Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Mulesing is the surgical removal of loose skin around the perineum and tail of lambs between 8 and 24 weeks of age, usually without anaesthetic. As the wound heals there is a tightening of the skin and a subsequent enlargement of the wool-free area around the perineum.

  2. Flystrike, of which breech strike is the most common type, occurs when female blowflies (Lucilia cuprina) lay their eggs in wool around the breech area of the sheep. The mechanical and chemical activity of the hatched larvae as they feed on the live flesh causes significant damage, or strike.

  3. Plastic clips that induce ischaemic necrosis of clamped skin, which typically falls off after about 2 weeks, increasing the bare skin in the breech area of the sheep.

  4. Jetting involves the topical application of chemicals on the sheep to repel flies and protect against flystrike. Crutching is the removal of wool from around the tail and between the rear legs of sheep.

  5. Cohen’s (1992) rule of thumb in psychological research states that explaining 2, 15, and 35% of the variance is considered to be a small, medium and large effect size respectively.

References

  • ABC Rural. (2009). PETA thinks mulesing deadline still stands. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200907/s2639894.htm. Accessed September 2009.

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Wool Innovation. (2008). AWI Board unanimously confirms support for industry decision to phase out mulesing. http://www.wool.com/Media-Releases.htm?item=MR-2008MAR-13.htm. Accessed August 2009.

  • Australian Wool Innovation. (2009). Flystrike prevention in Australian sheep. http://www.wool.com/Grow_Animal-Health_Flystrike-prevention.htm. Accessed 19 August 2009.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beedell, J. D. C., & Rehman, T. (2000). Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. M. (1996). People’s willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 5, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgen, S. O., & Skarstad, G. A. (2007). Norwegian pig farmers’ motivations for improving animal welfare. British Food Journal, 109(11), 891–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruckmeier, K., & Prutzer, M. (2007). Swedish pig producers and their perspectives on animal welfare: A case study. British Food Journal, 109(11), 906–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, J. B. (2002). Motivations to participate in riparian improvement programs: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Science Communication, 23, 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemsworth, P. H. (2003). Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81, 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huik, M. M. V., & Bock, B. B. (2007). Attitudes of Dutch pig farmers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal, 109(11), 879–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • James, H. S. Jr. & Hendrickson, M. K. (2007). Perceived economic pressures and farmer ethics. Department of Agricultural Economics Working Paper No. AEWP 2007-07.

  • Lee, C., & Fisher, A. D. (2007). Welfare consequences of mulesing of sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal, 85, 89–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). (2008). Save the sheep. http://www.savethesheep.com. Accessed 1 August 2009.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Robson, C. (1993). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. (1995). Farm animal welfare: Social. bioethical and research issues. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sneddon, J. & Rollin, B. (2010). Mulesing and animal ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806-009-9216-z.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberghe, H. (2009). AWI mulesing move cops flack. http://www.countryman.com.au/article/2587.html. Accessed November 2009.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Western Australian Farmers Federation. (2009). Modiano on message with 2010 mulesing deadline. http://www.wafarmers.org.au/press_release/release.asp?id=316. Accessed November 2009.

  • Zubair, M., & Garforth, C. (2006). Farm level tree planting in Pakistan: The role of farmers’ perceptions and attitudes. Agroforestry Systems, 66, 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Animal Biology M085, Faculty of Natural & Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia

    Alexandra E. D. Wells & Dominique Blache

  2. Business School, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia

    Joanne Sneddon & Julie A. Lee

Authors
  1. Alexandra E. D. Wells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joanne Sneddon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julie A. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dominique Blache
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanne Sneddon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wells, A.E.D., Sneddon, J., Lee, J.A. et al. Farmer’s Response to Societal Concerns About Farm Animal Welfare: The Case of Mulesing. J Agric Environ Ethics 24, 645–658 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9284-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9284-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation