Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T05:13:03.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mapping farm animal welfare education at university level in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

G Illmann*
Affiliation:
Department of Ethology, Institute of Animal Science, Prague, Czech Republic
L Keeling
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Environment and Health, Uppsala, Sweden
M Melišová
Affiliation:
Department of Ethology, Institute of Animal Science, Prague, Czech Republic
M Šimečková
Affiliation:
Biometric Unit, Institute of Animal Science, Prague, Czech Republic
V Ilieski
Affiliation:
Department of Functional Morphology, Faculty for Veterinary Medicine, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
C Winckler
Affiliation:
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, Vienna, Austria
L Košt’ál
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Biochemistry and Genetics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Ivanka pri Dunaji, Slovakia
M-C Meunier-Salaün
Affiliation:
INRA-Agrocampus Ouest, UMRI348 PEGASE 35590, Saint-Gilles, France
Š Mihina
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Slovakia
H Spoolder
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands
G Fthenakis
Affiliation:
Veterinary Faculty, University of Thessaly, Karditsa, Greece
R Šárová
Affiliation:
Department of Ethology, Institute of Animal Science, Prague, Czech Republic
M Špinka
Affiliation:
Department of Ethology, Institute of Animal Science, Prague, Czech Republic
*
* Contact for correspondence and request for reprints: gudrun.illmann@vuzv.cz

Abstract

The aim of this study was to map farm animal welfare university education in an enlarged Europe with emphasis on identifying existing differences and gaps. Information on 210 courses dealing with farm animal welfare from 98 universities in 26 European countries were obtained. Statistical analysis was carried out on 155 of these courses within animal science or veterinary programmes, at Bachelor and Master level and with the countries grouped into five regions (North West Europe, Mediterranean, West Central Europe, East Central Europe and Balkans). There were significantly more hours of teaching in animal welfare in the North West region of Europe. This region also had more ‘interactive’ education methods, eg group discussion and farm visits, whereas West Central Europe had most ‘transmissive’ methods, eg lecturing. A course was more likely to be given in English in North West Europe (even when the UK and the Republic of Ireland were excluded from the analysis) and East Central Europe compared to West Central Europe and the Balkans. There appeared to be no regional differences in the content of the courses although the focus was significantly more ‘applied’, ie towards welfare assessment and legislation in the veterinary education and more ‘fundamental’, ie oriented towards ethology, physiology and ethics, in the animal science education. In summary, the main differences in farm animal welfare education across Europe seem to be in the reduced number of hours of education, less interactive teaching and fewer courses in English available to students outside the North West region.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2014 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

Abood, SK and Siegford, JM 2012 Student perceptions of an animal-welfare and ethics course taught early in the veterinary curriculum. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 39: 136141. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0911.093R1Google ScholarPubMed
Briyne, N 2011 Animal welfare teaching in European veterinary faculties. European Commission of the Second OIE Global Conference on Animal Welfare: Putting the OIE Standards to Work pp 290. 20-22 October, 2008, Cairo, EgyptGoogle Scholar
Clark, K 2010 Farm animal welfare: changing the veterinary focus. Veterinary Record 167: 594594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.c5640Google ScholarPubMed
Eurobarometer 2007 Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal wel-fare. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Evans, A and Miele, M 2007 Consumers’ views about farm animal welfare. National reports based on focus group research. Welfare Quality Report No 4 ISBN 1-902647-75-0. Welfare Quality: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Evans, A and Miele, M 2008 Consumers’ views about farm animal wel-fare. Part II: European compative report based on focus group research. Welfare Quality Report No 5. Welfare Quality: Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the inextricable connection. Animal Welfare 4: 103117Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Duncan, IJH, Edwards, SA, Grandin, T, Gregory, NG, Guyonnet, V, Hemsworth, PH, Huertas, SM, Huzzey, JM, Mellor, DJ, Mench, JA, Špinka, M and Whay, HR 2013 General principles for the welfare of animals in production sys-tems: the underlying science and its application. The Veterinary Journal 198: 1927. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.06.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, LA 1961 Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 32: 148170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148Google Scholar
Gurler, AM 2007 Animal welfare education in Turkey. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 34: 633638. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.34.5.633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazel, SJ, Signal, TD and Taylor, N 2011 Can teaching veterinary and animal-science students about animal welfare affect their attitude toward animals and human-related empathy? Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 38: 7483. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.38.1.74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewson, CJ, Baranyiova, E, Broom, DM, Cockram, MS, Galindo, F, Hanlon, AJ, Hanninen, L, Lexer, D, Mellor, DJ, Molento, CFM, Odberg, FO, Serpell, JA, Sisto, AM, Stafford, KJ, Stookey, JM and Waldau, P 2005 Approaches to teaching animal welfare at 13 veterinary schools worldwide. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 32: 422437. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.32.4.422Google ScholarPubMed
Ingenbleek, PTM, Immink, VM, Spoolder, HAM, Bokma, MH and Keeling, LJ 2012 EU farm animal welfare policy: devel-oping a comprehensive policy framework. Food Policy 37: 690699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, LK and Walker, JB 2009 An approach to teaching animal welfare issues at the Ohio State University. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 36: 276279. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.36.3.276Google ScholarPubMed
Lund, V 1997 Postgraduate teaching in farm animal welfare and ethics. Animal Welfare 6: 105121Google Scholar
Main, DCJ 2010 Evolution of animal-welfare education for veteri-nary students. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 37: 3035. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.37.1.30Google Scholar
Molento, CFM and Calderon, N 2009 Essential directions for teaching animal welfare in South America. Revue Scientifique et Technique: Office International des Epizooties 28: 617625Google ScholarPubMed
Paul, ES and Podberscek, AL 2000 Veterinary education and students’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record 146:269272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.10.269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, C, Izmirli, S, Aldavood, J, Alonso, M, Choe, B, Hanlon, A, Handziska, A, Illmann, G, Keeling, L, Kennedy, M, Lee, G, Lund, V, Mejdell, C, Pelagic, V and Rehn, T 2012 Students’ attitudes to animal welfare and rights in Europe and Asia. Animal Welfare 21: 87100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, JR and Nelson, JM 2007 Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology 34: 253258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986280701700391CrossRefGoogle Scholar