Mind the Gap: Animal Protection Law and Opinion of Sheep Farmers and Lay Citizens Regarding Animal Maltreatment in Sheep Farming in Southern Brazil
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
Animal Maltreatment: Opinion of Sheep Farmers and Lay Citizens
3. Results
3.1. Opinion of Sheep Farmers and Lay Citizens Regarding Animal Maltreatment in General
3.2. Opinion of Sheep Farmers and Citizens about Animal Maltreatment in Specific Situations, and Their Knowledge of Brazilian Laws Regarding Animal Protection
3.3. Citizen Attitudes toward Animal Maltreatment
3.4. Protocol for Expert Report on Animal Welfare for Sheep: Expert Perspective
4. Discussion
4.1. Perception of Sheep Farmers and Citizens Regarding Animal Welfare
4.2. Protocol for Expert Report on Animal Welfare (PERAW) and the Perception of Animal Maltreatment by Sheep Farmers and Lay Citizens Regarding Specific Issues
4.2.1. Nutrition Group of Indicators
4.2.2. Comfort Group of Indicators
4.2.3. Health Group of Indicators
4.2.4. Behavior Group of Indicators
4.3. The Risk of Animal Maltreatment in Sheep Farm
4.4. Policy Implications
4.5. Limitations of the Study
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Commission. Attitudes of Europeans Towards Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 442. 2006. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/71348 (accessed on 26 June 2021).
- OIE. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 28th ed.; Article 7.1.1; 2019; Available online: https://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_aw_introduction.htm (accessed on 26 June 2021).
- Roger, P.A. Ethical concepts and dilemmas for emergency medicine in small 435 ruminants. In Proceedings of the 3rd Greek Conference for Farm Animal Medicine and Food 436 Hygiene, Ioannina, Greece, 2014; pp. 36–37. [Google Scholar]
- Broom, D.M. Animal Welfare in the European Union—Study for the Peti Committee. Directorate General for Internal Policies EU. 2017. Available online: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583114/IPOL_STU (accessed on 26 June 2021).
- Veissier, I.; Butterworth, A.; Bock, B.; Roe, E. European Approaches to Ensure Good Animal Welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 113, 279–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lundmark, F.; Berg, C.; Schmid, O.; Behdadi, D.; Röcklinsberg, H. Intentions and Values in Animal Welfare Legislation and Standards. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 991–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- BRASIL. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil; DF Senate: Brasília, Brazil, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- BRASIL. Provides for Criminal and Administrative Sanctions Resulting from Conducts and Activities That Are Harmful to the Environment, and Provides Other Measures; Law no. 9.605, February 12 of 1998, Section I; Official Gazette [of] the Federative Republic of Brazil: Brazilia, Distrito Federal, Brazil, 1998; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
- McMillan, F.D. Emotional maltreatment in animals. In Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals; McMillan, F.D., Ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Ames, IA, USA, 2005; pp. 167–179. [Google Scholar]
- Merck, M.D. Veterinary Forensics: Animal Cruelty Investigations, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Iowa, IA, USA, 2013; p. 402. [Google Scholar]
- Hammerschmidt, J.; Molento, C.F.M. Análise retrospectiva de denúncias de maus-tratos contra animais na região de Curitiba, Estado do Paraná, utilizando critérios de bem-estar animal. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 2012, 49, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Molento, C.F.M.; Hammerschmidt, J. Animal Welfare Reports in Cases of Suspicion of Animal Cruelty. In CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources; Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International: Wallingford, UK, 2017; Volume 12. [Google Scholar]
- Hammerschmidt, J.; Molento, C.F.M. Protocolo de Perícia Em Bem-Estar Animal Para Diagnóstico de Maus-Tratos Contra Animais de Companhia. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 2014, 51, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pivato, S.; Misani, N.; Tencati, A. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Trust: The Case of Organic Food. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2017, 17, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grandin, T. Animal Welfare and Society Concerns Finding the Missing Link. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sinclair, M.; Derkley, T.; Fryer, C.; Phillips, C.J.C. Australian public opinions regarding the live export trade before and after an animal welfare media exposé. Animals 2018, 8, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Robbins, J.A.; Franks, B.; Weary, D.M.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Awareness of Ag-Gag Laws Erodes Trust in Farmers and Increases Support for Animal Welfare Regulations. Food Policy 2016, 61, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, P.B.; Appleby, M.L.; Busch, L.; Kalof, M.; Miele, B.; Norwood, F.; Pajor, E. Values and Public Acceptability Dimensions of Sustainable Egg Production. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 2097–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Poucke, E.V.; Buijs, S.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Societal Concern Related to Stocking Density, Pen Size and Group Size in Farm Animal Production. Livest. Sci. 2009, 123, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doughty, A.; Grahame, C.; Geoff, H.; Doyle, R. Stakeholder Perceptions of Welfare Issues and Indicators for Extensively Managed Sheep in Australia. Animals 2017, 7, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schaeffer, N.C.; Dykema, J. Surveys: Question Wording and Response Categories. Int. Encycl. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 23, 764–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CFMV (Brazilian Federal Veterinary Council). Provides for Surgical Procedures on Farm Animals and Wild Animals; and Mutilating Surgeries on Small Animals and Takes Other Measures; Resolution No. 877, from February 15 of 2008; Brazilian Federal Veterinary Council: Brasília, Brazil, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Roller, M.R.; Lavrakas, P.J. Applied Qualitative Research Design: A Total Quality Framework Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015; p. 398. [Google Scholar]
- Bandeira, M. Municipal Secretary of Agriculture, Quaraí, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Personal communication, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). Censo Municipal. 2010. Available online: https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/rs/quarai/pesquisa/23/22469?detalhes=true (accessed on 26 June 2021).
- Lefevre, F.; Lefevre, A.M.C. The Collective Subject That Speaks. Interface Comun. Saúde Educ. 2006, 10, 517–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Figueiredo, M.Z.A.; Brasilia, M.C.; de Goular, B.N.G. Discurso do Sujeito Coletivo: Uma breve introdução à ferramenta de pesquisa qualiquantitativa. Distúrbios Da Comun. 2013, 25, 129. [Google Scholar]
- Mellor, D. Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare. Animals 2017, 7, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Linzer, D.A.; Lewis, J.B. poLCA: An R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 42, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Animal Welfare Indicators (AWIN). AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sheep. 2015. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275887069_AWIN_Welfare_Assessment_Protocol_for_Sheep (accessed on 26 June 2021). [CrossRef]
- Patronek, G.J. Issues for veterinarians in recognizing and reporting animal neglect and abuse. Soc. Anim. 1997, 5, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Levitt, L.; Hoffer, T.A.; Loper, A.B. Criminal histories of a subsample of animal cruelty offenders. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2016, 30, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albernaz-Gonçalves, R.; Olmos, G.; Hötzel, M.J. My Pigs Are Ok, Why Change?—Animal Welfare Accounts of Pig Farmers. Animal 2021, 15, 100154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawkins, M. Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Vatankhah, M.; Talebi, M.A.; Zamani, F. Relationship between Ewe Body Condition Score (BCS) at Mating and Reproductive and Productive Traits in Lori-Bakhtiari Sheep. Small Rumin. Res. 2012, 106, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Poucke, E.V.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Do Citizens and Farmers Interpret the Concept of Farm Animal Welfare Differently? Livest. Sci. 2008, 116, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franco, B.M.R.; Souza, A.P.O.; Molento, C.F.M. Welfare-friendly Products: Availability, labeling and opinion of retailers in Curitiba, Southern Brazil. Rev. De Econ. E Sociol. Rural 2018, 56, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hötzel, M.J.; Clarissa, S.C.; Roslindo, A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Citizens’ Views on the Practices of Zero-Grazing and Cow-Calf Separation in the Dairy Industry: Does Providing Information Increase Acceptability? J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 4150–4160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Christensen, T.; Denver, S.; Sandøe, P. How Best to Improve Farm Animal Welfare? Four Main Approaches Viewed from an Economic Perspective. Anim. Welf. 2019, 28, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weary, D.M.; Niel, L.; Flower, F.C.; Fraser, D. Identifying and preventing pain in animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 100, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
- James, H.S.; Hendrickson, M.K. Perceived Economic Pressures and Farmer Ethics. Agric. Econ. 2008, 38, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andrade, S.B.; Anneberg, I. Farmers under Pressure. Analysis of the Social Conditions of Cases of Animal Neglect. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 103–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larrondo, C.; Bustamante, H.; Gallo, C. Sheep Farmers’ Perception of Welfare and Pain Associated with Routine Husbandry Practices in Chile. Animals 2018, 8, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Curnow, M.; Oldham, C.M.; Behrendt, R.; Gordon, D.J.; Hyder, M.W.; Rose, I.J.; Whale, J.W.; Young, J.M.; Thompson, A.N. Successful Adoption of New Guidelines for the Nutritional Management of Ewes Is Dependent on the Development of Appropriate Tools and Information. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011, 51, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, D.L.; Waldron, D.F.; Lowe, G.D.; Morrical, D.G.; Meyer, H.H.; High, R.A.; Berger, Y.M.; Clevenger, D.D.; Fogle, G.E.; Gottfredson, R.G.; et al. Length of Docked Tail and the Incidence of Rectal Prolapse in Lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 81, 2725–2732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roger, P.A. The impact of disease and disease prevention on welfare in sheep. In The Welfare of Sheep; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; ISBN 978-1-4020-8552-9. [Google Scholar]
- Orihuela, A.; Ungerfeld, R. Tail docking in sheep (Ovis aries): A review on the arguments for and against the procedure, advantages/disadvantages, methods, and new evidence to revisit the topic. Livest. Sci. 2019, 230, 103837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forkman, B.; Boissy, A.; Meunier-Salaün, M.-C.; Canali, E.; Jones, R.B. A Critical Review of Fear Tests Used on Cattle, Pigs, Sheep, Poultry and Horses. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 92, 340–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Winter, A.C. Lameness in Sheep. Small Rumin. Res. 2008, 76, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiplady, C.M.; Walsh, D.A.B.; Phillips, C.J.C. Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2013, 26, 869–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, E.; Jakobsen, E.B. Challenging the Myth of the Irrational Dairy Farmer; Understanding Decision-Making Related to Herd Health. N. Z. Vet. J. 2011, 59, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinillos, R.; García, M.C.; Appleby, X.; Manteca, F.; Scott-Park, C.S.; Velarde, A. One Welfare—A Platform for Improving Human and Animal Welfare. Vet. Rec. 2016, 179, 412–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bennett, R.M. Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy 1997, 22, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morton, R.; Hebart, M.L.; Whittaker, A.L. Explaining the Gap between the Ambitious Goals and Practical Reality of Animal Welfare Law Enforcement: A Review of the Enforcement Gap in Australia. Animals 2020, 10, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eisen, J. Down on the Farm Status, Exploitation, and Agricultural Exceptionalism. In Animal Labour: A New Frontier of Interspecies Justice? Blattner, C.E., Coulter, K., Kymlicka, W., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 139–150. [Google Scholar]
- Ventura, B.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Schuppli, C.A.; Weary, D.M. Views on Contentious Practices in Dairy Farming: The Case of Early Cow-Calf Separation. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 6105–6116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Segmentation based on consumers´ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 2007, 15, 91–107. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, B.; Stewart, G.B.; Panzone, L.A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, L.J. A Systematic Review of Public Attitudes, Perceptions and Behaviours Towards Production Diseases Associated with Farm Animal Welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2016, 29, 455–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Question Type | Group of Respondents | |
---|---|---|
Sheep Farmers | Lay Citizens | |
Demographic | Gender 1 | Gender 1, level of education, employment 1, meat consumption 1,3 |
Farm characteristics | Sheep farming as the main activity 1, farming system 1, flock size 3, lamb age at castration 1,3, lamb sex and age at tail docking 1,3, anesthetic use for castration and tail docking 1 | - |
Perception or attitudes towards animal maltreatment | Perception about animal maltreatment 3,*; Opinion regarding situations considered animal maltreatment: emaciated animal, movement restriction, a diseased and untreated animal, isolated animal, tail docking without anesthetic 2; Perception of animal maltreatment in sheep farming 2; Knowledge of Brazilian laws regarding animal maltreatment 2,3 | Opinion about the relevance of animal maltreatment debates 2,3; Intention to purchase products from animals if they knew animals were in a maltreatment situation on the farm 2,3; Perception about animal maltreatment 3,*; Opinion regarding situations as animal maltreatment: emaciated animal, movement restriction, a diseased and untreated animal, isolated animal, tail docking without anesthetic 2; Perception of animal maltreatment on sheep farming 2; Knowledge of Brazilian laws regarding animal maltreatment 2,3 |
Variables | Levels | Sheep Farms |
---|---|---|
Lamb age at castration (n = 55) | Does not castrate | 1 (2%) |
<one week | 2 (4%) | |
<two weeks | 4 (7%) | |
<one month | 36 (64%) | |
≥one–six months | 12 (22%) | |
Lamb sex and age at tail docking (n = 55) | Does not tail-dock | 1 (2%) |
Males and females < one month 1 | 26 (36%) | |
Males and females > one month 1 | 10 (29%) | |
Only females < one month 1 | 11 (20%) | |
Only females ≥ one month 1 | 2 (5%) | |
Only some females 2 | 1 (2%) | |
Males and females | 4 (5%) | |
Anesthetic use in castration and tail docking (n = 54) | Yes | 2 (4%) |
No | 52 (96%) |
Characteristics | Variables | Respondents | |
---|---|---|---|
Number | % | ||
Gender (n = 209) | Male | 62 | 29.7 |
Female | 147 | 70.3 | |
Educational level (n = 209) | Elementary school | 2 | 1.0 |
High school | 18 | 8.6 | |
Undergraduate degree | 16 | 7.7 | |
Graduate degree | 39 | 18.7 | |
Post graduate degree | 134 | 64.1 | |
Employment (n = 205) | with animal contact | 23 | 11.2 |
with no animal contact | 71 | 34.6 | |
Information not provided | 111 | 54.1 | |
Meat consumption (n = 209) | Yes | 188 | 90.0 |
Ocasionally 1 | 6 | 2.9 | |
No | 15 | 7.2 |
Central Ideas for Animal Maltreatment Definition 1 | Number of Quotes Classified (%) | χ2 Value | p Value | Examples of Quotes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
52 SF | 303 C | ||||
CI 1 Aggression or physical abuse | 19 (36.5%) | 66 (21.8%) | 0.18 | 0.7487 | (1)“Violence”; (2) “Slammed the animal” (1) “Any physical aggression to animal.” (2) “… I also consider as maltreatment the use of animals for fun on exhaustive or degrading activities.” |
CI 2 Failure to provide basic needs as nutrition, environment or health | 15 (28.8%) | 81 (26.7%) | 2.48 | 0.1543 | (1)“…no health assistance.”; (2) “Hungry or thirsty animals…” (1) “…not to feed…” (2) “...no light, insufficient food, enclosed in spaces with no hygiene.” |
CI 3 Stress or suffering or fear or pain or painful procedures | 5 (9.6%) | 60 (19.8%) | 9.03 | 0.0025 | (1) “Practices which impose animal suffering…”; (2) “What makes them feel pain…” (1) “All that causes suffering.”; (2)” Any action that causes pain and discomfort to the animals.” |
CI 4 Movement restriction | 3 (5.7%) | 43 (14.2%) | 6.92 | 0.0084 | (1)“…to restrain the movement…”; (2) “…imprisonment of the animal…” (1) “Any confined animal is mistreated.” (2) “To leave animals confined...” |
CI 5 Deviation from naturalness | 5 (9.6%) | 13 (4.3%) | 0.56 | 0.5395 | (1)“… practices that move them away from their natural living condition.”; (2) “...not to be in an aproppriate environment for the species.” (1) “Impossibility to express natural behaviors…” (2) “…to raise an animal isolated from other members of the species…” |
CI 6 Abandonment | - | 21 (6.9%) | 6.00 | 0.0220 | (1) “Abandonment.” |
CI 7 Emotional neglect | - | 11 (3.6%) | 3.02 | 0.1200 | (1) “From lack of affection to aggression”. (2) “...no attention and no affection.” |
CI 8 Non-classifiable | 5 (9.6%) | 8 (2.6%) | 2.58 | 0.1557 | (1)“ Dogs do not always cause mistreatment, sometimes they help.” (2)“However, I believe that animal maltreatment has considerably decreased due to so many new( technique)s.” (1) “The word maltreatment says everything.” |
Level of Relevance (n = 168) | Categories of Reasons 1 | Number of Quotes 2 (%) | Examples of Quotes (n = 105) 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Slightly relevant (n = 2; 1%) or not relevant (n = 0) | Animal welfare is slightly important | 2 (100) | (1) “There are other issues that I believe are more important nowadays. For instance, the efforts for abortion liberation; although I perceived animal welfare as important, I believe that killing a defenceless human being is much worse than mistreating an animal.” (2) “Because there is a social inversion of values” |
Moderately relevant (n = 15; 9%) | Independent reasons | 7 (100) | (1) “All polemic issues must be largely discussed” (2) “a conscientious discussion is valid, but many times what we see are personal arguments with no basis on the reality in the field.” |
Relevant (n = 25; 15%) or very relevant (n = 126; 75%) | Due to ethical issues related to animals | 38 (50.0) | (1) “The way we treat animals reflects our empathy even for ourselves as humans.” (2) “A society only evolves with respect to life in all its expressions.” |
Because animals are living beings and sentience | 26 (34.2) | (1) “Because all that relates to life is relevant.” (2) “Because it is time for us to evolve as humanity and to see other live beings as beings with rights and that feel pain.” | |
To understand the context and to propose a solution | 26 (34.2) | (1) “Animal maltreatment debates may reveal situations which are unknown to society, and as it is known, it is possible to interfere on the process to eliminate it.” (2) “The discussion may result in alternatives to avoid maltreatment” | |
It is a crime | 6 (7.9) | (1) “I think it is important to press charges against animal maltreatment” (2) “Arrest is a must.” | |
Not classified | 6 (7.9) | (1) “Obvious answer.” (2) “There is nothing to explain.” |
Level of Concordance (n = 167) | Categories of Reasons 1 | Number of Quotes (%) | Examples of Quotes (n = 89) |
---|---|---|---|
Definitely yes (n = 9; 5%) or yes4 (n = 9; 5%) | Non-classifiable | 3 (100%) | (1) “I know it is not right, but in the end many times I overlook this factor.” (2) “I would buy because I do not have much money…” |
Neutral (n = 18; 11%) | Lack of options on the market | 4 (50.0%) | (1) “If I were hungry and this were the only option, I would purchase it. But, if I can choose, I would never purchase it.” (2) “Because sometimes there is no other option.” |
Cultural reasons | 3 (37.5%) | (1) “It is hard because we are culturally used to nutritional habits involving a diversity of animals. However, maybe more reflexion on my side about this is needed.” (2) “Something to consider is the local culture.” | |
Non-classifiable | 1 (12.5%) | (1) “Depends on what is considered maltreatment.” | |
No (n = 21; 13%) or definetely no (n = 93; 66%) | If option or information were available | 9 (9.3%) | (1) “If I knew this fact, I would never purchase it.” (2) “It is possible that I would have already adopted such a posture if I had sufficient information on how these animals are treated.” |
Concerns towards people | 9 (9.3%) | (1) “Because probably such animals would not be healthy.” (2) “Because certainly the product would be of poor quality.” | |
Not to contribute to companies using bad practices/to boycott these companies | 24 (24.7%) | (1) “Because it is a way to fund the violence against animals.” (2) “Because if the consumer imposes restriction, the food chain will be obliged to reformulate their attitudes.” | |
Concerns towards animals | 44 (45.3%) | (1) “Because of the suffering to which they were exposed” (2) “I don’t think it is right to outsource the suffering to feel free from guilt.” | |
Non-classifiable | 11 (11.3%) | (1) “Is there a need to justify it?” (2) “Christian duty.” |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Soriano, V.S.; Phillips, C.J.C.; Taconeli, C.A.; Fragoso, A.A.H.; Molento, C.F.M. Mind the Gap: Animal Protection Law and Opinion of Sheep Farmers and Lay Citizens Regarding Animal Maltreatment in Sheep Farming in Southern Brazil. Animals 2021, 11, 1903. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071903
Soriano VS, Phillips CJC, Taconeli CA, Fragoso AAH, Molento CFM. Mind the Gap: Animal Protection Law and Opinion of Sheep Farmers and Lay Citizens Regarding Animal Maltreatment in Sheep Farming in Southern Brazil. Animals. 2021; 11(7):1903. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071903
Chicago/Turabian StyleSoriano, Vanessa Souza, Clive Julian Christie Phillips, Cesar Augusto Taconeli, Alessandra Akemi Hashimoto Fragoso, and Carla Forte Maiolino Molento. 2021. "Mind the Gap: Animal Protection Law and Opinion of Sheep Farmers and Lay Citizens Regarding Animal Maltreatment in Sheep Farming in Southern Brazil" Animals 11, no. 7: 1903. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071903