Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 645–658 | Cite as

Farmer’s Response to Societal Concerns About Farm Animal Welfare: The Case of Mulesing

  • Alexandra E. D. Wells
  • Joanne Sneddon
  • Julie A. Lee
  • Dominique Blache


The study explored the motivations behind Australian wool producers’ intentions regarding mulesing; a surgical procedure that will be voluntarily phased out after 2010, following retailer boycotts led by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Telephone interviews were conducted with 22 West Australian wool producers and consultants to elicit their behavioral, normative and control beliefs about mulesing and alternative methods of breech strike prevention. Results indicate that approximately half the interviewees intend to continue mulesing, despite attitudes toward the act of mulesing being quite negative. This indicates that attitudes alone are unlikely to be good predictors of this goal directed behavior. Most respondents believed mulesing was more effective and involved less cost, time, and effort than the currently available alternatives to prevent breech strike. Further, they felt relatively little social pressure, as they believed few consumers were concerned about mulesing. However, they noted that if consumer sentiment changed they would likely change their practices. Thus, attitudes are likely to be only one of several factors influencing intentions to change farm practices to address societal concerns about animal welfare. Further, mulesing appears to be goal-directed behavior, suggesting that other factors depicted by the Model of Goal-directed Behavior (MGB; Perugini and Bagozzi In: Br J Soc Psychol, 40: 79–98, 2001) may be worth exploring in this context. Finally, these results provide insight into how policy makers may influence farmers to change practices in response to societal pressure for improving farm animal welfare.


Mulesing Theory of planned behavior Model of goal-directed behavior Animal welfare Intentions 



The authors would like to sincerely thank the producers who took the time to participate in the interviews and also those who were instrumental in gaining contacts within the Western Australian wool industry. Without their help this study would not have been possible.


  1. ABC Rural. (2009). PETA thinks mulesing deadline still stands. Accessed September 2009.
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Wool Innovation. (2008). AWI Board unanimously confirms support for industry decision to phase out mulesing. Accessed August 2009.
  6. Australian Wool Innovation. (2009). Flystrike prevention in Australian sheep. Accessed 19 August 2009.
  7. Beedell, J. D. C., & Rehman, T. (1999). Explaining farmers’ conservation behaviour: Why do farmers behave the way they do? Journal of Environmental Management, 57, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beedell, J. D. C., & Rehman, T. (2000). Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett, R. M. (1996). People’s willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 5, 3–11.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, R. M., Anderson, J., & Blaney, R. J. P. (2002). Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett, R. M., & Larson, D. (1996). Contingent valuation of the perceived benefits of farm animal welfare legislation: An exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 47(2), 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borgen, S. O., & Skarstad, G. A. (2007). Norwegian pig farmers’ motivations for improving animal welfare. British Food Journal, 109(11), 891–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruckmeier, K., & Prutzer, M. (2007). Swedish pig producers and their perspectives on animal welfare: A case study. British Food Journal, 109(11), 906–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coleman, G. C., Hemsworth, P. H., Hay, M., & Cox, M. (1998). Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corbett, J. B. (2002). Motivations to participate in riparian improvement programs: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Science Communication, 23, 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hemsworth, P. H. (2003). Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81, 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hemsworth, P. H., Barnett, J. L., Coleman, G. J., & Hansen, C. (1989). A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 23, 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J., & Barnett, J. L. (1994). Improving the attitude and behaviour of stockpersons towards pigs and the consequences on the behaviour and reproductive performance of commercial pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 39, 349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hemsworth, P. H., Coleman, G. J., Barnett, J. L., & Borg, S. (2000). Relationships between human-animal interactions and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science, 78, 2821–2831.Google Scholar
  21. Hubbard, C., Bourlakis, M., & Garrod, G. (2007). Pig in the middle: Farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal, 109(11), 919–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huik, M. M. V., & Bock, B. B. (2007). Attitudes of Dutch pig farmers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal, 109(11), 879–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hustvedt, G., & Bernard, J. C. (2008). Consumer willingness to pay for sustainable apparel: The influence of labelling for fibre origin and production methods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. James, H. S., Jr. (2005). The ethical challenges in farming: A report on conversations with Missouri corn and soybean producers. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 11(2), 239–248.Google Scholar
  25. James, H. S. Jr. & Hendrickson, M. K. (2007). Perceived economic pressures and farmer ethics. Department of Agricultural Economics Working Paper No. AEWP 2007-07.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, C., & Fisher, A. D. (2007). Welfare consequences of mulesing of sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal, 85, 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynne, G. D., Casey, C. F., Hodges, A., & Rahmani, M. (1995). Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mattison, E. H. A., & Norris, K. (2009). Intentions of UK farmers toward biofuel crop production: Implications for policy targets and land use change. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 41, 5589–5594.Google Scholar
  29. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). (2008). Save the sheep. Accessed 1 August 2009.
  30. Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips, C. J. C. (2009). A review of mulesing and other methods to control flystrike (cutaneous myiasis) in sheep. Animal Welfare, 18, 113–121.Google Scholar
  32. Robson, C. (1993). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Rollin, B. (1995). Farm animal welfare: Social. bioethical and research issues. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rollin, B. E. (2004). Annual meeting keynote address: Animal agriculture and emerging social ethics for animals. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 955–964.Google Scholar
  35. Sneddon, J. & Rollin, B. (2010). Mulesing and animal ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10806-009-9216-z.
  36. Stuart, D. (2009). Constrained choice and ethical dilemmas in land management: Environmental quality and food safety in Californian agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tutkun, A. & Lehmann, B. (2006). Explaining the conversion to particularly animal-friendly stabling system of farmers of the Obwalden Canton, Switzerland—Extension of the theory of planned behaviour within a structural equation modelling approach. Presented at the Agricultural Economics Society (AES) 80th Annual Conference, 30/31 March 2006, Paris.Google Scholar
  38. Tuyttens, F. A. M., Struelens, E., Van Gansbeke, S., & Ampe, B. (2008). Factors influencing farmers’ responses to welfare legislation: A case study of gestation sow housing in Flanders (Belgium). Livestock Science, 116, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vandenberghe, H. (2009). AWI mulesing move cops flack. Accessed November 2009.
  40. Verbeke, W. A. J., & Viane, J. (2000). Ethical challenges for livestock production: Meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waiblinger, S., Menke, C., & Coleman, G. (2002). The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Western Australian Farmers Federation. (2009). Modiano on message with 2010 mulesing deadline. Accessed November 2009.
  43. Zubair, M., & Garforth, C. (2006). Farm level tree planting in Pakistan: The role of farmers’ perceptions and attitudes. Agroforestry Systems, 66, 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandra E. D. Wells
    • 1
  • Joanne Sneddon
    • 2
  • Julie A. Lee
    • 2
  • Dominique Blache
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Animal Biology M085, Faculty of Natural & Agricultural SciencesThe University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  2. 2.Business SchoolThe University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations