Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:31:09.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sheep farmers’ attitudes to farm inspections and the role of sanctions and rewards as motivation to reduce the prevalence of lameness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2023

NLBH Liu ,
J Kaler ,
E Ferguson ,
H O’Kane  and
LE Green
NLBH Liu*
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
J Kaler
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, UK
E Ferguson
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
H O’Kane
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
LE Green
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: N.L.B.H.Liu@warwick.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations (2007) make it an offence to allow unnecessary suffering to animals, highlighting that farmers have a duty of care for their livestock. Despite this, the current global mean prevalence of lameness in sheep in England is 5%; ie ~750,000 lame adult sheep at any time. To investigate farmers’ attitudes to sanctions and rewards as drivers to reduce the prevalence of lameness in sheep, farmers’ attitudes to external inspections, acceptable prevalence of lameness and attitudes on outcomes from inspections were investigated using a self-administered questionnaire. A total of 43/102 convenience-selected English sheep farmers responded to the questionnaire. Their median flock size was 500 ewes with a geometric mean prevalence of lameness of 2.8%. Few farmers selected correct descriptions of the legislation for treatment and transport of lame sheep. Participants considered 5-7.5% prevalence of lameness acceptable and were least tolerant of farmers who rarely treated lameness and most tolerant of farmers experiencing an incident out of their control, eg disease outbreak. Participants consider sanctions and rewards would help to control lameness on sheep farms in England. Sanctions (prosecution, reduction in payment from the single [basic] payment scheme or suspension from a farm assurance scheme) were considered ‘fair’ when lameness was ≥ 10% and rewards ‘fair’ when lameness was ≤ 2%. If these farmers’ attitudes are applied to 1,300 randomly selected flocks with a mean prevalence of lameness of 3.5%, 24.6% of flocks that had ≥ 10% lameness would be sanctioned and 32.5% of flocks that had ≤ 2% lameness would be rewarded.

Keywords

animal welfareattitudeslamenesslegislationrewardssanctions
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 67 - 79
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

Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) 2008 Flock health planning in the West Midlands. A Report for Defra FFG. ADAS UK Ltd: Wolverhampton, UKGoogle Scholar
Animal Welfare Act 2006 c 45. www.legislation.gov.ukGoogle Scholar
Balliet, D, Mulder, LB and Van Lange, PA 2011 Reward, pun-ishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 137(4): 594–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023489CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellet, C, Woodnutt, J, Green, LE and Kaler, J 2015 Preventative services offered by veterinarians on sheep farms in England and Wales: Opinions and drivers for proactive flock health planning. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 122(4): 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.07.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaser, J and Cornuz, J 2015 Experts’ consensus on use of elec-tronic cigarettes: a Delphi survey from Switzerland. BMJ Open 5(4): e007197. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, C, Wood, J and Ferguson, E 2016 Individual differences in loss aversion: conscientiousness predicts how life satisfaction responds to losses versus gains in income. Personality and Social Pyschology Bulletin 42: 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216634060CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, CCA, Crump, RE, KilBride, AL and Green, LE 2016 Farm membership of voluntary welfare schemes results in better compliance with animal welfare legislation in Great Britain. Animal Welfare 25(4): 461–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council Regulation (EC) 2004 No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. www.eur-lex.europa.euGoogle Scholar
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) 2011 Non-formal consultation on proposals to reform the animal welfare inspection regime. Defra: UKGoogle Scholar
Defra 2013 Consultation on the reform of farm animal welfare codes. Defra: UKGoogle Scholar
Defra 2014 Independent farming regulation task force. Implementation group: Final assessment of progress. Defra: UKGoogle Scholar
Defra 2015a The guide to cross compliance in England. Defra: UKGoogle Scholar
Dickins, A, Clark, CCA, Kaler, J, Ferguson, E, O’Kane, H and Green, LE 2016 Factors associated with the presence and preva-lence of contagious ovine digital dermatitis: A 2013 study of 1136 random English sheep flocks. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 130:86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.06.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, GR and Staelin, R 1994 A Model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research 21(1): 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1086/209386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) 2011 Opinion on lameness in sheep. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E and Gachter, S 2002 Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415(6868): 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1038/415137aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, E and Starmer, C 2013 Incentives, expertise and medical decisions: Testing the robustness of natureal frequency framing. Health Psychology 9: 967–977. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, E, Taylor, M, Keatley, D, Flynn, N and Lawrence, C 2012 Blood donors’ helping behavior is driven by warm glow: more evidence for the blood donor benevolence hypothesis. Transfusion 52(10): 2189–2200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03557.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischhoff, B, Slovic, P and Lichtenstein, S 1978 How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards techno-logical risks and benefits. Policy Science 9: 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J, Scott, M and Nolan, AM 2006 Assessment of pain and welfare in sheep. Small Ruminant Research 62(1): 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.07.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, TR and Bass, MJ 1992 Determinants of maternal tol-erance of vaccine-related risks. Family Practice 9(1): 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/9.1.36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gneezy, U, Meier, S and Rey, P 2011 When and why incentives don't work to modify behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives 25:191–210. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, P, Waterhouse, T, Dwyer, C and Stott, A 2006 The perception of the welfare of sheep in extensive systems. Small Ruminant Research 62(3): 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.small-rumres.2005.08.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, LE, Kaler, J, Wassink, GJ, King, EM and Grogono, TR 2012 Impact of rapid treatment of sheep lame with footrot on welfare and economics and farmer attitudes to lameness in sheep. Animal Welfare 21: 65–71. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurerk, O, Irlenbusch, B and Rockenbach, B 2006 The com-petitive advantage of sanctioning institutions. Science 312(5770): 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1123633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, BB 2003 Communicating air quality information: Experimental evaluation of alternative formats. Risk Analysis 23:91–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00292CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D 2011 Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D and Tversky, A 1979 Prospect theory: an analy-sis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaler, J and Green, LE 2008a Recognition of lameness and decisions to catch for inspection among sheep farmers and specialists in GB. BMC Veterinary Research 4(41). https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-4-41. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-4-41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaler, J and Green, LE 2008b Naming and recognition of six foot lesions of sheep using written and pictorial information: A study of 809 English sheep farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 83(1): 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pre-vetmed.2007.06.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaler, J and Green, LE 2013 Sheep farmer opinions on the cur-rent and future role of veterinarians in flock health management on sheep farms: A qualitative study. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 112(3–4): 370–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pre-vetmed.2013.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaler, J, Wassink, GJ and Green, LE 2009 The inter- and intra-observer reliability of a locomotion scoring scale for sheep. Veterinary Journal 180(2): 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.12.028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KilBride, AL, Mason, SA, Honeyman, PC, Pritchard, DG, Hepple, S and Green, LE 2012 Associations between membership of farm assurance and organic certification schemes and compliance with animal welfare legislation. The Veterinary Record 170(6): 152CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, EM 2013 Lameness in English lowland sheep flocks: farmer's perspectives and behaviour. PhD Thesis, University of Warwick, UKGoogle Scholar
King, EM and Green, LE 2011 Assessment of farmer recognition and reporting of lameness in adults in 35 lowland sheep flocks in England. Animal Welfare 20: 321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, T, Moody, R and McEachern, MG 2007 European food scares and their impact on EU food policy. British Food Journal 109(1): 43–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710718507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ley, SJ, Livingston, A and Waterman, AE 1989 The effect of chronic clinical pain on thermal and mechanical thresholds in sheep. Pain 3: 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(89)90049-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotem, A, Fishman, MA and Stone, L 1999 Evolution of coop-eration between individuals. Nature 400(6741): 226–227. https://doi.org/10.1038/22247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C and Young, C 2000 ‘Seed to shelf’, ‘teat to table’, ‘bar-ley to beer’ and ‘womb to tomb’: discourses of food quality and quality assurance schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 16(1): 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00044-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Farmers Union (NFU) 2015 NFU review of livestock farm inspections in England. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: London, UKGoogle Scholar
O’Kane, H, Ferguson, E, Kaler, J and Green, LE 2017 Associations between sheep farmer attitudes, beliefs, emotions and personality, and their barriers to uptake of best practice: The example of footrot. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 139: 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.05.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) 2013a RSPCA welfare standards for sheep. RSPCA: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
RSPCA 2013b RSPCA Prosecutions Department Annual Report: Justice for Animals. RSPCA: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
Sjoberg, L 2000 Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis 20(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P 1987 Perception of risk. Science 236(4799): 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P and Peters, E 2006 Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(6): 322–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) 2015 The guide to cross compliance in England 2015. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. National Archives: Richmond, UKGoogle Scholar
The Veterinary Record 2016 Industry ‘disappointed’ as Defra backtracks on welfare codes. Journal of the British Veterinary Association 178(16): 383Google Scholar
The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006 No 3260. www.legislation.gov.ukGoogle Scholar
The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 No 2078. www.legislation.gov.ukGoogle Scholar
Traulsen, A, Rohl, T and Milinski, M 2012 An economic experiment reveals that humans prefer pool punishment to maintain the commons. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279(1743): 3716–3721. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0937CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D 1974 Judgement under uncer-tainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185: 11124–11131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124Google Scholar
Wassink, GJ, Grogono, TR, Moore, LJ and Green, LE 2003 Risk factors associated with the prevalence of footrot in sheep from 1999 to 2000. Veterinary Record 152(12): 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.152.12.351CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wassink, GJ, King, EM, Grogono-Thomas, R, Brown, JC, Moore, LJ and Green, LE 2010 A within farm clinical trial to compare two treatments (parenteral antibacterials and hoof trim-ming) for sheep lame with footrot. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 96(1–2): 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, JR, Kaler, J, Ferguson, E, KilBride, AL and Green, LE 2015 Changes in prevalence of, and risk factors for, lameness in random samples of English sheep flocks: 2004–2013. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 122(1–2): 121–128CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, JD, Holder, JS and Main, DCJ 1998 Quality Assurance schemes. Meat Science 49 Supplement 1: S191–S203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)90048-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar