bioRxiv preprint first posted online Jul. 30, 2018; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/380550. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
1
1
Full title: How do citizens perceive farm animal welfare conditions in Brazil?
2
Short title: Citizens’ perceptions about animal welfare
3
Ricardo Guimarães de Queiroz1¶, Carla Heloisa de Faria Domingues1¶, Maria Eugênia Andrighetto
4
Canozzi2¶, Rodrigo Garófallo Garcia1&, Clandio Favarini Ruviaro1&, Júlio Otávio Jardim Barcellos2&,
5
João Augusto Rossi Borges1¶*
6
1Federal
University of Grande Dourados, Dourados, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
7
2Centro
de Estudos e Pesquisas em Agronegócios, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto
8
Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
9
* Corresponding author
10
E-mail:
[email protected] (JARB)
11
¶
12
&
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
These authors contributed equally to this work. These authors also contributed equally to this work.
bioRxiv preprint first posted online Jul. 30, 2018; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/380550. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
2
31
Abstract
32
The aim of this study is to understand the perceptions of Brazilian citizens about the actual conditions
33
of farm animal welfare in the poultry, beef, and dairy supply chains. To reach this aim, an online
34
survey was conducted. The analysis was based on descriptive statistics and three logistic regressions
35
models. Results of descriptive statistics showed that citizens in Brazil had mostly negative perceptions
36
about the actual conditions of animal welfare in the poultry, beef, and dairy supply chains. Results of
37
the logistic regression models showed that in the poultry and dairy supply chains, citizens with
38
background in agricultural/veterinary sciences, and citizens who reported a higher level of knowledge
39
about these supply chains, were more likely to perceive as bad the actual conditions of farm animal
40
welfare. In the poultry supply chain, citizens who reported previous contact with poultry farms were
41
also more likely to perceive as bad the actual condition of farm animal welfare. In addition, the
42
perception that farmers are mainly focused on the economic aspect of farming and less on animal
43
welfare, the perception that animals do not have a good quality of life while housed on farms, and the
44
perception that animals are not adequately transported and slaughtered, negatively impact on
45
perceptions about the actual conditions of farm animal welfare in the three supply chains. We
46
concluded that a protocol aimed to improve citizens’ perceptions about the actual conditions of farm
47
animal welfare should focus in all phases of the supply chains.
48
Introduction
49
In the last decades, there is an increasing public concern about the welfare of animals used for
50
food production, with citizens, particularly from developed countries, questioning the intensification of
51
animal production systems and requiring that farm animals have a good life [1]. In some countries,
52
pressure from society has led to changes in animal production systems, which resulted in
53
improvements of farm animal welfare (FAW) standards [1 – 3]. However, in some cases, changes in
54
animal production systems may not be well suited for all stakeholders in food supply chains [4].
55
Therefore, if we want to successfully implement strategies to improve FAW standards, it is important
56
to understand the concerns and perceptions of all stakeholders involved in food supply chains [1].
57
Particularly important is the understanding of society’ perceptions about FAW, because citizens play
58
an important role in determining what is acceptable or not when it comes to FAW. For instance,
59
citizens can pressure the government to implement laws to improve the welfare of animals used for
bioRxiv preprint first posted online Jul. 30, 2018; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/380550. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
3
60
food production or they can choose to buy certain type of products that guarantee good FAW standards
61
[5].
62
A common approach used by researchers to investigate societal attitudes and perceptions is to
63
carry on surveys about a specific farming practices or animal production systems that impact on FAW
64
[4, 6–11]. Another approach is to carry on surveys to investigate more general perceptions (e.g.
65
awareness) about FAW [12–16]. Most of these studies are conducted in developed countries in Europe
66
and North America. In Brazil, one of the leading countries in livestock production, studies on society
67
perceptions about FAW are emerging but there is a need to deeper our understanding of how Brazilian
68
society perceives FAW conditions. Previous research conducted in Brazil has focused on citizens’
69
perceptions about specific farming practices [3, 17] and animal production systems that impact on
70
FAW [18]. Our study moves beyond the previous literature by focusing on Brazilian citizens’
71
perceptions about the actual conditions of FAW on poultry, beef, and dairy supply chains and in the
72
factors that might explain their perceptions. These factors include socio-demographic characteristics,
73
awareness about animal welfare, knowledge about supply chains, perceptions about farming,
74
perceptions about the quality of life of farm animals, perceptions about the use of animals for human
75
consumption and perceptions about the conditions of transport and slaughtering in each supply chain.
76
Therefore, the aim of this was to understand the perceptions of Brazilian citizens about the actual
77
conditions of farm animal welfare in the poultry, beef, and dairy supply chains.
78
Material and methods
79
Survey and sampling
80
We developed three similar questionnaires: one for poultry supply chain, one for beef supply
81
chain, and one for dairy supply chain. The questionnaires consisted of three groups of questions. In the
82
first group, we measured participants’ socio-demographic characteristics. In the second group, we
83
measured participants’ perceptions about the actual conditions of FAW on each supply chain and other
84
questions related to animal welfare. All the variables and scales used are presented in S1 Table. In the
85
third group, we used statements to measure participants’ perceptions about animal welfare. The
86
statements were adapted from Boogaard et al. [12]. Statements used to measure participants’
87
perceptions are presented in S2 Table. All questions and statements were specifically adapted for each
88
of the three supply chains. This project received research ethics board approval from Federal
bioRxiv preprint first posted online Jul. 30, 2018; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/380550. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
4
89
University of Grande Dourados/Faculty of Management, Accounting and Economics. Before starting
90
data collection, the questionnaire was tested with 20 participants. All the questions were translated to
91
Portuguese.
92
To collect the data, we conducted an anonymous online survey. In a first step, we contacted
93
by phone human resource departments in several universities across Brazil. In this first contact, we
94
explained the purpose of our research, and asked if the department would forward a survey link for the
95
personal e-mail of students, professors and administration staff. Upon acceptance, we sent a follow-up
96
e-mail to human resource departments with the survey link and a brief description of the research,
97
which was then disseminated online for the academic community. Each university disseminated the
98
questionnaire of only one supply chain. We received 1.617 questionnaires of which three were
99
disregarded because they were incomplete. The final number of questionnaires was 728 for the poultry
100
supply chain, 586 for the beef supply chain, and 300 for the dairy supply chain. The data collection
101
took place from November 2016 until December 2017.
102
Statistical analysis
103
Statistical analysis was conducted in two steps. In a first step, we used factor analysis to
104
reduce the number of items used to represent participants’ perceptions about animal welfare. Principal
105
component was used as the extraction method. The criterion to define the number of factors was an
106
eigenvalue greater than one [19]. Items were included in a factor when they presented factor loadings
107
greater than 0.5. Factors scores were generated for subsequent analysis [19].
108
In a second step, we run three logistic regression models. The three dependent variables were
109
participants’ perceptions about the actual conditions of FAW on each supply chain. In the original
110
questionnaires, this variable was measured in a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (S1 Table). In order to run the
111
logistic models, we transformed the variable participants’ perceptions about the actual conditions of
112
FAW on each supply chain into a binary variable, where participants who answered 1 or 2 were
113
gathered to a bad condition group (Bad:0) and participants who answered 3, 4 or 5 were gathered to
114
regular condition group (Regular:1). We tested the impact of two groups of independent variables:
115
participants’ socio-demographic characteristics, and participants’ perceptions about animal welfare.
116
The significance level was p
