Consumers perceptions about the welfare of farm animals in Colombia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15517/am.v34i1.50817Keywords:
attitudes, domestic animals, opinions, societyAbstract
Introduction. Research focused on listening and understanding public attitudes towards farm animal welfare is proliferating globally. Objective. To determine how consumers in Colombia perceive the welfare of farm animals and socio-demographic factors associated with such perceptions. Materials and methods. A descriptive and analytical epidemiological study was done through the implementation of a cross-sectional national online survey, conducted from September to October-2021, to obtain information on the knowledge and attitudes of consumers (≥18 years) in Colombia regarding farm animal welfare, as well as socio-demographic characteristics (sex, age, education, occupation, location, growing-up environment, level of contact with livestock farms, and diet). Logistic and multinomial logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations of demographic factors with the level of importance given to animal welfare (AW), perceptions about needs, behavior, and sentience in farm animals, and perceptions about the state and promotion of AW in Colombia. Results. Responses from 798 participants were included in the analysis, 85.57 % saw AW as a concept that refers to how to treat animals and improve their quality of life. The level of importance given to AW was 9.78±0.85 (scale from 0 to 10) and was associated with words such as health, food, caring, respect, and comfort. Sex, age, education, level of contact with a farm, and growing-up in rural areas significantly influenced the opinions regarding the concept of AW and the promotion of farm animal welfare in Colombia. Conclusion. The participants showed concern about farm animal welfare. The differences found associated with the different socio-demographic factors can be used as a basis for formulating education and empowerment strategies that help modulate changes in the way animals are seen, and what welfare means and what it implies.
Downloads
References
Ådnegard Skarstad, G., Terragni, L., & Torjusen, H. (2007). Animal welfare according to Norwegian consumers and producers: Definitions and implications. The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 15(3), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.48416/ijsaf.v15i3.285
Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R., & Lomillos, J. M. (2020). Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals, 10(3), Article 385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385
Brown, L. M., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2006). Affective reactions to pictures of ingroup and outgroup members. Biological Psychology, 71(3), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.06.003
Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística. (2018). Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda. 2018 – Colombia. ¿Cuántos somos? Información general. https://sitios.dane.gov.co/cnpv/#!/
Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística. (2019). Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda. 2018 – Colombia. Mapas temáticos. Educación y Primera Infancia. Nivel educativo. https://bit.ly/2kt8sMI
de Oliveira Souxa, A. P., Oliveira Leite, L., & Forte Maiolino Molento, C. (2019). Animal welfare in Central and South America: What is going on? In S. Hild, & L. Schweitzer (Eds.), Animal Welfare: from Science to Law (pp. 88–102). La Fondation Droit Animal, Éthique et Sciences. https://www.fondation-droit-animal.org/documents/AnimalWelfare2019.v1.pdf
Dohoo, I. R, Martin, W., & Stryhn, H. (2009). Veterinary epidemiologic research (2nd ed.). VER, Inc.
Estévez-Moreno, L. X., María, G. A., Sepúlveda, W. S., Villarroel, M., & Miranda-de la Lama, G. C. (2021). Attitudes of meat consumers in Mexico and Spain about farm animal welfare: A cross-cultural study. Meat Science, 173, Article 108377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108377
Estévez-Moreno, L. X., Miranda-de la Lama, G. C., & Miguel-Pacheco, G. G. (2022). Consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia: A segmentation-based study. Meat Science, 187, Article 108747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108747
European Union. (2016). Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare (Special Eurobarometer 442). EU publications. https://doi.org/10.2875/884639
Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare: the science in its cultural context. Wiley-Blackwell.
Fraser, D. (2015). Turning science into policy: The case of farm animal welfare in Canada. Animal Frontiers, 5(3), 23–27. https://academic.oup.com/af/article/5/3/23/4638759
Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare, 6, 187-205.
Grandin, T. (2014). Animal welfare and society concerns finding the missing link. Meat Science, 98(3), 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.011
Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). Intergroup differences in the sharing of emotive states: neural evidence of an empathy gap. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(5), 596–603. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr035
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Model-building strategies and methods for logistic regression. In W. A. Shewhart, & S. S. Wilks (Eds.), Applied logistic regression (2nd ed., pp. 91–142). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lassen, J., Sandøe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty! – conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science, 103(3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008
Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. (2020a). Resolución de 2020 número 000136. https://bit.ly/3B6LW12
Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. (2020b). Resolución de 2020 número 000253. https://bit.ly/3yWU8Oq
McKendree, M. G. S., Croney, C. C., & Widmar, N. J. O. (2014). Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science, 92(7), 3161–3173. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-6874
Mee, J. F. (2020). Denormalizing poor dairy youngstock management: dealing with “farm-blindness”. Journal of Animal Science, 98(1), S140–S149. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaa137
Randler, C., Adan, A., Antofie, M. -M., Arrona-Palacios A., Candido, M., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Chandrakar, P., Demirhan, E., Detsis, V., Di Milia, L., Fančovičová, J., Gericke, N., Haldar, P., Heidari, Z., Jankowski, K. S., Lehto, J. E., Lundell-Creagh, R., Medina-Jerez, W., Meule, A., L., … Vollmer, C. (2021). Animal welfare attitudes: effects of gender and diet in University samples from 22 countries. Animals, 11(7), Article 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071893
Real Academia Española. (2020). Diccionario panhispánico del español jurídico. https://dpej.rae.es/
Rollin, B. (2020). Animal welfare viewpoint: why should industry worry about food animal quality of life. In T. Grandin and M. Cockram (Eds.), The slaughter of farm animals (pp. 309–313). CAB International.
Román, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 67, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010
Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Silva, R., Vallejos, L., & Sepúlveda, N. (2008). Consumer perception of animal welfare and livestock production in the Araucania Region, Chile. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 68(1), 80–93. http://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392008000100008
Sergento, E. S. G. (2018). Epitools - Calculadoras epidemiológicas. Estudios epidemiológicos. Cálculos de tamaño de muestra. Ausvet. http://epitools.ausvet.com.au
Serpell, J. A. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare, 13, 145–151.
Spooner, J. M., Schuppli, C. A., & Fraser, D. (2014). Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: A qualitative study. Livestock Science, 163, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.02.011
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. (2021). The SAS Studio – OnDemand for Academics (Release 3.8 Enterprise Edition). SAS Institute Inc.
Tarazona, A. M., Ceballos, M. C., & Broom, D. M. (2020). Human relationships with domestic and other animals: One health, one welfare, one biology. Animals, 10(1), Article 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010043
Te Velde, H., Aarts, N., & van Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 203–219. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015012403331
Valros, A., & Hänninen, L. (2018). Animal Ethical Views and Perception of Animal Pain in Veterinary Students. Animals, 8(12), Article 220. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8120220
Van Poucke, E., Vanhonacker, F., Nijs, G., Braeckman, J., Verbeke, W., & Tuyttens, F. (2006). Defining the concept of animal welfare: integrating the opinion of citizens and other stakeholders. In M. Kaiser & M. Lien (Eds.), Ethics and the politics of food (pp. 555–559). Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science, 116(1–3), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017
Ventura, B. A., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., Wittman, H., & Weary, D. M. (2016). What Difference Does a Visit Make? Changes in Animal Welfare Perceptions after Interested Citizens Tour a Dairy Farm. PLoS ONE, 11(5), Article e0154733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154733
Walker, M., Diez-Leon, M., & Mason, G. (2014). Animal Welfare Science: Recent Publication Trends and Future Research Priorities. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27(1), 80–100. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1vx5q0jt
Weary, D. M., & Robbins, J. A. (2019). Understanding the multiple conceptions of animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 28, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.033
Weary, D. M., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2017). Public concerns about dairy-cow welfare: how should the industry respond? Animal Production Science, 57, 1201–1209. http://doi.org/10.1071/AN16680
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Fredy E. García Castro, Catalina Medrano-Galarza, Jaime A. Cubides-Cárdenas, Aldemar Zúñiga López, Diego G. Ahumada-Beltrán
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
1. Proposed policy for open access journals
Authors who publish in this journal accept the following conditions:
a. Authors retain the copyright and assign to the journal the right to the first publication, with the work registered under the attribution, non-commercial and no-derivative license from Creative Commons, which allows third parties to use what has been published as long as they mention the authorship of the work and upon first publication in this journal, the work may not be used for commercial purposes and the publications may not be used to remix, transform or create another work.
b. Authors may enter into additional independent contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (e.g., including it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book) provided that they clearly indicate that the work was first published in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to publish their work on the Internet (e.g. on institutional or personal pages) before and during the review and publication process, as it may lead to productive exchanges and faster and wider dissemination of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
