Influences on Perceived Feasibility of Animal-Based Measures in a Producer-Driven Welfare Benchmarking System

Abstract

A voluntary, producer-driven welfare benchmarking system has been explored as a way of incentivising welfare improvement in pasture-based beef cattle and providing transparency and accountability to the industry. This study aimed to determine the acceptability and feasibility of measures for inclusion in a welfare benchmarking system and how this is influenced by respondents’ attitudes and beliefs. A survey was disseminated online to Australian producers in July 2020. Producers were asked to indicate the welfare measures (n = 59) they thought most important to check to determine if cattle on pasture-based farms have a good quality of life (QOL) and the feasibility of collecting animal-based welfare data and completing a stockperson attitudes questionnaire. Basic demographic and attitude data were also collected. Responses from 274 producers were included (52% male) with median land size 340 Ha (range 4–500,000) and herd size 200 head (2–200,000). Feasibility was related to QOL attitudes for 11 of the 17 animal-based measures (p < 0.01–0.02). Feasibility was also related to land or herd size but was not affected by other demographics, such as gender. In all significant dependencies, feasibility was reported as greater in those who thought it important to check the corresponding welfare measure. Producers who rated QOL as very important were also more likely to perceive the collection of animal-based data as feasible. A well-designed and targeted programme to educate producers on why certain welfare measures are important will be crucial to increase uptake and retention in a voluntary producer-driven welfare benchmarking scheme.