Benchmarking to drive improvements in extensive beef cattle welfare: a perspective on developing an Australian producer-driven system
Hannah E. Salvin
A , Jessica E. Monk B , Linda M. Cafe A and Caroline Lee C *
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A NSW Department of Primary Industries, Livestock Industries Centre, Trevenna Road, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
B School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Trevenna Road, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
C CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Animal Behaviour and Welfare, FD McMaster Laboratory, Locked Bag 1, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia.
Animal Production Science 62(16) 1539-1547 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN21573
Submitted: 11 November 2021 Accepted: 20 June 2022 Published: 25 July 2022
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)
Abstract
There are increasing calls by stakeholders to raise the standards of animal welfare across the livestock sector. The beef industry needs a way to demonstrate improvements in animal welfare over time. The enforcement of minimum standards can be effective in preventing poor welfare, but the ability to recognise, exemplify and reward those at the top end of the welfare continuum is currently lacking. Our perspective article outlines the benefits and challenges of taking a voluntary, producer-driven benchmarking approach to recording and improving animal welfare in Australian pasture-based beef cattle. We discuss considerations when selecting measures for use in this benchmarking approach, including their validity, reliability, feasibility and value. The assessment of the human–animal relationship is discussed as a worked example of balancing these considerations in a way that suits the extensive Australian beef cattle production environment. We propose that careful consideration at the development stage is required to produce a benchmarking system that is robust and fit for purpose. This will also facilitate the collection of clear, meaningful data to allow for transparency and accountability throughout the industry. Demonstration of successful welfare benchmarking of extensive beef cattle may enable the approach to be expanded across the supply chain and to other sectors of livestock production.
Keywords: assessment, Australia, bovine, cow, extensive, pasture, quality of life, stockpeople.
References
Barnhardt TR, Thomson DU, Terrell SP, Rezac DJ, Frese DA, Reinhardt CD (2014) Implementation of industry-oriented animal welfare and quality assurance assessment in Kansas cattle feeding operations. The Bovine Practitioner 48, 81–88.Blokhuis HJ, Miele M, Veissier I, Jones B (Eds) (2013) ‘Improving farm animal welfare: science and society working together: the welfare quality approach.’ (Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen)
Buddle EA, Bray HJ, Ankeny RA (2021) “Of course we care!“: a qualitative exploration of Australian livestock producers’ understandings of farm animal welfare issues. Journal of Rural Studies 83, 50–59.
| “Of course we care!“: a qualitative exploration of Australian livestock producers’ understandings of farm animal welfare issues.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ceballos MC, Sant’Anna AC, Boivin X, Costa FO, Carvalhal MVL, Paranhos da Costa MJR (2018) Impact of good practices of handling training on beef cattle welfare and stockpeople attitudes and behaviors. Livestock Science 216, 24–31.
| Impact of good practices of handling training on beef cattle welfare and stockpeople attitudes and behaviors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Colditz IG, Ferguson DM, Collins T, Matthews L, Hemsworth PH (2014) A prototype tool to enable farmers to measure and improve the welfare performance of the farm animal enterprise: the unified field index. Animals 4, 446–462.
| A prototype tool to enable farmers to measure and improve the welfare performance of the farm animal enterprise: the unified field index.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coleman GJ, Hemsworth PH (2014) Training to improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards livestock enhances welfare and productivity. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 33, 131–137.
| Training to improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards livestock enhances welfare and productivity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coleman GJ, Hemsworth PH, Hay M (1998) Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 63–75.
| Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Coleman G, Hemsworth L, Acharya R. (2019) Monitoring Public Attitudes to Livestock Industries and Livestock Welfare. FinalReport APL Project 2018/0014. [Online]. Available at https://www.awstrategy.net/uploads/1/2/3/2/123202832/nawrde_no._2018-0014_final_report.pdf. [verified 24 February 2022]
Fernandes JN, Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Tilbrook AJ (2021) Costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare. Agriculture 11, 104
| Costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ (2011) Human-animal interactions and animal productivity and welfare. In ‘Human-livestock interactions: the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively farmed animals’. (Eds PH Hemsworth, GJ Coleman), pp. 47–83. (CAB International)
Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Coleman GJ (2009) The integration of human-animal relations into animal welfare monitoring schemes. Animal Welfare 18, 335–345.
Henderson J, Coveney J, Ward PR, Taylor AW (2011) Farmers are the most trusted part of the Australian food chain: results from a national survey of consumers. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 35, 319–324.
| Farmers are the most trusted part of the Australian food chain: results from a national survey of consumers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Herold DM, Fedor DB, Caldwell SD (2007) Beyond change management: a multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to change. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 942–951.
| Beyond change management: a multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to change.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kaurivi YB, Hickson R, Laven R, Parkinson T, Stafford K (2020) Developing an animal welfare assessment protocol for cows in extensive beef cow-calf systems in New Zealand. Part 2: categorisation and scoring of welfare assessment measures. Animals 10, 1592
| Developing an animal welfare assessment protocol for cows in extensive beef cow-calf systems in New Zealand. Part 2: categorisation and scoring of welfare assessment measures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kaurivi YB, Laven R, Hickson R, Parkinson T, Stafford K (2021) Assessing extensive semi-arid rangeland beef cow-calf welfare in Namibia. Part 2: categorisation and scoring of welfare assessment measures. Animals 11, 250
| Assessing extensive semi-arid rangeland beef cow-calf welfare in Namibia. Part 2: categorisation and scoring of welfare assessment measures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kielland C, Skjerve E, Østerås O, Zanella AJ (2010) Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2998–3006.
| Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Knierim U, Pajor EA (2018) Regulation, enforcement and incentives. In ‘Animal welfare’. (Eds MC Appleby, IAS Olsson, F Galindo) pp. 349–361. (CAB International: Wallingford, UK)
Lankford WM (2000) Benchmarking: understanding the basics. The Coastal Business Journal 1, 57–62.
Lawrence AB, Vigors B, Sandøe P (2019) What is so positive about positive animal welfare?—a critical review of the literature. Animals 9, 783
| What is so positive about positive animal welfare?—a critical review of the literature.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lee SA (2009) Measuring individual differences in trait sympathy: instrument construction and validation. Journal of Personality Assessment 91, 568–583.
| Measuring individual differences in trait sympathy: instrument construction and validation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Leon AF, Sanchez JA, Romero MH (2020) Association between attitude and empathy with the quality of human-livestock interactions. Animals 10, 1304
| Association between attitude and empathy with the quality of human-livestock interactions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Losada-Espinosa N, Miranda-De la Lama GC, Estévez-Moreno LX (2020) Stockpeople and animal welfare: compatibilities, contradictions, and unresolved ethical dilemmas. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 33, 71–92.
| Stockpeople and animal welfare: compatibilities, contradictions, and unresolved ethical dilemmas.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Luecke R (2003) ‘Managing change and transition.’ (Harvard Business Press: Brighton, MA)
Mattiello S, Battini M, De Rosa G, Napolitano F, Dwyer C (2019) How can we assess positive welfare in ruminants? Animals 9, 758
| How can we assess positive welfare in ruminants?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McLaren J, Appleyard T (2020) Improving accountability for farm animal welfare: the performative role of a benchmark device. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 33, 32–58.
| Improving accountability for farm animal welfare: the performative role of a benchmark device.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morton R, Hebart ML, Whittaker AL (2020) Explaining the gap between the ambitious goals and practical reality of animal welfare law enforcement: a review of the enforcement gap in Australia. Animals 10, 482
| Explaining the gap between the ambitious goals and practical reality of animal welfare law enforcement: a review of the enforcement gap in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Munoz CA, Coleman GJ, Hemsworth PH, Campbell AJD, Doyle RE (2019) Positive attitudes, positive outcomes: the relationship between farmer attitudes, management behaviour and sheep welfare. PLoS ONE 14, e0220455
| Positive attitudes, positive outcomes: the relationship between farmer attitudes, management behaviour and sheep welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (2019) Beef Quality Assurance – National manual [Online]. Available at https://www.bqa.org/resources/manuals [verified 8 November 2021]
Nielsen J (1994) ‘Usability engineering.’ (Academic Press: Cambridge MA)
Palmer C, Sandøe P (2011) Animal ethics. In ‘Animal welfare’. (Eds MC Appleby, IAS Olsson, F Galindo) pp. 3–15. (CAB International: Wallingford, UK)
Pandolfi F, Stoddart K, Wainwright N, Kyriazakis I, Edwards SA (2017) The ‘real welfare’scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs. Animal 11, 1816–1824.
| The ‘real welfare’scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Petherick JC, Doogan VJ, Holroyd RG, Olsson P, Venus BK (2009) Quality of handling and holding yard environment, and beef cattle temperament: 1. Relationships with flight speed and fear of humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120, 18–27.
| Quality of handling and holding yard environment, and beef cattle temperament: 1. Relationships with flight speed and fear of humans.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Phillips C (2009) ‘The welfare of animals: the silent majority.’ Animal Welfare Vol. 8. (Springer Science & Business Media)
Red Meat Advisory Council Ltd. (2015) Meat Industry Strategic Plan MISP 2020. Red Meat Advisory Council Ltd., Barton, ACT, Australia.
Red tractor (2021) Red tractor certified standards – beef and lamb standards v5 [Online]. Available at https://assurance.redtractor.org.uk/standard-categories/beef-and-lamb/ [verified 8 November 2021]
Rice M, Hemsworth LM, Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ (2020) The impact of a negative media event on public attitudes towards animal welfare in the red meat industry. Animals 10, 619
| The impact of a negative media event on public attitudes towards animal welfare in the red meat industry.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Robinson S, Sparrow S, Williams B, Decelle T, Bertelsen T, Reid K, Chlebus M (2020) The European Federation of the Pharmaceutical Industry and Associations’ Research and Animal Welfare Group: Assessing and benchmarking ‘Culture of Care’in the context of using animals for scientific purpose. Laboratory Animals 54, 421–432.
| The European Federation of the Pharmaceutical Industry and Associations’ Research and Animal Welfare Group: Assessing and benchmarking ‘Culture of Care’in the context of using animals for scientific purpose.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sandøe P, Corr SA, Lund TB, Forkman B (2019) Aggregating animal welfare indicators: can it be done in a transparent and ethically robust way? Animal Welfare 28, 67–76.
| Aggregating animal welfare indicators: can it be done in a transparent and ethically robust way?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sandøe P, Hansen HO, Rhode HLH, Houe H, Palmer C, Forkman B, Christensen T (2020) Benchmarking farm animal welfare—a novel tool for cross-country comparison applied to pig production and pork consumption. Animals 10, 955
| Benchmarking farm animal welfare—a novel tool for cross-country comparison applied to pig production and pork consumption.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Simon GE, Hoar BR, Tucker CB (2016a) Assessing cow–calf welfare. Part 1: benchmarking beef cow health and behavior, handling; and management, facilities, and producer perspectives. Journal of Animal Science 94, 3476–3487.
| Assessing cow–calf welfare. Part 1: benchmarking beef cow health and behavior, handling; and management, facilities, and producer perspectives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Simon GE, Hoar BR, Tucker CB (2016b) Assessing cow–calf welfare. Part 2: risk factors for beef cow health and behavior and stockperson handling. Journal of Animal Science 94, 3488–3500.
| Assessing cow–calf welfare. Part 2: risk factors for beef cow health and behavior and stockperson handling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Spangenberg EMF, Keeling LJ (2016) Assessing the welfare of laboratory mice in their home environment using animal-based measures–a benchmarking tool. Laboratory Animals 50, 30–38.
| Assessing the welfare of laboratory mice in their home environment using animal-based measures–a benchmarking tool.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
State of Queensland (2021) Macadamia industry benchmarking report – 2009 to 2020 seasons [Online]. Available at https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/macadamia-industry-benchmark-report/resource/76587ac2-fb21-4483-bc61-1a5088d02712 [verified 8 November 2021]
Stebner S, Ray J, Becker J, Baker LM (2015) Totally transparent: a qualitative study about the impact of farm tours on bloggers. Journal of Applied Communications 99, 48–61.
| Totally transparent: a qualitative study about the impact of farm tours on bloggers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sumner CL, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM (2018) How benchmarking motivates farmers to improve dairy calf management. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 3323–3333.
| How benchmarking motivates farmers to improve dairy calf management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tucker CB (2021) Animal welfare audit programs: what does robustness look like? In ‘Proceedings of the 8th international conference on the assessment of animal welfare at farm and group level, 16–19 August, Cork, Ireland’. pp. 54. (Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, NL)
Veissier I, Jensen KK, Botreau R, Sandøe P (2011) Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare 20, 89–101.
von Keyserlingk MAG, Barrientos A, Ito K, Galo E, Weary DM (2012) Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 7399–7408.
| Benchmarking cow comfort on North American freestall dairies: lameness, leg injuries, lying time, facility design, and management for high-producing Holstein dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Waiblinger S, Boivin X, Pedersen V, Tosi M-V, Janczak AM, Visser EK, Jones RB (2006) Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 185–242.
| Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilkie R (2005) Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: the ambiguous nature of human–livestock relations in Northeast Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 21, 213–230.
| Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: the ambiguous nature of human–livestock relations in Northeast Scotland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Willis RS, Dunston-Clarke EJ, Keating LR, Fleming PA, Collins T (2021) Australian livestock export industry workers’ attitudes toward animal welfare. Animals 11, 1411
| Australian livestock export industry workers’ attitudes toward animal welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wiseman L, Sanderson J, Zhang A, Jakku E (2019) Farmers and their data: an examination of farmers’ reluctance to share their data through the lens of the laws impacting smart farming. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91, 100301
| Farmers and their data: an examination of farmers’ reluctance to share their data through the lens of the laws impacting smart farming.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Welfare Quality® (2009) ‘Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle.’ (Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, Netherlands)
