Influences on Perceived Feasibility of Animal-Based Measures in a Producer-Driven Welfare Benchmarking System

TL;DR

Australian beef cattle producers believe animal welfare measures are important, but feasibility of data collection depends on farm size and attitudes toward animal quality of life.

Contribution

Identifies factors influencing perceived feasibility of animal-based welfare data collection in a voluntary benchmarking system.

Findings

Feasibility of collecting animal-based data is linked to farm size and attitudes toward animal quality of life.

Producers who value cattle quality of life more are more likely to perceive data collection as feasible.

Educational programs can improve adoption of welfare benchmarking systems.

Abstract

Ongoing consumer support of the Australian red meat industry requires the industry to be transparent and accountable about the welfare of beef cattle under production. We conducted an online survey of Australian pasture-based beef cattle producers to determine the welfare measures they thought were important to include in a welfare benchmarking system and the feasibility of self-collecting animal-based data. Overall, the perceived feasibility of collecting animal-based data was related to land size and herd size, the producers’ overall attitude about the importance of quality of life in food-producing animals and the importance of individual cattle welfare measures to that producer. 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 welfare benchmarking system.

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 (n = 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 (p < 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.

Figures