Assessing attitudes towards welfare and pain in farm animals
Abstract
Within the livestock sector, farmers and veterinarians are two groups of people who
play a pivotal role in maintaining the health and welfare of animals. How the different
welfare needs of farm animals are perceived and prioritised by these two caretaker
groups will have direct implications for the animals in their care. People’s perceptions
and attitudes directly influence their behaviour, and research has demonstrated that
positive attitudes towards animals are paramount to ensuring good animal welfare.
The prevention and mitigation of pain is an important component to ensuring good
animal welfare, as pain has the potential to negatively affect both physical and mental
health. How pain in animals is perceived by farmers and vets will influence how it is
managed. Therefore, understanding how farmers and vets: view the capacity of animals
to experience pain, perceive the pain severity associated with different conditions and
procedures, view the importance of pain mitigation in relation to other welfare needs,
and deem the necessity of analgesic use in livestock, is vital. Four separate
questionnaire based studies were conducted to assess these attitudes in farmers and
veterinarians as well as in agriculture and veterinary students, as these students will be
the next generation of farmers and veterinarians.
Overall, farmers and vets were found to have positive attitudes towards pain in
livestock. Although the capacity of cattle and sheep to feel pain was perceived to be
lower than that of humans it was still rated highly. In addition, positive beliefs about
the benefits of pain alleviation, the negative impacts of pain on production and welfare,
and the importance of prompt treatment and pain management for good welfare were
held. Cattle farmers had more positive attitudes towards pain and analgesic use than
sheep farmers. This difference was most evident around areas of resource availability,
such as time and labour, and the practicalities associated with pain identification and
drug provision. Farmers, vets and students perceived lameness to be a painful condition, with the perceived severity of pain being closely related to the perceived
severity of the disease. In addition, participants reported a greater emotional reaction in
instances where they rated lameness and pain more highly. Furthermore, a positive
relationship was found between lameness, pain and emotional reaction scores and the
decision to catch a lame sheep for inspection. The majority of students had positive
views towards pain in farm animals, believing that: farm animals were capable of
experiencing pain, prompt treatment and the provision of pain relief were the two most
important elements of welfare, and that farm animals benefit from pain alleviation.
However, there was a perceived difference between a number of animal species in their
capacity to feel pain, with livestock species being viewed as having a lesser capacity
than companion animals and humans. In addition effects of gender were found, with
females reporting higher levels of empathy and compassion towards lame sheep, and
rating pain higher. Furthermore, female students had a stronger belief that animals
were sentient beings than did males.
These four studies found that views on pain and analgesic use in livestock were
generally positive. However, differences between individuals and between groups
were found in a number of areas including how observers perceived the severity of
painful conditions and procedures and in the capacity of different animal species to
experience pain. These differences in attitudes may affect the decisions farmers and
vets make regarding the treatment of pain, which is likely to have implications for farm
animal welfare.