Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T05:21:03.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Farm membership of voluntary welfare schemes results in better compliance with animal welfare legislation in Great Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

CCA Clark
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
R Crump
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
AL KilBride
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
LE Green*
Affiliation:
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Action Plan of the European Commission 2006-2010 proposed a move towards more private and less state regulation of animal welfare and Great British (GB) Governments made a commitment to reduce the burden of inspection of farms by targeting high-risk enterprises. In previous research in GB, farmers in private, voluntary regulated schemes were more compliant with GB legislation and code at statutory welfare inspections made by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) than farmers not in such schemes. The current study investigated whether membership of other private voluntary regulators and national data sources were associated with greater compliance with welfare at APHA inspections and whether the previous association between greater compliance and membership of private schemes persisted. Compliance at APHA inspections remained higher on farms in the private schemes previously investigated. It was also higher in the one retailer and seven herd health schemes investigated. There was no association between non-welfare EU cross-compliance inspections and compliance at APHA inspections. Approximately 90% of farmers in a scheme passed animal welfare inspections compared with 80% of non-scheme members. We conclude that farms in private schemes are more likely to pass APHA inspections and so this criterion can be used in selection of farms for risk-based inspection. We hypothesise that private regulation with regular inspection of all farms could raise compliance with animal welfare legislation to at least the minimum legal standards, however, it could result in animals with low welfare being concealed; consequently, this hypothesis requires testing.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© 2016 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Albersmeier, F, Schulze, H, Jahn, G and Spiller, A 2009 The reliability of third-party certification in the food chain: From checklists to risk-oriented auditing. Food Control 20: 927935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.01.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock BB and Huik MMv 2007 Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109: 931944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigstocke, T 2012 Update on cattle health schemes in the UK. Veterinary Record 170: 343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.e2366CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Defra 2011 Non-formal consultation on proposals to reform the ani-mal welfare inspection regime. http://www.gov.uk/government/con-sultations/non-formal-consultation-on-proposals-to-reform-the-animal-welfare-inspection-regimeGoogle Scholar
Defra 2014 Independent Farming Regulation Task Force Implementation Group: Final Assessment of Progress. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/farming-regulation-task-force-implementation-group-final-assessment-of-progressGoogle Scholar
Gambelli, D, Solfanelli, F and Zanoli, R 2014 Feasibility of risk-based inspections in organic farming: results from a probabilistic model. Agricultural Economics 45: 267277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, C, Bourlakis, M and Garrod, G 2007 Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109: 919930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KilBride, AL, Mason, SA, Honeyman, PC, Pritchard, DG, Hepple, S and Green, LE 2012 Associations between member-ship of farm assurance and organic certification schemes and com-pliance with animal welfare legislation. Veterinary Record 170: 152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundmark, F, Berg, C, Schmid, O, Behdadi, D and Röcklinsberg, H 2014 Intentions and values in animal welfare legislation and standards. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27: 9911017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9512-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasbash, J, Charlton, C, Browne, WJ, Healy, M and Cameron, B 2009 MLwiN Version 2.1. Centre for Multilevel Modelling: University of Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Statham, J 2011a Cattle health schemes: 1. Single-agent infec-tious diseases. In Practice 33: 210217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/inp.d2875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statham, J 2011b Cattle health schemes 2. Multifactorial or man-agement diseases. In Practice 33: 282285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/inp.d3600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Clark et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 215.6 KB