Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T10:23:22.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finnish cattle and pig farmers’ perceptions of animal welfare inspections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

S Väärikkälä ,
S-M Artukka ,
L Hänninen  and
M Nevas
S Väärikkälä*
Affiliation:
Department of Food Hygiene and Environmental Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, PO Box 66 (Agnes Sjöbergin katu 2), 00014 Helsinki, Finland
S-M Artukka
Affiliation:
Department of Food Hygiene and Environmental Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, PO Box 66 (Agnes Sjöbergin katu 2), 00014 Helsinki, Finland
L Hänninen
Affiliation:
Department of Production Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, PO Box 57 (Viikintie 49), 00014 Helsinki, Finland Research Centre for Animal Welfare, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, PO Box 57, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
M Nevas
Affiliation:
Department of Food Hygiene and Environmental Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, PO Box 66 (Agnes Sjöbergin katu 2), 00014 Helsinki, Finland
*
∗ Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: sofia.vaarikkala@helsinki.fi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to broaden the understanding of Finnish cattle and pig farmers’ perceptions of the on-site animal welfare inspections carried out by official authorities in livestock farms. The study was conducted using an electronic questionnaire, aimed at 500 Finnish cattle and 500 pig farmers. Responses were received from 96 cattle farmers and 105 pig farmers, of which 20 and 55, respectively, had undergone an animal welfare inspection. It was found that most of the farmers recognised the need for animal welfare inspections, but also that a more negative attitude was prevalent among farmers who had undergone these inspections. The inspection itself was a far more negative experience if the farmer had not understood the reason for the inspection, no opportunity existed to be heard, or the findings of the report were found to be unclear. The results suggest that although the farmers generally approve of inspections, their own negative experiences affect their perceptions. Moving forward, efforts should be made by inspectors to enhance the level of communication, thereby ensuring the findings of the report are clear to the farmer.

Keywords

animal welfarecattlefarmers’ perceptionslivestock farmeron-farm inspectionspigs
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 369 - 377
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ådahl, S 2007 Good lives, hidden miseries, an ethnography of uncer-tainty in a Finnish village. Research Reports no 250. Helsinki University Printing Press: Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Administrative Procedure Act 2003 Administrative Procedure Act 434/2003. http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2003/en20030434.pdfGoogle Scholar
Animal Welfare Act 1996 Animal Welfare Act 247/1996. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1996/en19960247.pdfGoogle Scholar
Anneberg, I, Vaarst, M and Sandøe, P 2013 To inspect, to motivate - Or to do both? A dilemma for on-farm inspection of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 22: 185–194. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.2.185Google Scholar
Anneberg, I, Vaarst, M and Sørensen, JT 2012 The experien-ce of animal welfare inspections as perceived by Danish livestock farmers: A qualitative research approach. Livestock Science 147:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.03.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, BB and van Huick, MM 2007 Animal welfare: the attitu-des and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109: 931–944. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835732Google Scholar
Bock, BB, Van Huik, MM, Prutzer, M, Kling Eveillard, F and Dockes, A 2007 Farmers’ relationship with different animals: the importance of getting close to the animals. Case studies of French, Swedish and Dutch cattle, pig and poultry farmers. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15: 108–125Google Scholar
Bracke, MBM, de Greef, KH and Hopster, H 2005 Qualitative stakeholder analysis for the development of sustainable monito-ring systems for farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-004-3085-2Google Scholar
Council Directive 1998 Council Directive 98/58/EC Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for far-ming purposes. Official Journal of the European Communities 221: 23–27Google Scholar
Council Directive 2008a Council Directive 2008/119/EC Council Directive 2008/119/EC laying down minimum standards for the pro-tection of calves. Official Journal of the European Union 10: 7–13Google Scholar
Council Directive 2008b Council Directive 2008/120/EC Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Union 47: 5–13Google Scholar
ETT 2017 Animal Health ETT. https://www.ett.fi/sisalto/ett-englishGoogle Scholar
Evira 2016 Eläinten hyvinvoinnin valvonta 2015. https://www.evira.fi/globalassets/tietoa-evirasta/esittely/toiminta/val-vonta/2015/elainten-hyvinvoinnin-valvonta-2015.pdf. [Title translati-on: Animal welfare control in 2015]Google Scholar
Hitchens, PL, Hultgren, J, Frössling, J, Emanuelson, U and Keeling, LJ 2017 An epidemiological analysis of equine welfare data from regulatory inspections by the official competent authorities. Animal 11: 1237–1248. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116002512Google ScholarPubMed
Kettunen, K, Lundén, J, Läikkö-Roto, T and Nevas, M 2017 Towards more consistent and effective food control: learning from the views of food business operators. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 27: 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2017.1332351CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kettunen, K, Nevas, M and Lunden, J 2015 Effectiveness of enforcement measures in local food control in Finland. Food Control 56: 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.03.005Google Scholar
Läikkö-Roto, T and Nevas, M 2014 Restaurant business opera-tors’ knowledge of food hygiene and their attitudes toward offici-al food control affect the hygiene in their restaurants. Food Contro l 43: 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.02.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepistö, O and Hänninen, M-L 2011 Effects of legal aspects on the use of compulsory procedures in environmental health and food control. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 11: 127–134Google Scholar
María, GA 2006 Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livestock Science 103: 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2006.05.011Google Scholar
Nevas, M, Kalenius, S and Lundén, J 2013 Significance of offici-al food control in food safety: Food business operators’ percepti-ons. Food Control 31: 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.food-cont.2012.09.041Google Scholar
O'cathain, A and Thomas, KJ 2004 ‘Any other comments?’ Open questions on questionnaires – a bane or a bonus to rese-arch? BMC Medical Research Methodology 4: 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-25Google ScholarPubMed
Official Statistics of Finland 2017a Number of cattle and pigs 1 December 2015. Natural Resources Institute: Helsinki, Finland. http://stat.luke.fi/en/number-cattle-and-pigs-1-december-2015_enGoogle Scholar
Official Statistics of Finland 2017b Structure of agricultural and horticultural enterprises. Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute. Helsinki: Finland. http://stat.luke.fi/en/structure-of-agricultural-and-horticultural-enterprisesGoogle Scholar
Regulation (EC) 2004 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls performed to ensure the verification of comp-liance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. Official Journal of the European Union 165: 1–141Google Scholar
Sørensen, JT and Fraser, D 2010 On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: issues and possible solutions. Livestock Science 131: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.025Google Scholar
Wahlberg, B 2010 Djurskyddsövervakningen i Finland åren 1996-2006 gällande produktions- och slaktdjur. Juridiska Föreningen i Finland 4: 351–404. [Title translation: Animal welfa-re control concerning production and slaughter animals in Finland 1996-2006]Google Scholar