
3.2. Economic and Structural Profile of Farms
3.3. Producer Perceptions
4. Discussion
4.1. Analysis of Profiles: Producer × Company Structure/Information System × Technological
4.2. Analysis of Profiles: Welfare and Precision Livestock Concepts × Legislative Knowledge × Technological Understanding
4.3. Analysis of Profiles: Company Economics × Welfare and Precision Livestock Concepts × Technology
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- How old are you?
- What’s your gender?MaleFemaleOther
- What is your level of education?NO EDUCATIONINCOMPLETE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (1st LEVEL)COMPLETE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (1st LEVEL)INCOMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL (2nd LEVEL)COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL (2nd LEVEL)INCOMPLETE COLLEGECOMPLETE COLLEGEPOSTGRADUATE
- How much experience do you have in pig farming?Less than 10 yearsBetween 11 and 20 yearsBetween 21 and 30 yearsMore than 30 years
- What is your role on the farm?Owner or partnerPresident or vice-presidentManager or supervisorAnimal scientist or veterinarian
- How many farms make up your company?1Between 2 and 3Between 4 and 5More than 5
- What is the production model on the farm?Integrated/cooperative productionIndependent productionI don’t know how to answer
- How is the pig farming model on the property classified?
- A
- Full cycle (includes all phases of production, from the arrival of gilts for reproduction to the end of finishing)
- B
- Piglet production unit (PPU) (includes the reproduction, farrowing, and weaning sectors)
- C
- Finishing unit (FU) (responsible for fattening the animal and includes the pigs’ exit from the nursery)
- D
- I don’t know how to answer
- For answers 8A and 8B (from the previous question), what is the number of installed breeding sows?Less than 100101 to 300301 to 600601 to 12001201 to 2000More than 2000I don’t know how to answer
- What is the annual turnover of animals on your property?Less than 1000 animalsMore than 1000 animals
- In which state is your property locatedACALAPAMBACEDFESGOMAMTMSMGPAPBPRPEPIRJRNRSRORRSCSPSETO
- City of the property
- Please check the infrastructure items that the property has:ElectricityRenewable energy (solar, wind, other)Biogas plant with energy cogenerationInternetArtesian wellTreated waterSewage systemSettling tanksSanitary barrierComposting system for animal carcassesPaved road accessOther:
- What is the number of barns used for production?What is the quality of the internet signal?No internet signalTerribleUnstableMeets the property’s needsExcellent
- Does the property use computerized systems that require internet access?YesNo
- Answer the following considering your perception or opinion regarding the statements, choosing the term that corresponds to your degree of agreement, from 0 to 6 according to the indication below: (0) I do not know how to opine; (1) Totally Disagree; (2) Disagree; (3) Partially Disagree; (4) Partially Agree; (5) Agree; and (6) Totally Agree.
- (a)
- I am knowledgeable about animal welfare concepts
- (b)
- Animal welfare concepts knowledge is of little importance in pig production
- (c)
- I do not see how the application of animal welfare indicators can assist me in the farm’s production process (temperature control, humidity, and others)
- (d)
- I adopt animal welfare concepts in productivity to meet legislation
- (e)
- The government generally promotes technological improvements in livestock farming in my region.
- (f)
- I find it of little importance to have knowledge of public policies
- (g)
- I maintain frequent contact with sector technicians to update myself on the use of management and animal welfare techniques
- (h)
- I do not see the importance of maintaining contact or partnership with universities or technical schools
- (i)
- I am open to new technologies if they meet my needs
- (j)
- The techniques and technologies presented to me for animal welfare are difficult to learn
- (k)
- I have applied swine management techniques available in the market
- (l)
- Farm employees do not resist new management techniques and technologies
- (m)
- I do not see a relationship between the use of available technologies for my reality and the increase in financial gains
- (n)
- Technologies and management techniques help in farm management and improve production
- (o)
- Most of the pig production on my property depends on heavy use of technology
- (p)
- Technology is not important in pig production on my property
- (q)
- The technology I use on my property is sufficient to meet the market demand I am in
- (r)
- I always receive suppliers of machinery and equipment to find out what is currently in technology to apply on my property
- (s)
- I do not usually listen to students or professors from technical schools/universities about how to manage pigs or which technology to apply
- (t)
- Normally, students and professors from college bring updates on better management techniques and technology to apply on the farm, and I consider those that meet the needs of my reality.
Appendix B
Appendix C
- Explanatory text:
- Hello,
- I’m Michele Moreira, a master’s student in Agricultural Systems Engineering at USP Piracicaba/SP—ESALQ. I’m conducting a research on the use of electronic devices in pig production management to improve animal welfare. I would like to invite you to participate by answering a brief questionnaire. Your responses will be confidential and valuable to enhance the swine industry. If you’re interested, please access the questionnaire link. To provide further clarification, here’s a video explaining the research. If you have any questions or interest in the research, feel free to contact me on this WhatsApp number.
- Thank you for your consideration, and I hope to have your participation.
- Best regards,
- Michele
Appendix D
References
- FAO. Food Outlook: Biannual Report on Global Food Markets; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2023; Available online: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/food-outlook-biannual-report-global-food-markets-june-2023 (accessed on 20 March 2024).
- EMBRAPA. Brasil em 50 Alimentos. 2023. Available online: https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/doc/1153294/1/BRASIL-50-ALIMENTOS.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2023).
- ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE PROTEÍNA ANIMAL—ABPA. Relatório Anual 2023, 2023. Available online: https://abpa-br.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Relatorio-Anual-2023.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2023).
- Berckmans, D. General introduction to precision livestock farming. Anim. Front. 2017, 7, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BRASIL. Instrução Normativa nº 113, de 16 de Dezembro de 2020. 242. ed. Brasília, 18 dez. 2020. Seção 1, p. 5. Available online: https://abcs.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/INSTRU%C3%87%C3%83O-NORMATIVA-N%C2%BA-113-DE-16-DE-DEZEMBRO-DE-2020-BEA.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2024).
- Assmann, D.; Erig, A.; Vargas, P.; Santin, S.; Locatelli, M.L. Atendimento ao parto e cuidados no 1° dia de vida, desafios com a limitação da mão de obra e o seu impacto até o desmame na suinocultura. Rev. Inovação Gestão Tecnol. Agronegócio 2022, 1, 160–172. [Google Scholar]
- Gunnarsson, S.; Segerkvist, K.; Wallgren, T.; Hansson, H.; Sonesson, U. A systematic mapping of research on sustainability dimensions at farm-level in pig production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olde, E.; Carsjens, G.; Eilers, C. The role of collaborations in the development and implementation of sustainable livestock concepts in The Netherlands. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2017, 15, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vranken, E.; Berckmans, D. Precision livestock farming for pigs. Anim. Front. 2017, 7, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Souza Filho, H.M.; Buainain, A.M.; da Silveira, J.M.F.J.; Vinholis, M.D.M.B. Condicionantes da Adoção de Inovações Tecnológicas na Agricultura. Cad. Ciência Tecnol. 2011, 28, 223–255. [Google Scholar]
- Buddle, E.A.; Bray, H.J.; Ankeny, R.A. “Of course we care!”: A qualitative exploration of Australian livestock producers’ understandings of farm animal welfare issues. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 83, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garforth, C.; Rehman, T.; McKemey, K.; Tranter, R.; Cooke, R.; Yates, C.; Park, J.; Dorward, P. Improving the design of knowledge transfer strategies by understanding farmer attitudes and behaviour. J. Farm Manag. 2004, 12, 17–32. [Google Scholar]
- Hartung, J.; Banhazi, T.; Vranken, E.; Guarino, M. European farmers’ experiences with precision livestock farming systems. Anim. Front. 2017, 7, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russell, R.A.; Bewley, J.M. Producer assessment of dairy extension programming in Kentucky. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 2637–2647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvi, R.; Pereira, L.G.R.; Paiva, C.A.V.; Tomich, T.R.; Teixeira, V.A.; Sacramento, J.P.; Ferreira, R.E.P.; Coelho, S.G.; Machado, F.S.; Campos, M.M.; et al. Adoption of precision technologies by Brazilian dairy farms: The farmer’s perception. Animals 2021, 11, 3488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Naderifar, M.; Goli, H.; Ghaljaie, F. Snowball sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides Dev. Med. Educ. 2017, 14, e67670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcus, B.; Weigelt, O.; Hergert, J.; Gurt, J.; Gelléri, P. The use of snowball sampling for multi source organizational research: Some cause for concern. Pers. Psychol. 2017, 70, 635–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jääskeläinen, T.; Kauppinen, T.; Vesala, K.M.; Valros, A. Relationships between pig welfare, productivity and farmer disposition. Anim. Welf. 2014, 23, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen ML, V.; Wang, M.; Norton, T. Information technologies for welfare monitoring in pigs and their relation to Welfare Quality®. Sustainability 2021, 13, 692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monte, E.Z.; Teixeira, E.C. Determinantes da adoção da tecnologia de precisão na suinocultura catarinense. Rev. Econ. Agronegócio 2006, 4, 197–216. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, S.P.; Camerlink, I.; Baxter, E.M.; D’Eath, R.B.; Desire, S.; Roehe, R. Breeding for pig welfare: Opportunities and challenges. In Advances in Pig Welfare; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2023; pp. 429–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trindade, L.X.; de Castro Nunes, J.P. Condicionantes à absorção tecnológica em unidades agrícolas de produção de cacau do sul da Bahia. Estud. Soc. Agric. 2019, 27, 617–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albernaz-Gonçalves, R.; Olmos, G.; Hötzel, M.J. My pigs are ok, why change?—Animal welfare accounts of pig farmers. Animal 2021, 15, 100154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, V.D. A brief overview of qualitative research. In Qualitative Research and the Modern Library; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellendersen, L.d.S.N.; Granato, D.; Guergoletto, K.B.; Wosiacki, G. Development and sensory profile of a probiotic beverage from apple fermented with Lactobacillus casei. Eng. Life Sci. 2012, 12, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 2019, 11, 589–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alarcon, P.; Wieland, B.; Mateus, A.L.; Dewberry, C. Pig farmers’ perceptions, attitudes, influences and management of information in the decision-making process for disease control. Prev. Vet. Med. 2014, 116, 223–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Balzani, A.; Hanlon, A. Factors that influence farmers’ views on farm animal welfare: A semi-systematic review and thematic analysis. Animals 2020, 10, 1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pfeifer, M.; Koch, A.; Lensches, C.; Schmitt, A.O.; Hessel, E.F. Acceptance and feasibility of a guideline for the animal welfare assessment of fattening pigs. Animals 2020, 10, 711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pol, F.; Kling-Eveillard, F.; Champigneulle, F.; Fresnay, E.; Ducrocq, M.; Courboulay, V. Human–animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming. Animal 2021, 15, 100103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schukat, S.; von Plettenberg, L.; Heise, H. Animal welfare programs in Germany—An empirical study on the attitudes of pig farmers. Agriculture 2020, 10, 609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winkel, C.; von Meyer-Höfer, M.; Heise, H. Understanding German pig farmers’ intentions to design and construct pig housing for the improvement of animal welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gómez, Y.; Stygar, A.H.; Boumans, I.J.M.M.; Bokkers, E.A.M.; Pedersen, L.J.; Niemi, J.K.; Pastell, M.; Manteca, X.; Llonch, P. A systematic review on validated precision livestock farming technologies for pig production and its potential to assess animal welfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 660565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lippi, I.; Caldara, F.; Paz, I.; Odakura, A. Global and Brazilian scenario of guidelines and legislation on welfare in pig farming. Animals 2022, 12, 2615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moore, D.S.; Notz, W.I.; Fligner, M. A Estatística Básica e sua Prática, 9th ed.; Livros Técnicos e Científicos: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2023; p. 576. [Google Scholar]
- Nadlučnik, E.; Oven, I.; Tomažič, I.; Plut, J.; Dovč, A.; Stukelj, M. Discrepancies between farmers’ perceptions and actual animal welfare conditions on commercial pig farms. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 1010791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Q.; Guan, X.; Zhang, J.; Xu, Y. The role of rural infrastructure in reducing production costs and promoting resource-conserving agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrone, S.; Dimauro, C.; Gambella, F.; Cappai, M. Industry 4.0 and Precision Livestock Farming (PLF): An up to date overview across animal productions. Sensors 2022, 22, 4319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Racewicz, P.; Ludwiczak, A.; Skrzypczak, E.; Składanowska-Baryza, J.; Biesiada, H.; Nowak, T.; Nowaczewski, S.; Zaborowicz, M.; Stanisz, M.; Ślósarz, P. Welfare health and productivity in commercial pig herds. Animals 2021, 11, 1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzanidakis, C.; Simitzis, P.; Arvanitis, K.; Panagakis, P. An overview of the current trends in precision pig farming technologies. Livest. Sci. 2021, 249, 104530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinyemi, B.E.; Vigors, B.; Turner, S.P.; Akaichi, F.; Benjamin, M.; Johnson, A.K.; Siegford, J.M. Precision livestock farming: A qualitative exploration of swine industry stakeholders. Front. Anim. Sci. 2023, 4, 1150528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Silva, T.C.P.C.; Salomão, K.; Neves, A.M. A ética animal em Peter Singer e Tom Regan em virtude da problemática dos direitos universalizáveis dos animais. Rev. Diaphonía 2020, 6, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias, C.P.; da Silva, C.A.; Foppa, L.; Callegari, M.A.; Pierozan, C.R. Panorama brasileiro do bem-estar de suínos. Rev. Acadêmica Ciência Anim. 2018, 16, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, B.; Stewart, G.; Panzone, L.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, L. A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2016, 29, 455–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chellini, P.R.; Dias, L.S. Análise da legislação vigente para registro de protetores solares: Uma revisão. In Ebook do Ii Workshop do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência e Tecnologia Farmacêutica (CTECFAR) DA UFRJ; Faculdade de Farmácia—UFRJ: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2023; p. 85. Available online: http://farmaciauniversitaria.pharma.ufrj.br/images/E-book_do_II_Workshop_do_Programa_de_Pos-Graduacao_em_Ciencia_e_Tecnologia_Farmaceutica.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2023).
- Siegford, J.M. Precision livestock farming and technology in pig husbandry. In Advances in Pig Welfare; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2023; pp. 449–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- dos Santos, G.A.B.; da Silva, J.A.; de Melo, A.S.P.; Soares Ribeiro, S.K.; dos Santos, V.B.; Campos, G. Perfil dos produtores rurais no Brasil: Uma análise comparativa entre os censos agropecuários de 2006 e 2017. Rev. Científica Agropampa 2021, 1, 66–85. [Google Scholar]
- Schodl, K.; Leeb, C.; Winckler, C. Developing science–industry collaborations into a transdisciplinary process: A case study on improving sustainability of pork production. Sustain. Sci. 2015, 10, 639–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Profiles | Questions |
---|---|
1. Producer | 01 to 05 |
2. Economic of the company | 06 to 11 |
3. Company Structure/Information System | 12 to 15 |
4. Welfare Concepts and Precision Livestock Farming | 16: a, b, d, h, i |
5. Legislative knowledge | 16: c, m, p |
6. Technological | 16: e to t (except the ones already mentioned) |
Profiles | Analysis |
---|---|
1. Producer | Identifying the relationship between the education and experience of the interviewees in influencing company structures and animal welfare. |
3. Company Structure/Information System | |
6. Technological | |
4. Welfare Concepts and Precision Livestock Farming | Relating the understanding of technology adoption, compliance with laws for animal welfare, and the perception of academic contribution to technological improvement. |
5. Legislative knowledge | |
6. Technological | |
2. Economic of the company | Perception of the economic factor in the adoption of animal welfare and technology. |
4. Welfare Concepts and Precision Livestock Farming | |
6. Technological |
Demographics | N | % |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 24 | 100 |
Female | 0 | 0 |
Work experience | ||
Up to 10 years | 8 | 33.3 |
Between 11 and 20 years | 3 | 12.5 |
Between 21 and 30 years | 10 | 41.7 |
More than 30 years | 3 | 12.5 |
Educational background | ||
Completed Elementary School (1st grade) | 1 | 4.2 |
Completed High School (2nd grade) | 5 | 20.8 |
Incomplete Higher Education | 7 | 29.2 |
Completed Higher Education | 8 | 33.3 |
Postgraduate | 3 | 12.5 |
Role on the farm | ||
Owner or partner | 15 | 62.5 |
Manager or supervisor | 9 | 37.5 |
Property | ||
---|---|---|
Production Type | Independent | Integrated/Cooperative |
Number of farms | ||
Only 1 | 0 | 10 |
Between 2 and 3 | 6 | 4 |
Between 4 and 5 | 1 | 2 |
More than 5 | 1 | 0 |
Production Model | ||
Complete cycle | 5 | 0 |
Sow Unit (SU) | 2 | 7 |
Finishing Unit (FU) | 1 | 9 |
Number of sows: | ||
Less than 100 | 0 | 5 |
Between 301 and 600 | 1 | 1 |
601 to 1200 | 0 | 7 |
More than 2000 | 7 | 1 |
Unable to answer | 0 | 2 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Moreira, M.d.R.; Trabachini, A.; Amorim, M.d.N.; Harada, É.d.S.; da Silva, M.A.; Silva-Miranda, K.O.d. The Perception of Brazilian Livestock Regarding the Use of Precision Livestock Farming for Animal Welfare. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081315
Moreira MdR, Trabachini A, Amorim MdN, Harada ÉdS, da Silva MA, Silva-Miranda KOd. The Perception of Brazilian Livestock Regarding the Use of Precision Livestock Farming for Animal Welfare. Agriculture. 2024; 14(8):1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081315
Chicago/Turabian StyleMoreira, Michele da Rocha, Aldie Trabachini, Magno do Nascimento Amorim, Érik dos Santos Harada, Marcelo Andrade da Silva, and Késia Oliveira da Silva-Miranda. 2024. "The Perception of Brazilian Livestock Regarding the Use of Precision Livestock Farming for Animal Welfare" Agriculture 14, no. 8: 1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081315
APA StyleMoreira, M. d. R., Trabachini, A., Amorim, M. d. N., Harada, É. d. S., da Silva, M. A., & Silva-Miranda, K. O. d. (2024). The Perception of Brazilian Livestock Regarding the Use of Precision Livestock Farming for Animal Welfare. Agriculture, 14(8), 1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081315