Public attitudes to animal welfare and landholder resource limitations: implications for total grazing pressure management in the southern rangelands of Australia

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 477 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Sinclair ◽  
A. L. Curtis ◽  
T. Atkinson ◽  
R. B. Hacker
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Commodity Price ◽  
Grazing Pressure ◽  
Feral Pigs ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Significant Burden ◽  
Domestic Livestock

Sustainable grazing in the nationally iconic southern rangelands of Australia requires landholders to actively manage the grazing pressure from both domestic livestock and non-domestic herbivores. Landholders have primary responsibility for controlling the non-domestic herbivores. In doing so, they must meet the Australian public’s expectations for resource conservation (mainly a public good) and animal welfare. Governments are also involved in the management of non-domestic herbivores via native and feral animal legislation and control programs. The Australian public will not accept cruelty to animals, perceived or otherwise. In this paper we explore the challenges faced by landholders in their attempts to manage the grazing pressure from native herbivores, particularly kangaroos, feral goats and feral pigs, while meeting the Australian public’s expectations for animal welfare. Landholders typically live on extensive properties and their capacity to manage these is influenced by high climate variability, low labour availability, commodity price fluctuations and limited capital available for investment in new technologies. The additional requirement to reduce the grazing pressure from kangaroos, feral goats and feral pigs is a significant burden on already time-poor landholders. Hence, there is a critical disparity between landholders’ capacity and their responsibility to effectively manage the non-domestic herbivores on their properties. We suggest that current expectations of landholders to deliver public benefits by publicly acceptable practices are unreasonable. Further, we suggest that governments should accept more responsibility for managing non-domestic grazing pressure. The concept of duty of care to land management provides a means by which a more appropriate division of responsibilities between landholders and government could be achieved to ensure that valued attributes of this iconic Australian landscape are retained.

scholarly journals Total grazing pressure - a defining concept for extensive pastoral systems in the southern rangelands of Australia

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 457 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. B. Hacker ◽  
K. Sinclair ◽  
C. M. Waters
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Species Conservation ◽  
Livestock Production ◽  
Grazing Pressure ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Pastoral Systems ◽  
Domestic Species ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Large Populations ◽  
Domestic Livestock

In Australia, particularly in the southern rangelands, large populations of native and feral herbivores (including kangaroos, goats, rabbits, pigs, donkeys and camels, depending on the location) co-exist with domestic livestock. In recent decades the concept of ‘total grazing pressure’ has been developed, and widely accepted, to denote the total forage demand of all vertebrate herbivores relative to the forage supply. This concept provides a framework within which both domestic and non-domestic species can be managed to allow commercially viable livestock production, landscape maintenance or restoration and species conservation. The concept should have relevance wherever pest animal control programs, biodiversity conservation, or commercialisation of wildlife are conducted in conjunction with extensive livestock production. The rationale for the compilation of the Special Issue is outlined.

scholarly journals Public attitudes toward dairy farm practices and technology related to milk production

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0250850
Author(s):  
Lexis H. Ly ◽  
Erin B. Ryan ◽  
Daniel M. Weary
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Milk Production ◽  
Genetic Modification ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
The United States ◽  
Animal Products ◽  
Farm Systems ◽  
Qualitative Responses

Dairy farm systems have intensified to meet growing demands for animal products, but public opposition to this intensification has also grown due, in part, to concerns about animal welfare. One approach to addressing challenges in agricultural systems has been through the addition of new technologies, including genetic modification. Previous studies have reported some public resistance towards the use of these technologies in agriculture, but this research has assessed public attitudes toward individual practices and technologies and few studies have examined a range of practices on dairy farms. In the present study, we presented participants with four scenarios describing dairy practices (cow-calf separation, the fate of excess dairy calves, pasture access and disbudding). Citizens from Canada and the United States (n = 650) indicated their support (on a 7-point scale) toward five approaches (maintaining standard farm practice, using a naturalistic approach, using a technological approach, or switching to plant-based or yeast-based milk production) aimed at addressing the welfare issues associated with the four dairy practices. Respondents also provided a text-based rationale for their responses and answered a series of demographic questions including age, gender, and diet. Participant diet affected attitudes toward milk alternatives, with vegetarians and vegans showing more support for the plant-based and yeast-based milk production. Regardless of diet, most participants opposed genetic modification technologies and supported more naturalistic practices. Qualitative responses provided insight into participants’ values and concerns, and illustrated a variety of perceived benefits and concerns related to the options presented. Common themes included animal welfare, ethics of animal use, and opposition toward technology. We conclude that Canadian and US citizens consider multiple aspects of farm systems when contemplating animal welfare concerns, and tend to favor naturalistic approaches over technological solutions, especially when the latter are based on genetic modification.

Stakeholder judgements of the social acceptability of control practices for kangaroos, unmanaged goats and feral pigs in the south-eastern rangelands of Australia

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 485 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Sinclair ◽  
A. L. Curtis ◽  
R. B. Hacker ◽  
T. Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Social Acceptance ◽  
Grazing Pressure ◽  
The South ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Feral Pigs ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Control Practice ◽  
South Eastern ◽  
Water Point ◽  
Feral Animals

Total grazing pressure (TGP) is a key driver of productivity in livestock systems in the south-eastern rangelands of Australia. Sustainable grazing in these environments requires the management of grazing pressure from kangaroos, unmanaged goats and feral pigs, as well as livestock. Any practices used to control these species must be socially acceptable. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews with individuals drawn from key stakeholder groups were conducted to assess the acceptability of control practices for each of these species. Commercial shooting was the most acceptable control practice for kangaroos with a much lower acceptance of non-commercial shooting. A trap yard (at a water point) was the most acceptable practice for control of unmanaged goats with shooting least acceptable. Ground shooting, trapping and 1080 baiting were the most acceptable practices for control of feral pigs with dogging least acceptable. The two key criteria for social acceptance of control practices by stakeholder group interviewees were humaneness and effectiveness. Acceptance was also influenced by interviewees’ attitudes towards particular species. Interviewees typically distinguished between control of native wildlife and ‘feral’ animals, and between ‘resource’ animals and ‘pest’ animals. Importantly, support for control programs to manage TGP must be justifiable and employ practices that are socially acceptable.

scholarly journals Prospects for ecologically and socially sustainable management of total grazing pressure in the southern rangelands of Australia

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 581 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. B. Hacker ◽  
K. Sinclair ◽  
L. Pahl
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Sustainable Management ◽  
Market Failure ◽  
Grazing Pressure ◽  
Management Approach ◽  
Large Herbivore ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Domestic Livestock ◽  
Activist Groups ◽  
Ecologically Sustainable

Numerous large herbivore species, both native and exotic, share the southern Australian rangelands with domestic livestock, which often account for only about half of the total grazing pressure. Although each presents its individual challenge to landholders, the management of kangaroos is a key component of ecologically sustainable management of the region because (a) they represent a significant component of the non-domestic grazing pressure, particularly in areas from which dingos and wild dogs have been (partially) removed; (b) commercial harvesting, the means of control that has the highest social acceptability, has been rendered ineffective by the actions of activist groups and market closure due to food safety concerns; (c) the task is largely beyond the capacity of individual landholders; and (d) the same constraints do not apply to other non-domestic components of total grazing pressure. Management of total grazing pressure, and particularly kangaroos, currently represents a case of market failure because the level of management that can be expected of landholders is not consistent with public expectations for resource conservation and animal welfare. Several avenues are available by which kangaroo management could be advanced to achieve both public and private benefits. These include adoption of an active, adaptive management approach to the kangaroo population, establishment of arrangements that will shift the general perception of kangaroos from pest to resource, development of an appropriate incentive framework to achieve desirable landscape outcomes, and continued evaluation of the benefits and costs of cluster fencing. These initiatives require both a greater commitment from governments to address the market failure and a proactive stance by industry to engage stakeholders, self-regulate, and objectively demonstrate environmental and animal welfare credentials.

scholarly journals KEBIJAKAN PEMERINTAH DALAM MENANGANI HARGA CABAI MERAH KERITING (capsicum annum L) (Studi Kasus Tinjauan Kebijakan Pemerintah pada Harga Cabai Merah keriting) di Sentra Produksi Kecamatan Cikajang dan Pasar Induk Kramat Jati Jakarta

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Dety Sukmawati ◽  
Lies Sulistyowati ◽  
Maman H. Karmana ◽  
E Kusnadi Wikarta
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Agricultural Sector ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Commodity Price ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Land Registration ◽  
Field School ◽  
The Government ◽  
Park Area ◽  
Made In

Price is a major factor, therefore, that the policy of raising agricultural output through price incentives to succeed, the government must know exactly how the response of supply / supply in the agricultural sector to price changes. The response will vary according to the type of commodity even among the farmers in the category of the same plant, depending on the purpose of the farmers do farming and economic conditions. The amount of supply response is also very informative for policy makers in evaluating policy -pembuat made in the field pertanian.Penelitian descriptively based on data from the Provincial Agriculture Office, 2015 West Java, Central Market Analysis of Agricultural Products Production Centers Cikajang Garutdan District Information Center Market Commodity Price Kramat Jati Jakarta. Policy directives coming horticultural commodities focused on chili, red onion and orange. Although the production of chili western Java had a surplus in terms of supply nationally, but the price of red chilli curls in particular always fluctuates, so if there is a price increase indicated a shortage of supply or shortage of production, so that the planting area three commodities were directed not at the park area, but the area outside the area and planting and planted not in the rainy season, but farmers are directed to plant in the dry season. The policy comprises: the pattern of production, regional development, institutional strengthening farmers, build supply chain and minimize supply chain, new technologies to increase production, the development of the field school, land registration and certification of products.

Current Land Use in the Poplar Box (Eucalyptus Populnea) Lands.

1980 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 31 ◽  
Author(s):  
EJ Weston ◽  
DF Thompson ◽  
BJ Scott
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Native Species ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
High Water ◽  
Grazing Pressure ◽  
Small Areas ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Domestic Livestock

Poplar box (Eucalyptus populnee) woodlands mainly occuron duplex, clay and red earth soils between the 300 mm and 750 mm rainfall isohyets. The poplar box lands have been occupied for from 100 to 150 years and have been modified extensively through tree felling, ringbarking, clearing, cultivation, burning and grazing by domestic livestock. The current land use is described for six vegetation groups which together comprise the poplar box lands. The eastern areas of the poplar box lands are mainly used for intensive agriculture based on wheat. barley and grain sorghum, with small areas sown to c~ops of high water demand. Mixed farming involves dairying (in Queensland) and fat lambs (in New South Wales) and broad-acre cereal and fodder cropping. Sheep and cattle grazing replace intensive crop production as the rainfall decreases. In all areas used for cropping the stability and fertility of the soil are of paramount importance in maintainihg production. The use of woodlands in areas of lower rainfall can lead to deterioration of the resource and to the encroachment of woody native species into the grazing lands. Because cropping is unreliable the opportunity to use cultivation to control woody regrowth is reduced. In central areas much of the land can be sown to improved pastures, but in western areas diversification is limited by the low rainfall and land use is restricted to grazing, initially only by sheep but now by sheep and cattle. Particularly in western New South Wales the increase in unpalatable shrubs and the decrease in available forage has resulted in low stocking rates, and high grazing pressure, making reclamation and pasture improvement difficult. In consequence many enterprises are becoming uneconomic.

Efficiency of measures for sow husbandry: Integrating farm income, animal welfare and public attitudes

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-447
Author(s):  
TJ Bergstra ◽  
H Hogeveen ◽  
EN Stassen ◽  
AGJM Oude Lansink
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Data Envelopment ◽  
Multiple Dimensions ◽  
Efficient Measure ◽  
Sus Scrofa Domesticus ◽  
Piglet Mortality ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Positive Effect

In response to the publics concerns about animal welfare in swine husbandry, the pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) sector introduced improved measures to focus on single rather than multiple dimensions of animal welfare concerns without accounting for their impact on public attitudes. These measures failed to improve attitudes to pig husbandry. The present study uses a more comprehensive approach by evaluating animal welfare measures in terms of their effect on animal welfare, farm income and public attitudes. Four measures were defined for each of the following societal aspects of sow husbandry: piglet mortality; tail biting and the indoor housing of gestating sows. A simulation model was developed to estimate the effects of the measures and Data Envelopment Analysis used to compare measures in terms of their effects on animal welfare, farm income and public attitudes. Only piglet mortality measures were found to have a positive effect on farm income but they showed a relatively low effect on animal welfare and public attitudes. The most efficient measure was that which included straw provision, daylight and increased group sizes for gestating sows. The level of improvement of a measure on animal welfare did not necessarily equate to the same level of improvement in public attitudes or decrease in farm income.

scholarly journals Australian rangeland futures: time now for systemic responses to interconnected challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 133 (1) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Barney Foran
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Climate And Environmental Change ◽  
Indigenous Australia ◽  
Domestic Livestock ◽  
Integrated Policy ◽  
Future Policy ◽  
Social Licence To Operate ◽  
Changing Demographics ◽  
Systemic Responses

Australia’s rangelands contain wildlands, relatively intact biodiversity, widespread Indigenous cultures, and pastoral and mining industries, all set in past and present events and mythologies. The nature of risks and threats to these rangelands is increasingly global and systemic. Future policy frameworks must acknowledge this and act accordingly. This paper collates current key information on land tenures and land uses, people and domestic livestock in Australian rangelands, and discusses five perspectives on how the rangelands are changing, in order to inform the development of integrated policy – climate and environmental change; the southern rangelands; the northern rangelands; Indigenous Australia; and governance and management. From these perspectives, more attention must be paid to ensuring a social licence to operate across a range of uses, acknowledging and supporting a younger, more Indigenous population, implementing positive aspects of technological innovation, halting capital and governance leakages, and building human capacity. A recommended set of systemic responses should therefore (i) address governance issues consistently and comprehensively, (ii) ensure that new technologies can foster the delivery of sustainable livelihoods, and (iii) focus capacity-building on a community of industries where knowledge is built for the long-term. All three of these should be undertaken with an eye to the changing demographics of the rangelands.

scholarly journals Does Smart Farming Improve or Damage Animal Welfare? Technology and What Animals Want

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marian Stamp Dawkins
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Critical Factor ◽  
Farming Systems ◽  
Good Health ◽  
Computer Algorithms ◽  
Livestock Farming ◽  
Common View ◽  
The Public ◽  
Smart Farming

“Smart” or “precision” farming has revolutionized crop agriculture but its application to livestock farming has raised ethical concerns because of its possible adverse effects on animal welfare. With rising public concern for animal welfare across the world, some people see the efficiency gains offered by the new technology as a direct threat to the animals themselves, allowing producers to get “more for less” in the interests of profit. Others see major welfare advantages through life-long health monitoring, delivery of individual care and optimization of environmental conditions. The answer to the question of whether smart farming improves or damages animal welfare is likely to depend on three main factors. Firstly, much will depend on how welfare is defined and the extent to which politicians, scientists, farmers and members of the public can agree on what welfare means and so come to a common view on how to judge how it is impacted by technology. Defining welfare as a combination of good health and what the animals themselves want provides a unifying and animal-centered way forward. It can also be directly adapted for computer recognition of welfare. A second critical factor will be whether high welfare standards are made a priority within smart farming systems. To achieve this, it will be necessary both to develop computer algorithms that can recognize welfare to the satisfaction of both the public and farmers and also to build good welfare into the control and decision-making of smart systems. What will matter most in the end, however, is a third factor, which is whether smart farming can actually deliver its promised improvements in animal welfare when applied in the real world. An ethical evaluation will only be possible when the new technologies are more widely deployed on commercial farms and their full social, environmental, financial and welfare implications become apparent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document