working with animals
When professionals were asked to define animal welfare in an open question, most of them used “inputs” related concepts such as handling, caring and the environment or conditions where animals live, rather than “outcomes” terms related to the state of the animal. Regarding the level of knowledge on animal welfare, differences between the animal species and countries were found. Farmers working with pigs and broilers showed the highest values of knowledge on the matter, whereas farmers working with laying hens showed the lowest. The countries with the highest percentages of trained farmers were also those where farmers received training for longer periods of time.
Only Lithuania and Austria require previous training or qualifications to become a farmer. In Lithuania there is a national legal requirement to attend a compulsory course on the basics of farming for those wanting to work in farming. However, no obligation for the continuity of training in any of the two countries is required.
Producer associations believe courses on animal welfare should be oriented in accordance with commercial conditions, using simpler language and including aspects that could help increase productivity. They also believe farmers should receive support or some form of compensation for the time invested in the courses.
Producer associations believe that for training to be valuable, courses should be up to date, harmonized for all Member States and guarantee continuity of learning. A specific European training programme on animal welfare, in which other issues related to animal production (performance, health issues, etc.) are included, was also viewed as necessary. The programme should also focus on teacher training, use simple language, have a sound scientific basis and a defined communication and dissemination strategy. While farmers and lorry drivers are satisfied with the courses provided, there is a lack of tools to assess them and the real impact they have on animal welfare. A standard way of assessing the quality of the courses and their results is viewed as important.
Farmers were asked about how the costs of high animal welfare standards affect them, the pressure they perceive from retailers to reach higher levels of animal welfare and the tendency of consumers to pay more for welfare-friendly products. Farmers believe more information for consumers and a new approach towards farmers is needed. In Sweden, for instance, there is great demand from retailers and consumers for animal products with high welfare standards and consumers show a strong willingness to pay more for these products. However in Spain, while farmers feel strong pressure from retailers, the consumer’s willingness to pay more is low, so high standards of animal welfare are viewed as an additional cost to production. The exchange of experiences between farmers of different countries on these issues (particularly between Northern and Southern Europe) should be encouraged.
The majority of lorry drivers assessed themselves as having a level of knowledge on animal welfare above 7 (on a scale of 0 to 10). However, despite more than 85% of lorry drivers indicating they had received animal welfare training (with the exception of Spain, with only 43%), the percentage of those who were able to answer questions on the requirements of the regulation on animal welfare was very low. This might suggest that the training they received did not include legislation on animal welfare.
In the case of slaughterhouse personnel, some important differences were also found between countries regarding educational background and training. In the UK and Sweden, the majority had received training on animal welfare, whereas in Spain or Greece the percentage resulted in less than 50%. In these two countries, workers’ knowledge on animal welfare and on the current legislation applying to slaughterhouses was low. While Poland, Sweden and Lithuania had high percentages of trained personnel on animal welfare, very low percentages of lorry drivers knew about the related legislation (with values
45
close to 0%), indicating once again that issues concerning the legislation are not included in their training, or that legislation is not adequately explained.
Veterinarians and technicians rated their knowledge on animal welfare at an average of 7. They consider their professional experience to be their main source of information, as was the case for farmers, although the attendance to courses and background knowledge acquired during their bachelor's degree studies were also viewed as central (this last point was particularly important among younger professionals, as animal welfare is usually included as part of their studies). Most veterinarians and technicians also said they receive updated information on animal welfare, however almost 70% were not able to mention any specific legislative requirements that apply to their workplace. This could be due to the fact that they identified their main sources of information as their own professional experience as well as technical journals or specialized magazines, which commonly deal with more scientific content rather than with issues related to legislation.
Difficulties were encountered in establishing contact with farmers, veterinarians, lorry drivers and slaughterhouse personnel in the UK. NGOs in the country play a very active role in training professionals and in reporting all types of abuse. There is also strong pressure on animal welfare from the general public and retailers. Having taken these elements into consideration, an open and more transparent attitude towards the production sector was expected. Instead, there was reluctance to collaborate in the study, particularly regarding slaughterhouse personnel, including official veterinarians, who were afraid of suffering reprisals for participating in the survey. Some farmers refused to participate in the survey or were only willing to answer if there was an official requirement from DEFRA. For whatever reason, this was only experienced in the UK and in some cases with researchers and slaughterhouse personnel in Greece, though still to a lesser extent.
The educational background of researchers was found to be the highest of all the professionals interviewed, with the majority being veterinarians and PhD graduates, though they had lower results in specific animal welfare training than expected. Zoo personnel said they did not frequently attend animal welfare courses, with an average frequency of 0 or less than 1 courses per year, with the exception of Greece and Lithuania, where personnel also obtained the highest values for self-assessment on animal welfare knowledge (with an average of 8 and 8.3, respectively). The percentage of pet shop personnel who indicated having received specific training was low (51%), with an average percentage of 46% indicating they had not followed any courses on animal welfare in the last five years. The best results were found in Greece, where more than 70% of pet shop personnel indicated having taken part in specific courses, of which half indicated a frequency of 1 course per year. This difference is probably due to the fact that national legislation in Greece includes some form of training requirement for this type of professional. Knowledge on animal welfare legislation among researchers, pet shop personnel and zoo personnel was low, leading to believe that legislation is not addressed in their specific training.
46