Public and industry stakeholders’ knowledge of animal welfare standards in livestock production systems and its link to attitudes, behavior and training.

Ihab Shawki Erian B. Sc (Hon), Dip. T.A.P&H. (Edn), Dip of Manag.

A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2020. School of Veterinary Science

1 Abstract of the Thesis:

There is the potential for improving stakeholders’ knowledge of animal welfare in the livestock industries through training programmes, but their influence on attitudes to livestock welfare, is unclear and not well understood. Two studies were undertaken to address this, the first being a survey investigating public knowledge of meat chicken production systems in South East Queensland, Australia and how it influences attitudes towards animal welfare and consumption behaviour. The collected data indicated that consumers’ knowledge was limited, but where it existed it was related to an improved attitude towards chicken welfare and high levels of chicken meat consumption. The data from the first study indicated that consumers were willing to pay extra for the establishment of an animal welfare labelling system, suggesting that many consumers would like to have a better understanding of the systems of production of the animals they are consuming. The study indicated the importance of educating consumers about chicken production systems, which may help to improve their empathy towards chickens. Most respondents did not support the practice of killing birds without stunning for religious reasons and regarded the practice to be unacceptable or very unacceptable. Consumers gained their knowledge from multiple sources.

The second research study investigated the knowledge of stakeholders in the livestock industries of East and Southeast Asia who responded to a questionnaire about their knowledge of animal welfare considerations during livestock transport and slaughter, guided by the standards and guidelines for animal welfare for the international livestock trade set up by The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), (Office Internacionale d’ Epizootie). The growing economic advancement in the East and Southeast Asian region suggested potential benefit of a research study to examine stakeholders’ understanding of welfare during transport and slaughter of livestock. The survey of stakeholders’ knowledge of livestock welfare in the transport and slaughter industries was conducted in four South East Asian countries, Malaysia, China, Vietnam and Thailand, in association with trainer and stakeholder workshops conducted in each country. Attitudes of participants towards animal welfare during slaughter and transport were identified. Knowledge scores were in accordance with respondents’ assessment of their own knowledge level. Stakeholders received

2 training, after which their knowledge scores increased. Knowledge scores had few connections to attitudes, but respondents that were certain about their attitudes to livestock welfare were most likely to have a correlation to a high level of knowledge. Regional differences were evident and should be considered in future training provisions.

The biggest knowledge improvement was among Thai respondents, who tended to be younger and less experienced than in other countries. Respondents with the biggest improvement in knowledge scores were most likely to be involved in the dairy industry and least likely to be involved in the sheep and goat industries, while meat processors and those involved in pig or poultry production showed moderate improvements. Respondents who obtained their knowledge from multiple sources had the most knowledge, but the lowest increase after training. Connections between attitudes to improving animal welfare and knowledge were limited, being mainly confined to ambivalent responses about their attitudes. The study suggests that knowledge can be improved in animal welfare by training programs focused on livestock welfare around transport and slaughter, and this may make people more certain about their attitudes towards animal welfare. However, local cultural backgrounds must be considered in designing future training programs.

The common theme between the two studies was the investigation of the extent of knowledge regarding animal welfare in meat production industries. It is concluded that improving knowledge of animal welfare in the animal production industries will enable stakeholders to have clear and empathetic attitudes towards animals in these systems.

3 Declaration by author This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly authored works that I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.

I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis.

4 Publications included in this thesis Peer reviewed papers

Erian, I. and Phillips, C.J.C. 2017. Public Understanding and attitudes towards meat Chicken Production and relations to Consumption. Animals,7:20;doi:10.3390/ani7030020.pp28.incorporated as Chapter 3.

Contributor Statement of contribution Erian, I. Literature review (100%) Wrote the paper (80%) Edited paper (20%) Analysis and interpretation of data (60%)

Phillips, CJC Wrote the paper (20%) Edited paper (80%)

Analysis and Interpretation of data (40%)

Erian, I., Sinclair, M. and Phillips, C.J.C. 2019. Knowledge of stakeholders in the livestock industries of East and Southeast Asia about welfare during transport and slaughter and its relation to their attitudes to improving animal welfare. Animals, 9:99; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030099.incorporated as Chapter 4.

Contributor Statement of contribution Erian, I. Designed method (40%) Wrote the paper (100%) Edited paper (20%) Statistical analysis (70%)

Sinclair, M. Designed method (20%) Edited paper (10%)

Phillips, CJC Designed method (40%)

Edited paper (70%)

Statistical analysis (30%)

5

Conference Proceedings and Scientific Meetings

• Public knowledge of chicken production systems and its relation to attitudes and consumer behaviour. Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientific – College Science Week, QT Gold Coast, Australia, July 9-11 2015. • Food Labelling and Democratic Engagement in the Australian Food System. Melbourne Law School, Carlton, Melbourne, September 28-29 2017. • Phillips, C.J.C., Fryer, C., Erian, I. and Sinclair, M. 2018. Livestock welfare improvement in China. International Cooperation Committee of Animal Welfare (ICCAW) conference proceedings of the World Conference of Animal Welfare, ed. Bao. J, et al. October, 2018 • Husbandry knowledge of stakeholders in the livestock industries of East and Southeast Asia and its relation to attitudes to animal welfare during transport and slaughter. World Conference on Farm Animal Welfare, The Second World Conference on Farm Welfare, Beijing Conference Centre, Beijing, China, October 23-25 2015.

Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis

No manuscripts submitted for publication.

Other publications during candidature

No other publications.

Contributions by others to the thesis

The concept for, and design of, this research project, as well as analysis and interpretation of data were achieved through discussions and consultations with my

6 principal advisor Professor Clive Phillips. Miss Michelle Sinclair contributed with the attitude questions in the second research study

Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree

No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis.

Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

Clearance for the first research study was obtained from the University of Queensland Ethics Committee (reference number 2013000458 – The ethical approval letter is included in the appendix Table No: 9) and from the Brisbane City Council. Data was collected by volunteers that were supplied with ID cards (Figure 9).

Human ethical clearance for the second research study was obtained from the University of Queensland Ethics Committee (Reference Number 2015000059 – The ethical approval letter is included in the appendix Table No: 10).

7

Acknowledgements

Sincere acknowledgment and gratitude to my principal advisor Professor Clive Phillips who always supplied me with valuable comments even during his leave or holidays, and to Dr Georgette Leah Burns for her help and guidance in preparing and finalising my work, her priceless comments virtually guided me to produce a high quality and meaningful academic thesis for the final publication. Thanks and appreciation is due to UQ staff at the School of Veterinary Science, Graduate School, Library and the IT support unit. Appreciation is also due to Ms Cheryl Brugman for her comments on my thesis. Special thanks to all the people who have participated in my surveys and to the volunteers who gathered the data from all the participants.

8

Financial support Governments of New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia, and the EU, as well as Universiti Putra Malaysia, World Animal Protection, and the Humane Slaughter Association for a Dorothy Sidley Memorial Award provided by the Humane Slaughter Association to Ihab Erian. I also acknowledge the support of the World Animal Health Organisation, OIE.

Keywords: animal welfare; Asia; knowledge; chicken production, livestock; slaughter; training; transport.

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)

ANZSRC code: 070799 Veterinary Sciences not elsewhere classified (10%) ANZSRC code: 220199 Applied Ethics not elsewhere classified (20%) ANZSRC code: 070203, Animal Management (70%)

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification

FoR code 0707, Veterinary Sciences, (60%) FoR code 0702, Humane Animal Treatment (40%) – Animal Production.

9 Dedication

Thanks to my family and friends, my wife Leanne and my children Nicholas and Sarah for supporting me throughout the study and for their patience with me. I dedicate this thesis to them and to the spirits of my late parents Professor Shawki Erian and Mrs Georgette Erian who, I believe, are looking on from heaven now.

“People will only conserve what they love, love what they understand, understand what they know and know what they are taught”. Naomi Hobson (2012).

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract of the Thesis: ...... 2

Declaration by author ...... 4

Publications included in this thesis...... 5

Conference Proceedings and Scientific Meetings ...... 6

Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis ...... 6

Contributions by others to the thesis...... 6

Acknowledgements ...... 8

List of Figures ...... 15

List of Tables ...... 16

List of Abbreviations used in this thesis ...... 17

Chapter 1: ...... 18

Introduction ...... 18

Chapter 2: ...... 22

Literature Review ...... 22

2.1 Introduction and background information: ...... 22

2.1.1 Background on intensive chicken production ...... 22

2.1.2 Background to live export from Australia to Asia ...... 28

2.2 Stakeholders’ Knowledge about animal production systems ...... 29

2.3 Animal welfare issues associated with Transport ...... 30

2.4 Consumers’ knowledge of the Australian chicken production industries ...... 31

2.5 Free range and organic chicken production ...... 35

2.6 Ethical concerns about Australian chicken farming systems ...... 41

2.7 Attitudes to the welfare of broiler chickens ...... 42

2.8 Labelling of animal products to provide information about animal welfare ...... 44

1 'RSPCA Approved' ...... 45

2 'Certified Free Range' ...... 45

3 'Certified Organic' ...... 46

2.9 Other claims and logos ...... 48

2.10 Slaughter effects on animal welfare ...... 49

2.11 Livestock Slaughter without stunning (kosher and halal) ...... 51

2.12 Australian Model Code of Practice ...... 51

11 2.13 Advocacy groups ...... 52

2.14 The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) ...... 53

2.15 Conclusion of the literature review ...... 56

Chapter 3: ...... 58

Public Understanding of, and Attitudes towards, Meat Chicken Production Systems, and Relations to Consumption ...... 58

Abstract for the first research study:...... 58

3.1 Introduction ...... 59

3.2 Structure of the Australian Chicken Meat Industry ...... 62

3.2.1 Attitudes and consumption ...... 63

3.2.2 Knowledge links to attitude and consumption ...... 64

3.3 Materials and Methods ...... 66

3.4 Questionnaire design ...... 67

3.5 Statistical analysis ...... 75

3.6 Results ...... 76

3.6.1 Respondents’ knowledge and its relation to attitudes and consumption for the first research study: ...... 76

3.6.2 Relationships between respondents’ knowledge and: ...... 78

3.6.2.2 Respondents’ Attitudes ...... 78

3.6.3 Relationship between K score and attitude/consumption...... 79

3.6.4 Attitudes regarding chicken welfare rearing systems ...... 80

3.6.5 Consumption and attitude towards Labelling ...... 81

3.7 Gender effect regarding chicken welfare rearing systems ...... 82

3.7.1 Respondents’ Knowledge ...... 82

3.7.2 Respondents’ Attitudes ...... 84

3.7.3 Respondents’ Consumption ...... 84

3.8 Place of Residence effect regarding chicken welfare rearing systems ...... 84

3.8.1 Respondents’ Knowledge ...... 85

3.8.2 Respondents’ Attitudes ...... 87

3.8.3 Respondents’ Consumption / labelling ...... 87

3.9 Marital Status effects regarding chicken welfare rearing systems ...... 88

3.9.1 Respondents’ Knowledge ...... 88

12 3.9.2 Respondents’ Attitudes ...... 90

3.9.3 Respondents’ Consumption ...... 91

3.10 Religion effects regarding chicken welfare rearing systems ...... 91

3.10.1 Respondents’ Knowledge ...... 91

3.10.2 Respondents’ Attitudes ...... 93

3.10.3 Respondents’ Consumption / labelling ...... 93

3.11 Age effects regarding chicken welfare rearing systems...... 94

3.12 Income effects regarding chicken welfare rearing systems...... 94

3. 13 Discussion: the first research study ...... 94

3.13.1 Response rate ...... 95

3.13.2 Respondents’ Knowledge ...... 95

3.13.3 Respondents’ Attitudes ...... 97

3.13.4 Respondents’ Consumption ...... 98

3.13.5 Demographic effects...... 99

3.13.6 Labelling and accreditation systems: ...... 102

3.14 Conclusions for the first research study ...... 105

Chapter 4: ...... 107

Knowledge of stakeholders in the livestock industries of East and Southeast Asia about animal welfare during transport and slaughter and its relation to their attitudes to improving animal welfare ...... 107

Abstract for the second research study: ...... 107

4.1 Introduction ...... 108

4.2 Questionnaire design ...... 111

4.3 Materials and Methods ...... 113

4.4 Statistical analysis ...... 115

4.5 Results ...... 116

4.5.1 Respondents’ husbandry knowledge for the research study: ...... 117

4.5.2 Attitude effects on knowledge score...... 118

4.5.3 Attitude effects on change in knowledge score post training ...... 118

4.5.4 Demographic effects on knowledge score...... 119

4.5.5 Demographic effects on change in knowledge score post-training: ...... 119

4.6 Discussion: the second research study ...... 120

13 4.6.1 Demographics effects on knowledge score...... 120

4.6.2 Respondents’ husbandry knowledge ...... 121

4.6.3 Attitude effects on Knowledge score...... 123

4.6.4 Demographic effects on Knowledge Score and its improvement ...... 124

4.6.5 Respondents’ Attitudes on knowledge score...... 125

4.7 Respondents’ Consumption effects on knowledge scores...... 125

4.8 Implementation of Labelling and accreditation Animal Welfare systems: ...... 126

4.9 Gender effects on knowledge scores...... 129

4.10 Marital status effects on knowledge scores...... 130

4.11 Conclusions for the second research study ...... 130

Chapter 5: General discussion ...... 133

5.1 First Research study...... 133

5.2 Research Second study: ...... 135

5.3 Linking the 2nd research study with the 1st research study ...... 137

5.4 Relationship between the first research study and previous literature: ...... 139

5.5 Relationship between the second research study and previous literature: ...... 140

5.6 The practical implications that can be drawn from the work and how it can be put into practice ...... 142

5.7 Limitations of the study ...... 143

5.8 How would I do it differently if I was starting again? ...... 144

5.9 The broader implications of my studies, for society, for animals, for trade, for welfare- conscious members of society ...... 145

5.10 The most important results and how long they will be relevant ...... 145

5.11 Recommendations for future work ...... 146

Chapter 6 Conclusions ...... 147

List of References...... 149

Appendices ...... 175

14 List of Figures Figure 1: Chicken transport is often over short distances from the farm (the point of rearing) to the processing plant ...... 25 Figure 2: Chicken houses before intensification...... 34 Figure 3: Modern Commercial Poultry Houses. Houses are “Tunnel Ventilated” and environmentally controlled...... 34 Figure 4: Free Range Vermont Pastured Poultry (organic) ...... 36 Figure 5: Chicken processing abattoir...... 41 Figure 6: Over-weight stock, the birds are gaining weight so fast ...... 48 Figure 7: The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991)...... 56 Figure 8: The interaction and links between Consumer Attitude, Public Knowledge of production systems, consumption of animal products and the Demographic effects on the three elements ...... 66 Figure 9: ID card provided to volunteers for data collection ...... 67 Figure 10: Distribution of K scores (out of 15) approximated a normal distribution curve with a higher than expected number of zero values (n = 28)...... 77 Figure 11: Biplot of Principal Component Analysis of attitude questions, showing components First and Second ...... 81 Figure 12: Livestock labelling system as used in America ...... 125 Figure 13: Supplied information for consumers regarding different types of livestock production. The information includes the animal welfare programme for different species...... 126 Figure 14: Flowchart of Project Aims ...... 136

15 List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of the Main Commercial Meat Chicken Farming Systems in Australia (AMCF, 2018)...... 39 Table 2: Certification Systems in Australia (Animals Australia 2013) ...... 47 Table 3: Demographics of respondents compared with data from Queensland and Australia ...... 69 Table 4: Number and % of respondents with answers to questions that were not significantly (P< 0.05) related to respondents’ knowledge (K score) ...... 70 Table 5: Number and % of respondents to questions with significant relationship to knowledge (K) score, together with the K score for responders to each option 73 Table 6: Significant differences in knowledge, attitudes, consumption/labelling and consumer behaviour between the referent group for gender ...... 82 Table 7: The difference in knowledge, attitudes and consumption towards meat chicken welfare according to dwelling place ...... 85 Table 8: The difference in knowledge, attitudes towards meat chicken welfare and consumption of respondents according to marital status ...... 88 Table 9: Significant difference in knowledge, attitude and consumption/labelling between the referent groups for religion ...... 91 Table 10: Significant effects of age on responses ...... 94 Table 11: 5-step animal welfare rating standards for livestock industry; in-store labelling...... 126

16

List of Abbreviations used in this thesis

AW Animal Welfare

ACMF The Australian Chicken Meat Federation.

AFEO Asia, Far East and Oceania.

EFSA European Food Safety Authority.

FAO The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

GM Genetically Modified

Lux Measure of the amount of light intensity as perceived by the human eye and produced by one Candle (Lumen) that can illuminate a surface of one square metre. A typical business office is likely to have a light level of 250 lux and light from the television is 10-20 lux.

K scores Knowledge Score

OIE The World Organisation for Animal Health, (Office Internacionale d’ Epizootie).

RAW Regional Animal Welfare Strategy.

RSPCA Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

SD Stocking Densities are expressed in total bird weight per square metre (kg/sqm).

SE South East.

TPB Theory of Planned Behaviour.

17

Chapter 1:

Introduction Animal welfare issues are recognised as an important concern associated with animal production in many countries, particularly those with existing animal welfare policies, legislation and public awareness (Veissier et al. 2008). Fraser (2014) stated that animal welfare problems arise when animals are kept under highly unnatural conditions and as such scientists have tried to improve animal welfare by making animal living conditions more natural, however there are always arguable aspects between all stakeholders on this sensitive issue. It is important to recognise that there are significant differences in attitudes to animal welfare issues between regions (Phillips et al. 2012). With the current trend for expansion of animal production in developing countries, livestock legislation is beginning to be promoted internationally through animal welfare codes of practice and minimal animal welfare standards. In 2002 the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) began the process of creating animal welfare standards, which are largely derived from scientific and technical knowledge. Such knowledge has been developed through informal and formal processes (Kumar 2011), in particular the acquisition of facts, theories and ideas, through education, reading from reliable sources, peers, consultation and the media (Jurcoane et al. 2011). The successful implementation of knowledge would contribute to improving the conditions of intensively farmed animals throughout the world.

Knowledge also has other values connected to behaviour. The theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) acknowledges that knowledge and attitudes are important elements of, and linked to, changing behaviour towards ethical animal welfare practices (Ajzen 1991). The extent of knowledge, the role and relevance of such knowledge and the complexity of the knowledge have an effect on attitudes and behaviour (Fabrigar et al. 2006). This theory has been widely used, for example to predict alcohol consumption among school students (Cooke et al. 2014). It has also been used to change the behaviour of employees on construction sites, so that waste was reduced (li et al. 2017). Furthermore, it has been used to predict intention to care for patients with alcohol dependence by nursing students (Talbot et al. 2015) and to assess the importance of self-belief for developing ways to rectify alcohol problems (Finch et al.

18 2011). It is acknowledged that knowledge alone is insufficient to change beliefs, and positive behaviour strategies and regular checks are needed to increase compliance with the procedures (e.g. of hand hygiene in nursing students (Jeong & Kim 2016). Other research has shown the necessity of understanding the relationships between planned behaviour and attitudes (e.g. in perceptions of workplace health and safety) (Guerin et al. 2018). Jurcoane et al. (2011) supported the findings that acquisition of facts, theories and ideas through education, reading from reliable sources, peer consultation and media could have a positive effect in changing attitudes.

The potential to improve stakeholders’ knowledge of animal welfare in the livestock industries through training programs and its influence on their attitudes to livestock welfare is unclear. There is limited current literature available on the knowledge of the Australian public about meat chicken production and how this knowledge can influence attitudes to the welfare of birds or how it influences consumer behaviour. There is no road map in the literature that addresses public concerns about animal welfare in SE Queensland, Australia, which could lead to an improved attitude towards chicken welfare in Queensland and subsequently in Australia as a whole. Significant numbers of Australian consumers believe that they should understand the systems of production of the animals that they are consuming. Therefore educating the public about livestock production systems may help to improve their knowledge of meat production and consumption.

Since 2005, a framework of animal welfare activities and strategies has been adopted and supported by OIE members for Asia, Far East and Oceania (AFEO). The OIE Regional Animal Welfare Strategy (RAWS) aims to facilitate the regional implementation of the Terrestrial Animal Code (Section 7) animal welfare guidelines and adoption of the same animal welfare standards and guidelines adopted by OIE members (OIE 2018). The original strategy, developed in 2008, was to provide a vision of a region where the welfare of animals is respected, promoted and incrementally advanced. In addition, the strategy simultaneously aimed to enhance the pursuit of progress and socio-economic development of these progressive countries (OIE Global Animal Welfare Strategy 2017). Achievement of this goal in the region will require education in the form of training stakeholders in key aspects of animal welfare identified by the OIE standards.

19

Two studies were conducted in this thesis to investigate the potential for improving stakeholders’ knowledge of animal welfare in the livestock industries, and the influence of this improvement on attitudes to livestock welfare. The aim of the first research study was to (a) assess the Australian public’s knowledge 1 of chicken production systems and (b) assess the influence of this knowledge on attitudes towards animal welfare, chicken consumption and food choices and (c) to provide a baseline for future studies of stakeholders’ knowledge of livestock slaughter. Knowledge and attitudes of the public towards chicken production systems was hypothesised to have an impact on the way consumers choose chicken products. In particular, it was anticipated that members of the public who had a good knowledge and awareness of chicken production systems would express their view about chicken welfare. As a result it was hypothesised that their intake of chicken products would be reduced, and/or they would preferentially select chicken products that had been produced and processed in an environment that could be classified as ethically and environmentally acceptable to animals.

The second research study focused on the importance of improving local husbandry knowledge of, and attitude towards, animal welfare during transport (OIE 2018-Chapter 7.2 & 7.3) and slaughter (OIE 2018-Chapter 7.5) in four diverse countries in East and Southeast Asia: the Federation of Malaya, (hereafter referred to as Malaysia), the People’s Republic of China (hereafter China), the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (hereafter Vietnam), and the Kingdom of Thailand (hereafter Thailand). The attitudes questionnaires examined the effect of local laws, the effect of personal and religious beliefs and the importance of any improvement to workplace, community and peers. It was hypothesised that knowledge of the OIE standards and guidelines during livestock transport and slaughter would improve attitudes towards animal welfare. The study also examined cross-cultural differences between these countries and the way knowledge was acquired. Previous work with these stakeholders has examined their intention and ability to enhance animal welfare (Sinclair, Morton & Phillips 2018), and the differences between the different countries and stakeholders in

1 defined as “facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject” (OUP 2015).

20 their attitudes to livestock welfare during transport and slaughter (Sinclair, Zito & Phillips 2017a and b).

Chapter 2 in this thesis focuses on reviewing the literature dealing with the main research studies. The review firstly gives a brief background and information regarding the public knowledge of the Australian chicken production systems and the effects that influence attitudes and consumer purchasing behaviour and ultimately the Australian consumers. Chapters 3 and 4 examines in detail research studies 1 and 2 respectively. Chapter 3 will give an account of the Australian chicken meat industry, the link between attitude and consumption, knowledge links to attitude and consumption and the relationships between respondents and demographics effects (e.g. knowledge, attitude, consumption and labelling). Chapter 4 focuses on attitude effects on knowledge score before and after training, demographic effects on knowledge, attitude and consumption. The study reviews the labelling and accreditation systems for livestock, which have been established overseas such as in USA and Europe.

Finally, the thesis includes a “General Discussion” that attempts to unite the two studies and examine what inferences can be drawn and ends with a set of definitive conclusions.

21 Chapter 2:

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction and background information:

There is a lack of research regarding public knowledge of chicken production systems in Australia and how it influences attitudes and consumer behaviour. Attention to detail regarding the welfare of animals and the consumers’ willingness to pay for the establishment of a production system that complies with the Five Freedoms (developed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council of the U.K in 1965) has become of paramount importance and will provide a platform for future strategic marketing and animal welfare enthusiasts.

Some academic researchers and scientists have undertaken extensive research on the factors that influence animal welfare in production systems (Fraser 2014, Cornish et al. 2016, Dawkins 2016, Coleman 2018; Clark et al. 2019). Yet, although some of these factors are scientifically proven; the scientific reality may differ from the perception of the public (Fraser 2014). Any attempts to describe the industry as fully addressing public concerns about animal welfare are deemed to fail without a detailed understanding of public opinion, knowledge and understanding of the industry itself and what factors influence consumer choice to buy animal welfare friendly chicken products. In this chapter, I review two examples of intensive livestock management meat chicken production and international livestock export by ship as both are relevant to the subsequent surveys conducted.

2.1.1 Background on intensive chicken production

The Australian chicken meat industry is a predominantly “vertically integrated” structure. This means individual integrator companies control almost all aspects of production - breeding farms, hatcheries, feed mills and supply of feed to contractors, some broiler growing farms/units, medication, transport, processing and further processing plants (Kvaloy & Tveltera 2008; ACMF 2018). The management of the “grow-out” of day old stock until the day of processing, which includes labour staffing,

22 housing, and equipment, is contracted to farm owners and growers (approximately 800), who are paid a negotiated monetary return per 100 birds or per weight at the end of the growing cycle. The typical modern poultry shed is “Tunnel Ventilated”, about 150 metres long and 15 metres wide, with a capacity of 40,000-60,000 birds in each of 3 to 10 sheds at the site (ACMF 2018). All aspects of welfare related issues such as stock densities, lighting regime, or general husbandry practises are determined by a code of practice or regulatory quality control systems (Robins & Phillips 2011). A total of 80% of Australia’s meat chickens are under these contracts (ACMF 2018). Other meat chickens are produced on large company farms, or on farms owned and managed by ‘intermediary’ companies which own a number of farms, each managed by a farm manager, and who enter into contracts with processing companies to grow out chickens on a larger scale (Queensland Government 2017).

Two large integrated national companies that supply more than 70% of Australia’s broiler chicken meat are Baiada and Inghams Enterprises - following the acquisition of Bartter/Steggles by Baiada in July 2009 (ACMF 2018). Bartter's Victorian operation was acquired by Turosi Foods (owner of La Ionica Poultry). Inghams and Baiada are privately owned, with farming and processing operations. The balance of the market is supplied by another six medium-sized, privately owned companies, with each supplying between 3% and 9% of the national market, and numerous other smaller processors. Breeding farms owned by the main integrated chicken companies are strategically located across Australia, with a trend towards the siting of new Great Grandparent and Grandparent breeder farms in areas more isolated from the traditional poultry rearing areas to reduce the risk of these valuable flocks being exposed to disease agents.

The Australian Chicken Meat Industry claimed that almost all the chicken meat consumed by the public was grown and produced in Australia, with around 4% exported (ACMF, 2015), mainly to South Africa, Hong Kong, Philippines, South Pacific Islands, Vietnam and Singapore (Hogan, 2011 and Midfield Commodities n.d.). Food Innovation Australia Ltd (FIAL), which is an industry led, government funded initiative to collaboratively fuel growth throughout the Australian food and agribusiness industry

23 reported that in 2015/16 Australia exported AUS$46.9 million of chicken meat which is 32,800 tonnes representing 2.9% of domestic production (FIAL 2017). The majority of chicken meat consumed within Australia was reared under intensive farming systems commonly referred to as ‘Factory Farming’ which compromises the animals’ welfare and natural behaviours (Singer & Mason 2006 and Liu et al., 2006) because the stocking density, group size and environment control has been altered to achieve commercially economic targets (Midfield Commodities n.d.).

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) recorded that Australia produced 1.23 million tonnes of chicken meat during 2017 (FAOSTAT 2018). Consumption of chicken meat in 2015-2016 was projected to be 48.5 kg/person (Australian Chicken Meat Federation) (ACMF 2018) and Australian consumers were spending AUD$5.6 billion per annum on chicken meat in supermarkets, fast food chains, speciality shops and restaurants (ACMF 2018). The Australian chicken industry attributed the significant increase of chicken demands to its versatility and ease of handling and cooking and in addition, that chicken meat is recognised to be a low fat protein source and provides a source of vitamins and minerals such as niacin, vitamin A, vitamin E and magnesium.

At approximately 5-7 weeks of age, chickens have reached the 'target' weight for slaughter at about 2.0 kg. Before catching the chickens to be transported for slaughter, food is withdrawn for 8-12 hours and water for one hour. Catchers walk through the sheds at night grabbing birds by one leg and carrying them in bunches (up to five birds each hand) to crates (Langkabel et al 2015, Kittelsen et al. 2018 and Animal Liberation NSW 2019). Nijdam et al 2014 reported that catching crew has to load between 1,000 – 1,500 bids per hour. Birds are then loaded into the crates and stacked onto a truck (Figure 1). The first harvest (thinning) occurs as early as 30-35 days and the last at 55-65 days (ACMF 2018). Humane handling is impossible as catchers must handle 300-500 birds per hour. Many of the birds already have fractures and dislocations and this process adds significantly to their pain. Once on the truck, the chickens, who have spent their entire lives in dim sheds, are exposed to traffic noise and at times also temperature extremes. Some will die during transportation due to rough handling or, in summer, due to heat stroke if the truck ventilation is poor. Other causes of death

24 include heart failure, trauma and blood loss due to haemorrhaging into dislocated hip joints resulting from the rough catching process (Nicol & Scott 1990; Aussie Farms 2019).

Figure 1: Chicken transport is often over short distances from the farm (the point of rearing) to the processing plant

Source: Harvesting the Meat Chickens. ACMF 2018. https://www.chicken.org.au/chicken-meat-production/. Accessed on 5 June 2019.

A consumer’s selection of food is governed by numerous aspects involving culture, religion, lifestyle, diet, knowledge, health concerns and current food trends which are often promoted by the media. The Australian Chicken Meat Federation (ACMF 2018) reported the occasional use of genetically modified (GM) products in animal feed which is imported when some grains are in short supply locally, and the imported feed may contain GM grains (Table 1). Patrick Byrne, Professor of Soil and Crop Sciences at Colorado State University, wrote that “Since GM (Genetically Modified) crops were introduced in the U.S. in the mid-1990s the techniques have become widely adopted by growers of several large acreage field crops” (Byrne 2019).

Despite the connotations that livestock welfare is being sacrificed for industrial scale production, the demand for chicken meat is increasing worldwide. For example, the Australian market has increased by 160% in the last 20 years and the consumption of chicken meat has exceeded consumption of any other kind of meat (ACMF 2018). As well as low cost, the chicken industry attributes the rapid increase of demand to the versatility and ease of handling and cooking of chicken products, and the fact that they

25 are a low-fat protein source (ACMF 2018). However, some discriminatory buying by consumers is evidenced by their reluctance to buy meat produced from intensive systems if the quality of meat produced is perceived to be adversely affected by the way the animals have been treated (Schröder & McEachern 2004).

Consumers are curious and skeptical regarding the food they consume and they expect the Government to legislate to ensure that food produced has proceeded through the correct steps throughout growing, processing and even marketing phases. The nationwide survey conducted by Department of Agricultural Economics – Oklahoma State University (Lusk, Norwood & Prickett 2007) reported that animal welfare enthusiasts raised the awareness of livestock welfare and pushed for industry changes from credible labelling systems regarding the way animals are raised and processed to the living conditions of livestock. The surveyed consumers believed that the treatment of farm animals should be driven by market forces not government regulations and 84% of consumers believed that they should have the right to choose what they eat and should not be dictated by media or minority activists. As 68% of surveyed consumers agreed that government should take an active role in promoting farm animal welfare, the government should reflect society’s animal welfare values and these values should be coded into law (Lusk, Norwood & Prickett-Oklahoma State University 2007).

In “Animal Machines”, Ruth Harrison (1964, pp 2) stated that “Rapid turnover, high-density stocking, a high degree of mechanization, a low labour requirement and efficient conversion of food into saleable products were the five essentials for a system of animal production to be called intensive”. Modern chicken meat production practices in Australia provide low cost meat to consumers where the retail price of chicken meat in 2014 was $5.59/kg in comparison to beef $16.87/kg, pork $14.48/kg and lamb and goat $13.79/kg (ACMF 2018). The low price for retail chicken meat has come about, arguably, at the expense of farm animal welfare by intensifying the production systems and the genetic selection for bigger birds with fast growing potential. The trend toward confined intensive (factory farming) operations has improved animal welfare in some aspects such as protecting stock from predators, preventing stock from abusing each other, providing a comfortable temperature, and allowing easy access to health treatments. Nevertheless, welfare of stock has

26 reduced in other ways (Lusk, Norwood & Prickett-Oklahoma State University, 2007) by high stock density, unnatural breading conditions and restricting the natural behaviour of birds.

In recent years, consumers emphasised the need for ethically treated farm animals, nutrient rich food and animal friendly produce such as meat, eggs, milk and wool. Animals are no longer regarded as agricultural products or units but they have a value of their own (Korte et al. 2007). Public knowledge of animal production systems and the information given to consumers tends to influence the food choices that consumers make in their purchases from supermarkets or elsewhere (Grujic et al. 2013; Clark et al 2019). The introduction of proposed animal welfare jurisdictions in the future ought to consider the natural behaviour of animals prior to being intensified or confined in warehouse style accommodation (Figures 1 and 2). Although there is no evidence suggesting that chicken producers cannot speak directly to animal welfare policy makers or advocates, the interests of both parties must be taken into consideration when legislating animal welfare policy (Te Velde et al. 2002; Main et al 2014; Coleman 2018).

The buying power of consumers has been evidenced by their refusal to buy meat produced from intensive systems if the quality of meat produced was affected by the way the animals were treated (Schröeder & McEachern 2004). Consumers in the Zaragoza region of Spain had a negative perception regarding “Factory Farming” and beef intensive systems, with 75% of the surveyed consumers indicating they were willing to pay more for food produced where animal welfare standards were considered and followed (Köbrich et al. 2001; Maria 2006).

2.1.2 Background to live export from Australia to Asia

Australia is also well known for its approach to the welfare of exported animals. Around 3 million livestock Australian animals including cattle, sheep, buffalo and goats are exported for overseas markets (RSPCA 2019). Animals are mustered from Australian farms to ports enduring conditions far from ethical with no welfare standards being considered. Santurtun et al. 2014 reported that animals had to endure rough

27 sea conditions, high stocking densities, extreme temperatures and sea waves during the journey and many die on board before reaching their intended destinations. Phillips (2016) and other Australian organisations such as RSPCA argued for the end of the Australian live animal export trade in favour of expanding the Australian chilled and frozen meat export which is in growing demand particularly to China (Meat & Livestock Australia 2019). Tiplady, Walsh & Phillips (2012) also reported the horrific bad conditions that exported Australian animals faced in shipment to Indonesia. The deaths of 64 Australian cattle that died on a recent voyage to Israel prompted a mass protest in Israel against Australian livestock exports, as reported by Medianet.com.au on 29 April 2018. Mr Eddie Summerfield, rural 3AW reporter, met with the Australian Live Exporters Council Chief Executive Mr Mark Harvey-Sutton to request an investigation into claims of animal abuse on the journey. The Department of Agriculture has been asked to carry out the investigation.

As a result of this, the Australian government developed significant international leadership role in the region with development of a “Regional Animal Welfare Strategy” (RAWS) for the East and Southeast of Asia in co-operation with the international OIE organisation. Animal welfare workshops took place in November 2007 by 37 participants from 12 countries from Asian region and three international organisations (Australian Government-Department of Agriculture 2017). The workshops focused on the development and implementation of OIE animal welfare guidelines and standards for animal welfare in the region during transport and slaughter and a written draft of the policy was established in May 2008.

2.2 Stakeholders’ Knowledge about animal production systems

Information provision is a demand led approach which may facilitate improved decision making of consumers without imposing undue costs on producers (Caswell & Mopduszka 1996). Access to information regarding animal welfare issues via media channels such as television programmes and newspaper reports, that investigate incidents of animal welfare violation or inhumane treatment, will influence consumers’ moral concerns towards food and subsequently their ability to take responsibility and control regarding ‘freedom food’ purchasing (McEachern et al. 2007). Access to

28 production systems and animal welfare conditions was also supported by (Toma et al. 2011, Dawkins, M.S., 2016; OIE 2019).

Consumers are constantly requesting credible, honest, reliable information on the product they are purchasing and the animal welfare practices under which the products were produced will have a persuasive and convincing effect on consumers to justify their willingness to pay extra for animal friendly products (Gracia et al. 2009). Research has shown that there is a lack of information on clear workable standards in animal welfare issues (Coleman 2018), coupled with a lack of availability of animal welfare friendly products in the supermarket. Moreover, the price of these products does not encourage the consumer to change their purchasing habits (Toma et al. 2012). The issue of slaughtering animals without them first being stunned, for ritual slaughtering, is an example of a lack of sufficient information for consumers to make an informed decision (Ozari 1984, Grandin & Regenstein 1994, Silver 2011; Zoethout 2013). The current issue of banning Australian livestock from live export (Tiplady, Walsh & Phillips 2012, RSPCA 2014; Coleman 2018) is another example of inadequate regulations or enforceable standards as demanded by consumers and ignored by meat lovers and politicians. The livestock industry (eg. poultry, cattle, sheep and pigs) needs to be more transparent and accountable for animal welfare within their production systems.

Focus group discussions in several European countries revealed a general lack of knowledge of contemporary farming practices among citizens (Miele 2010). This emphasised the importance of better public education of consumers about meat production systems. A Dutch study by Frewer et al. (2005) aimed to understand consumer attitudes towards developing a new animal husbandry system that provides for livestock to be raised in an environment where they are permitted to engage in “natural behaviour”. The study of 1000 Dutch consumers found that participants thought about animal welfare in terms of animal health and the living environment, but did not think about welfare issues. The study also found that consumers were concerned about animal welfare not only because of the impact on the animals but also because of a perceived impact on food safety, quality and individual health. This suggests that people were able to see connections between animal welfare and food- related issues.

29

2.3 Animal welfare issues associated with Transport

Researchers have particularly stressed the importance of addressing animal welfare during transport. Many scholars (e.g. Broom 2003) advocated a range of behaviour, physiological, animal health, rate of mortality and carcass quality measures that can be considered for animal welfare during transport. Broom also strongly supported the need for staff to get the required knowledge and training of handling animals during transport.

Land transport of livestock is an essential element of extensive farm production systems. Wide-spread pasture-based farming system result in a need to move livestock to different places for different reasons including sale or slaughter. Animals may be transported within one property, between properties (Fisher et al. 2009), and between properties and saleyards, abattoirs, feedlots and pre-export assembly depots. Other reasons for livestock transport are to take them to growing and finishing properties, markets or to make the best use of seasonal grazing conditions.

During transport animals are subject to serious operational, logistic and environmental issues that could lead them to exhibit signs of fear and pain, as well as psychological and physical distress (Botreau et al. 2007b, Santurtun & Phillips 2014). The basic criteria to be addressed when assessing the welfare of transported animals is summarised in the following questions: 1. Are the animals properly fed and watered? 2. Are the animals properly housed? 3. Are the animals healthy? 4. Do the animals exhibit a friendly emotional state between themselves, other animals and humans?

A “Welfare Quality”R project that took into consideration the above mentioned principles and criteria was developed by Botreau et al. (2007ab). Because of the often vast and extensive distance from the point of rearing or breeding to the point of processing/marketing, it is of paramount importance to take a serious look at the welfare of animals during transport. The public interest in this issue has caused

30 science to take an objective scientific evaluation of animal welfare during transport. A guideline in animal welfare risk assessment published by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2009) focussed on animal transport conditions including multiple transport scenarios and conditions.

In Australia, there are more than 70000 properties with more than 100 cattle, more than 45000 properties with sheep more than 800 heads (ABARE 2015-16) fewer than 2000 pig farms and 690 chicken meat farms.

2.4 Consumers’ knowledge of the Australian chicken production industries

After the brief account in the sections 2.2 and 2.3 regarding the public knowledge of livestock transport systems, this section focuses on the extent to which Australian consumers are aware of the details of systems and protocols governing the important issues within the overarching animal welfare concerns. More detailed discussion regarding the claims of the chicken industry is detailed in chapter 5 under “General Discussion” which, gives the reader balanced view of the industry.

In the past, chickens were kept for a few years for egg production, and then eaten at the end of their useful laying life (Hall & Sandlilands. 2007) and from the mid twentieth century birds began to be selected either for laying high numbers of eggs, or for producing greater muscle mass (and thus meat) (ACMF 2018). Chickens now grow from 45g at one day old to a slaughter weight of 2.0 kg by 35 days approximately half the time it took 50 years ago after consuming 3 Kg of feed (Julian, 1998; Halevy et al. 2006). The predominant meat chicken strain in Australia is the hybrid meat chicken, the Cobb and Ross birds (ACMF 2018), the Cobb and Ross birds (ACMF 2018), the Cobb line is an American breed from Tyson Foods from Arkansas, USA for which the Australian Baiada Poultry Company bought the license. The other strain is the Ross bird (a European strain from Aviagen in the UK) and the licence for that strain was bought by the Australian Ingham’s Enterprises (Robins & Phillips 2011).

With the growing consumer demand for free range / organically reared chicken, there is growing consideration for a slower-growing line that takes 50 – 100% longer

31 to reach the marketable weight of around 2 kg and is more suited to free range conditions (Fanatico et al. 2008). The slow-growing lines are commonly used in EU (eg France) for the production of high-quality free-range chickens and whole chicken carcass demand (Chabault et al. 2012). The slower growing lines can be improved by selection in terms of body composition, breast meat quality and reduced abdominal fatness and can be achieved as all the traits were found to be highly heritable and favourably correlated with the colour and water-holding capacity of the meat (Chabault et al. 2012).

The conventional broiler shed is usually littered with wood shavings or rice hulls on the floor, the shed is normally 150 metres long and 15 metres wide and holds up to 40,000 adult birds. Larger sheds can accommodate up to 60,000 birds (ACMF 2011). The typical new chicken farm, with eight sheds and a holding capacity of 40,000 birds each, would accommodate about 320,000 birds per eight week cycle. The more modern broiler shed in Australia has a “Tunnel Ventilated” capacity (Figure 3) (ACMF 2018-Housing). The “Tunnel Ventilated” shed has large fans at one end of the shed to draw the air into the shed through cooling pads in the side walls of the sheds. There are three or four temperature sensors in the house to operate the fans and heating or cooling gadgets to operate every three minutes as needed. The floor litter material does not change during the six weeks of the bird’s rearing life and is only partially changed between batches. After the third batch, the litter is completely cleaned. The official clean out period between batches varies between five days and two weeks (ACMF 2018), broilers farmers can therefore run 5.5 batches/shed/year. The sheds are environmentally artificially controlled in terms of light, fresh air flow, available area per bird and the natural behaviour of the birds. Traditional Australian broiler sheds (Figure 2), up to 25 years ago; have the capacity to open and close the side curtains or the top vent of the shed to allow natural ventilated air flow inside the sheds whenever the outside weather permits (ACMF 2018). The intensive meat chicken production broilers are under 23 hours of light in a 24 hour period (Hall & Sandilands 2007) and are given a minimum of four lux2 of light for growing (Charles et

2 Lux is a measure of the amount of light produced by something (Cambridge University Press 2019). Lux is also define as a measure of light intensity as perceived by the human eye. It is equal to one lumen (Candle) that can illuminate a surface of one square metre. A typical business office is likely to have a light level of 250 lux and light from the television is 10-20 lux.

32 al 1992, Prayitno, Phillips & Stokes 1997, Olanrewaju et al 2006, Deep et al 2010, Deep et al 2013, Rault et al 2016; James et al 2018). The initial light intensity is 38 lux in the first five days of the birds’ lives in the conventional houses to stimulate birds’ activity and help the development of the eye (Robins & Phillips 2011). In response to serious welfare concerns by different researchers and animal welfare advocates, birds are now given a longer, more natural dark period of about eight hours (Hall & Sandilands 2007). Light intensity is kept low to reduce movement and therefore maximise weight gain. Continuous dim lighting may also be used when it benefits the welfare of the birds. The sheds are dimmed to keep the birds as inactive as possible so that food conversion is maximised and pecking and fighting through frustration and over-crowding minimized. The production system is “all-in/ all out” which means that for the whole of the 5 - 7 weeks that the birds are in the shed the droppings are allowed to accumulate on the floor. As the chickens grow the air may become polluted with ammonia, dust, bacterial and fungal spores which can cause health problems for both humans and chickens.

Broilers are provided with ad libitum access to a high protein diet (201.9g/kg, or 21.5% of crude protein) (ACMF 2018) either supplied from feed hoppers (circular tubs which hang from the ceiling) or from feed tracks which run along the length of the house. Constant access to water is provided from nipple drinkers, which also run along the length of the house and chickens are no more than 2 metres from food or water (ACMF 2018). Until recently, broilers were recommended to be stocked at 34 kg per square metre (Tables 1 &2) – this is based on their final body weight and is equivalent to about 15-16 chickens per square metre, more details in Chapter 5

33

Figure 2: Chicken houses before intensification, a closed chicken house converted to an open-front coop by knocking out the south wall and covering it only with chicken wire.

Source: Fresh-Air Poultry Houses: The Classic Guide to Open-Front Chicken Coops for Healthier Poultry by Prince T. Woods (n.d). Norton Creek Press. http://www.nortoncreekpress.com/wordpress/poultry/fresh_air_poultry_houses_a/fres h-air-poultry-houses-sample-chapter/

Figure 3: Modern Commercial Poultry Houses. Houses are “Tunnel Ventilated” and environmentally controlled.

Source: ACMF (2018

34 2.5 Free range and organic chicken production

Bowing to public pressure, chicken companies introduced “Free range” chicken meat production which accounts for 10-15% of the total chicken produced in Australia (Figure 4), with less than 1% of the total production being organic (ACMF 2018). Free range meat chickens are produced using similar management, housing and feeding practices as conventional meat chickens. The major differences are that free range chickens are allowed access to an outside run for part of each day (at least post brooding period) and often have lower target stocking densities (11 chickens per square metre inside the conventional housing and 1500 birds per hectare outside as required by the accreditation programme (Chabault et al. 2012; ACMF 2018). Depending on the accreditation program, the use of antibiotics to treat sick birds may preclude the meat from these birds being sold as free range (ACMF 2018). The free range condition was reported to be most suitable for the slow-growing breeds (Fanatico et al. 2008) that reach maturity at a minimum age of 81 days (Lewis et al 1997; Castellini; Mugnai & Dal Bosco. 2002). Although the tenderness and the juiciness of the chicken meat decreases in these lines, the flavour intensity increases in the older birds. Fast growing lines can also be reared under free range outdoor conditions but take longer to reach a slaughter weight of 2 kg compared with the indoor rearing conditions (Fanatico et al. 2008). Chapter 5 will discuss the companies’ claims regarding the free range chicken.

In other countries, free range systems can also be useful to control pests on grassland. Free range conditions for poultry have been utilised for controlling local grasshoppers found in abundance in most rangelands of northern China at Alpine mountain level where there is a semi-arid climate and characterised by high protein content, mineral and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). The introduction of 4-5 week old broilers in free range growing conditions effectively reduced grasshopper numbers in the area and satisfied consumer demand for environmental concerns, offering the conditions for a natural animal behaviour to be exhibited (Sun et al. 2011). Chicken breast muscle reared under these conditions were found to contain less monounsaturated fatty acids, but more polyunsaturated fatty acids than intensively reared birds. Compared with meat from intensively reared birds, meat from free-range broilers had less cholesterol and higher concentrations of total lipid and phospholipids.

35 The use of chickens to control grasshoppers is a viable environmental aspect within the standards of free-range chicken production and such approach meaningfully addresses some issues of animal welfare in China, which is one aspect of my second research study focussing on East and Southeast of Asia. The free-range conditions under the Australian accredited system will be dealt with in chapter 5.

Figure 4: Free Range Vermont Pastured Poultry (organic) –Freedom Ranger Chickens (2013) Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNFSQ_cpNGM

The main certifier of free-range chicken meat in Australia is Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia Ltd (FREPA). The standards that free range meat chickens must comply with to be certified by FREPA, can be summarised that the stocking density in a shed must not exceed 28kg of live birds per square metre of floor space, unless there is mechanical ventilation when it must not exceed 30kg of live birds per square metre of floor space. The stipulated conditions also include the following thirteen points (FREPA 2011):

1. Natural foods only are permitted with the addition of vitamins and minerals as required for the birds’ welfare.

36 2. Only under veterinary direction are therapeutic antibiotics permitted and treated birds must not be sold as Free Range.

3. Growth promoting hormones and growth promoting antibiotics are not permitted. Coccidiostats may be used under veterinary direction if Coccidiosis is regarded as a welfare issue.

4. Beak trimming, toe trimming, de-snooding or any other mutilation is not permitted.

5. A reasonable attempt must be made to protect birds from predators at all times.

6. Housing, equipment, ventilation, temperature and health practices must be in accordance with the appropriate State Animal Welfare Code.

7. Slaughtering must comply with the current model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, Livestock and Poultry and Slaughtering Establishments [Abattoirs, Slaughterhouses and Knackeries].

8. All birds are to be transported in accordance with the Land Transport of Poultry 2011 – Standards and Guidelines.

9. All birds are to be vaccinated in accordance with the appropriate State Livestock Control Act.

10. All farms must comply with appropriate sections of the National Farm Biosecurity Manual – Poultry Production.

11. The Board may, at its discretion, allow a producer to deviate from the above standards, for an agreed time period, in the interest of research which is supervised by a reputable scientific organisation and reported to the Board at agreed dates.

Certified organic meat chickens have two additional requirements:

12. Feed must be predominantly from certified organic ingredients.

37 13. Birds cannot be treated with routine vaccination. However, there are exceptions, such as where treatment is required by law or disease cannot be controlled with organic management.

38 Table 1: Comparison of the Main Commercial Meat Chicken Farming Systems in Australia (AMCF, 2018).

Sold chicken meat: Conventional Free Range Certified Organic Housed in large barns Yes Yes Yes Yes. Required once Yes. Required once Access to outdoor forage No chicks are adequately chicks are adequately areas during daytime feathered feathered 28-40kg/m2 depending on 16-32kg/m2 depending Stocking Density Maximum the standard of the on the standard of the 25kg/m2 (inside the barns) ventilation provided in ventilation provided in barns barns Age of birds at harvest 35 – 55 days 35 – 55 days 65 – 80 days Depends on accreditation program May be given antibiotics for (under some No (if antibiotics are prophylactic and/or therapeutic Yes standards, if antibiotics required, can no longer purposes are required, meat may be sold as organic) no longer be sold as free range) Feed has to come from organic production (no chemical No No Yes fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used) Yes, to a limited extent Yes, to a limited extent (soy meal is not (soy meal is not available available in sufficient in sufficient quantities Use of GM products in feed quantities from local No from local sources and sources and imported imported soy meal may soy meal may contain contain GM grain)[i]** GM grain)** Controls in place to ensure Most chickens are grown Monitored by industry Accreditation provided adherence to these standards under contract to associations that by organization

39 processors and the farms accredit farms such as approved by the are supervised by the FREPA; comment Australian Quarantine processor’s farming under “Conventional” Inspection Service; manager and vet also applies here independently audited

Note: If the production system is not specified on the packaging, the chicken was almost certainly intensively farmed.

40 2.6 Ethical concerns about Australian chicken farming systems

It is important that consumers are aware that there are ethical and welfare issues common to the intensive chicken farming systems including certified free-range and certified organic. Regardless of the different rearing system, birds will be transported and slaughtered in similar facilities at a young age, when they are in fact still just juvenile birds. Birds are commonly handled roughly during the catching process, which is done manually, under time pressure. Birds are caught by the legs and placed into transport crates with hardly any room to move and many birds break bones in the process. During transport, which can be many hours non-stop, they can be exposed to weather extremes and are not provided with any food or water. At the slaughterhouse, birds will be hung upside down with feet shackled. Their heads will be drawn through an electrified water bath to stun them unconscious (some slaughter plants now use a gas immersion killing system) before an automatic knife cuts their throat. More information regarding animal slaughter is presented in section 2.10 (Figure 5 below) shows a typical chicken processing plant with capacity of processing 4500 birds per hour. More discussion regarding the implication of the process are in chapter 5-General discussion.

Figure 5: Chicken processing abattoir.

41 Source: https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-26826778-chicken-processing-line- poultry-farm-meat-production), Stock footage ID: 26826778.

In the poultry industry, the percentage of chickens with either broken or dislocated wings is an indicator of rough handling practices during catching and loading into the transport trucks. The implementation and awareness of quality control measures has helped to reduce the percentage of broken wings from 6% to 1% or less as reported by Grandin 2010. At the processing plant, birds can be assessed for many conditions such as poor body condition, missing limbs, broken wings, death on arrival and general cleanliness, which are all detrimental to animal welfare and indicative of problems during transport or poor husbandry on the farm.

2.7 Attitudes to the welfare of broiler chickens

In the European Commission report on broiler welfare (European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, 2000), consumer sensitivity to the welfare of broilers was less apparent than concerns about pigs and laying hens. The report suggested two reasons for this. First, there was no clear image of poor welfare in relation to the rearing of broiler chickens, unlike laying hens where cages are a strong symbol for perceived poor welfare. Second, there was a general lack of information and apparently limited knowledge about broiler rearing systems. A study in Germany used focus groups to investigate consumer concerns about animal welfare and included work specifically on broiler chickens (Von Alvensleben & Kohler, 1999). The focus group recorded that people were shocked when they saw the pictures of the barn production system for broilers and thought it would provide poor animal welfare. Concerns were expressed that litter and bird droppings were not cleaned at all during the lifetime of the birds and that health problems might arise. Participants were concerned about the lack of fresh air in a controlled environment, that it may be difficult for every broiler to get enough food and water, and anticipated that medical treatment of the birds would be difficult.

A considerable number of literature reviews have investigated human attitudes toward farm animal welfare (e.g. Phillips et al. 2012; Nocella et al. 2012). These reviews showed that researchers have cautioned that measuring and drawing a model

42 of salient beliefs from focus groups should be within the context of social psychology (Fishbein & Ajzem 2010) especially if it is used in a multi-country scope study. When examining attitudes, it is acknowledged that there may also be vegetarians and vegans who are concerned with the welfare of farm animals, however there will need to be a degree of separation between their responses and those of meat eaters.

Attitudes are regarded as very debatable and researchers should not use ‘bimodal’ evaluation dimensions (Krosnick, Jadd & Wittenbrick 2005; Fishbein & Ajzem 2010). The use of important items can be rated on a 5 point ‘Likert Scale’ ranging from completely disagree to completely agree.

Frequent adverse food safety incidents have increased. For example, Chinese consumers’ concerns about food quality and safety has led to an expansion of the safe food market, a segment that includes hazard free, green and organic food, creditable information, knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards food labelling (Liu et al. 2013). Consumers showed limited knowledge about the concept of safe food, low recognition of the relevant labels and limited ability to identify safe food but they hold positive attitudes towards the quality, nutrition and taste. Consumers were willing to pay more for safe food products (Liu et al. 2013). Consumers’ interest and knowledge in organic meat was evaluated through a sample of 976 respondents who showed that acceptance levels differ depending on demographic differences between groups, with age and ethnicity being the major determining factors for acceptance (Van Loo 2010). Other socio-demographic factors that showed no correlation to organic chicken consumption included gender, education, household income, living with partner or not and number of children. Consumers expressed the view that taste, price, nutritive value and general appearance and heath are of paramount importance when selecting meat for purchase. The main motivating factors to buy organic chicken were the perception that organic chicken has fewer residues (pesticides, hormones, antibiotics) and it is safer and healthier. The high price for organic meats was the strongest limiting factor for organic meat purchases followed by poor availability. Approximately 41% of the non-buyers and 30% of the occasional buyers perceived organic meat as not or hardly likely to be available in their supermarket (Van Loo et al. 2010).

43 2.8 Labelling of animal products to provide information about animal welfare

Almost all product labelling certifies that the final product has satisfied the requirements set beforehand by the authorised body/organisation, however, the label of the product exhibits no information regarding the conditions where animals were raised/processed and there is no mention of animal welfare conditions stated directly or indirectly on the label. Transparent define and clear labelling schemes may allow consumers to ‘vote with their wallets’ at the retail shelf rather than through votes at the ballot box (Tonsor & Wolf 2011). Caswell (2000) suggested that mandatory labelling makes more sense in countries where a large portion of the population care about attributes in question while voluntary labelling is likely to make sense in countries where fewer consumers are concerned with the issue/s in question. Many scholars and researchers reported positive relationships between informative labelling regarding animal welfare friendly products and behavioural willingness of consumers to change their usual place of shopping to be able to buy animal welfare friendly products in reflection of the increasing support of responsible marketing (Franco, Souza & Molento 2018; Miranda-de lama et al 2019). As the public become aware of the ethical issues relating to chicken production systems and slaughter, considerable numbers of consumers are choosing cruelty-free alternatives, which are readily available in most American supermarkets after the establishment of animal welfare labelling systems.

Over the past 15 years, the European processing industry has gradually increased the availability of poultry meat in a large variety of processed ready meals, following market trends from North America (Magdeleine et al. 2008). This shift towards further processed products has underscored the necessity for higher standards in poultry meat quality in order to improve sensory characteristics and functional properties (Fletcher 2002). An understanding of the major issues contributing to meat quality traits during the pre-slaughter period, slaughtering and processing of poultry are essential if producers are to generate high quality poultry meat (Nijdam et al. 2004; Jacobs et al 2016).

44 The Australian Chicken Meat Federation (ACMF 2018) reported that 65 – 70% of Australia’s meat chickens come from farms that are accredited under the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme and 18 – 20% of Australia’s chicken meat comes from farms that are accredited by Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia. About 78% are accredited to one or both of the above schemes and less than 1% is certified organic. The remainder (about 22%) is not accredited under any of these schemes. Shown below are examples of accredited labeling schemes:

1 'RSPCA Approved'

The RSPCA Approved system accredits chicken farms to RSPCA standards. Chickens on these farms can be raised in either a free range or indoor system. Chickens in an RSPCA Approved indoor farm have no access to an outdoor area. However, the welfare standards are higher than in conventional factory farms. Freedom Farms products come from chickens raised on an RSPCA Approved indoor farm.

2 'Certified Free Range'

There is no legal definition of the term free range in Australia, so standards between farms can vary. These logos on the packaging indicate that the chickens were raised on farms with access to an outdoor range.

* Note: The RSPCA Approved logo alone does not guarantee outdoor access - you may also find the RSPCA Approved logo on chickens raised in an indoor housing system that conforms to RSPCA welfare standards. Only RSPCA Approved products that are also labelled 'free range' come from farms where the chickens were raised with access to an outdoor range.

45

3 'Certified Organic'

Certified organic chicken products come from chickens kept on farms which exceed standards in the best free range facilities. The word 'organic' on packaging can be misleading people to think the welfare of chickens meets certified organic standards - when it may simply mean that chickens are fed organic feed. These logos on the packaging indicate that the chickens were raised on a certified organic farm.

2.8.1 Major issues to consider in relation to Labelling standards.

4 Dark periods for rest Providing chickens with proper dark periods is associated with many welfare benefits compared to near-continuous light systems. Natural light and dark cycles are important to stimulate activity in chickens and for the development of a circadian rhythm. Continuous light on the other hand may increase physiological stress by disturbing sleep and causing sleep deprivation. The Organic Growers of Australia is the only certification that does not allow the use of artificial light to speed up weight gain. Other organic certifications allow lights to be used for up to 16 hours per day; while RSPCA certifications allow 20 hours; and factory farms may subject birds to up to 23 hours of artificial light per day.

5 Stocking densities Maximum allowed indoor and outdoor stocking densities are commonly expressed in total bird weight per square metre (kg/sqm). Certification Systems in Australia are illustrated in Table 2, which also translates the number of birds per sqm based on an average slaughter weight of 2kg).

46

Table 2: Certification Systems in Australia (Animals Australia 2013)

6 Welfare problems due to unnatural fast growth

Chicken breeds used in the chicken meat industry are selectively bred to dramatically increase growth rate. They grow up to three times as fast as they would naturally. This fast growth has widespread and severe negative welfare impacts on the birds (EFSA 2010). It causes debilitating physical problems ranging from heart failure to lameness and results in millions of birds dying in sheds every year before they reach slaughter age. Up to 20 million die in sheds each year in Australia (Grandin 2010).

47

Figure 6: Over-weight stock, the birds are gaining weight so fast that many of them are unable to stand on their feet at the end of the fattening process, Germany Image ID: EBRR98. Photo taken date: 9 June 2011 Source: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-domestic-fowl-gallus-gallus-f-domestica- broiler-chicken-in-industrial-76125876.html

Cambridge University Professor Donald Broom described the modern day broiler hen as "rather like a child who is nine-years-old in weight having to stand on the legs of, say, a five year old". Indeed, broilers reach slaughter weight within about 40 days of being hatched, whereas non-broiler chicks do not reach adulthood until about five or six months after hatching (Broom, D.M., n.d.). Regardless that the poultry industry promotes genetic selection to increase the feed efficiency and muscle growth of chicken meat breeds (ACMF 2018), researchers observed that the rapid increase of muscle growth can cause imbalances in the development of other parts of the birds (Yu 2011) in particular in bone development and in bird maturity (Rath et al. 2000; Williams et al. 2000). Rath et al. (2000) supported the opinion that with rapid muscle growth, skeletal development fails to keep up with the overall growth of the birds which can cause excess stress and physical load on the bones which leads to bone deformity and fragility. Similarly, Williams et al. (2000) compared the bone and skeletal development of birds raised under commercial intensive conditions with no regard to animal welfare standards, to the slow-growing meat birds and found that bones of the fast-growing broilers were more porous than the slow-growing broilers.

2.9 Other claims and logos

There are many other phrases and terms used on the Australian chicken products that may be perceived to suggest higher animal welfare such as 'raised in

48 large barns', 'range reared', 'corn fed', 'grain fed', 'chemical free', 'Australian chicken' and 'Australian made'. The majority of these do not signify a higher standard of bird welfare than factory farmed chicken. If there is no certified free range or certified organic or RSPCA Approved logo on the packaging, the chickens have almost certainly been raised in factory farms.

A common claim by some in the Australian chicken meat industry is that chickens are raised 'cage free', however, chickens raised for meat production could be raised in cages in many developing countries. Shields and Greger (2013) reported that since 2008 some countries such as Russia, Middle East and Asian countries including China and India, and African countries such as Nigeria, have been raising broiler chickens in cages. Regardless of the production system (only hens kept for the production of cage eggs are kept in cages), this claim is deceptive in making Australian consumers believe that what is on offer is a 'better welfare' product.

'Free to roam' suggesting that the birds have plenty of space, is another term used by producers of factory farmed chicken meat. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is fighting this claim in court, alleging that it is misleading or deceptive advertising when the birds in factory farms are confined at such high densities inside sheds that they cannot roam around freely.

2.10 Slaughter effects on animal welfare

Slaughter is one of the main focuses in this thesis. The following part of the literature review highlights the Australian public’s knowledge regarding animal slaughtering as well as the stakeholders’ knowledge in East and Southeast of Asia on the international slaughter protocols as stipulated by the international OIE guidelines under section 7 of the animal welfare standards during slaughter. The issue of slaughter was also mentioned briefly under Section 2.6 “Ethical concerns in all Australian chicken farming systems”.

The law in most Western countries has defined “Humane Slaughter” of an animal as requiring the animal to be rendered unconscious prior to slaughter to make them

49 insensible to pain. The Humane Slaughter Act and the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act are United States federal law, which was approved in August 1958 to minimise suffering of livestock during slaughter. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspectors at livestock slaughterhouses are responsible for overseeing compliance. The requirement for the humane treatment of livestock prior to and during slaughter emphasizes the minimisation of “excitement and discomfort” to livestock prior to transportation or slaughter. The approved Act passed as The Humane Slaughter Act 1978. Wisch, R.F (2006) under the auspices of Michigan State University College of Law 2019 published a table summarizing the states humane slaughter laws that enforced that animals must be “rendered insensible” e.g. made unconscious or killed prior to being hoisted or shackled for slaughter. Animal welfare protection and slaughtering regulations and procedures are coordinated throughout the European Union and are detailed by the European Commissions’ regulations CE 853/2004, 854/2004 and 1099/2009 (2004). Canadian law requires that all federally registered slaughterhouses must ensure that all animals are handled and slaughtered humanely (Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2014). Sections 61 to 80 of the Meat Inspection Regulations define the conditions for the humane slaughter of all species of food animals. In almost all modern poultry processing plants all over the world, chickens are unloaded at the slaughterhouse, they are pulled from the crates and shackled upside down by their feet onto a conveyor belt which carries them down the processing line (see section 2.6 Figure 5: Chicken processing abattoir). They are carried along the line to an electrically charged water bath or they are gassed, which is meant to stun the birds before their throats are cut by an automatic knife. Some birds lift their heads and miss being stunned and go on to have their throats cut while they are still conscious and aware or even enter the water scalding tank of 50 degrees while they are still conscious. Back-up personnel are supposed to cut the throats of birds that missed the automatic knife but there are no animal welfare inspectors at premises to ensure the humane process of slaughter is carried out.

The efficiency of the poultry water bath “scalder” used for stunning is determined by the percentage of birds that are rendered insensible. Birds that emerge from the water bath showing no signs of return to sensibility are scored as effectively stunned (Grandin 1998a). Grandin (1998ab & 2017) proposed that animal-based standards should be developed for direct observation of poultry during the anaesthesia induction

50 phase. This could be done either through a window or by a camera. Some poultry abattoirs are using a “Gas Stunning” system to reduce the stressful handling of the birds by abattoir staff. Another method being researched is low atmospheric pressure stunning (Battula et al. 2008).

For both livestock and poultry stocks, there is a zero tolerance for skinning, scalding, limb removal or other invasive dressing procedure on any animal or bird that is exhibiting signs of return to sensibility (Grandin, 1998ab & 2017). All livestock and birds must be re-stunned if they show signs of being sensible. All birds must be completely insensible before they enter the water scalder.

2.11 Livestock Slaughter without stunning (kosher and halal) Slaughter without stunning is a controversial animal welfare issue. Previous research indicated that cutting the neck causes pain (Gibson et al. 2009). Another major animal welfare concern is aspiration of blood into the lungs while the animal is still sensible.

The OIE (2009), the EU, the USA, and Australia all permit livestock slaughter without stunning to allow Jews and Muslims to practice their religious beliefs. To improve animal welfare, some religious authorities will accept stunning either immediately before or immediately after the throat cut.

2.12 Australian Model Code of Practice

The Australian Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Domestic Poultry 4th edition (2002 page 1) provides some general guidelines for the management of meat chickens and recognises that "the basic requirement for the welfare of poultry is a husbandry system appropriate to their physiological and behavioural needs", however, there are no guidelines within the Code that provide for the physiological and behavioural needs of chickens or the welfare of the birds. New standards are currently being prepared.

51 http://www.publish.csiro.au/ebook/download/pdf/3451

2.13 Advocacy groups

As animal welfare/wellbeing has become an important issue nationally and internationally, animal advocacy and pressure groups have become actively involved in reflecting concerns regarding animal welfare through legislation, Codes of Practice (Section 2.12) and individual company’s policies. Consumers’ food purchasing choices have also became a reflection of these concerns. Blockhuis et al. (2019) recognised that increased farming intensification in the last four decades has resulted in poor animal welfare and poor animal health and productivity and subsequently, product quality and profitability could only be maintained by sustainability certification schemes (Jones 1997 and 1998). Veissier and Miele (2014) recognized that improving animal welfare and the quality of life for the increased growing and processing of animals for food facilitated the formation of specific areas of research including veterinary science, biology, physiology, ethology, neuroscience, genetics and ethics and thus “animal welfare science” was created. Nevertheless, farmers, scientists, decision and policy makers, citizens and animal welfare activists are all currently involved in the debate about animal welfare in the animal production industry (Pirscher 2016), but the most effective role in the process comes from consumers who lead the establishment of animal-friendly products through creditable labelling systems. These are initiated and promoted by corporate retailers (Miele and Lever 2013) as part of their social responsibilities in enhancing their ethical animal welfare commitment to consumers.

Consumers, animal welfare organisations, scientists and animal welfare policy makers all expressed their concern regarding the conditions in which animals are being raised under modern farming practises. The most effective role in the process came about by the consumers who were instrumental in the establishment of animal friendly markets via creditable labelling systems promoted by the media and backed by retailers (Miele and Lever 2013; Pirscher 2016). In almost all the promoted animal friendly products, the media highlighted the free range, organic and natural products, which were presented as win-win situations for retailers and NGO’s (ie non- government organisations) (Miele and Lever 2014).

52

Advocacy groups exert their major influence in the market by aiming to change people’s opinions about animal welfare. They also have influence on the on-farm animal welfare assessments, through their involvement in standard setting. Van Horne and Achterbosch (2008) stated that animal welfare standards for poultry are regarded to be higher in the European Union (EU) than in producing countries exporting to the EU. After 2012, with the minimum cage space increased to 750cm2 per hen, it is expected that exporting countries outside EU that do not comply with EU standards could be faced with tough financial mechanisms such as taxes or tariffs.

These assessments are used to create standards that form the basis of labelling on the basic animal welfare needs, such as husbandry systems, feeding routines, management practices, building designs and equipment (Blockhuis et al. 2019). In certification schemes developed by advocacy groups, they consider the aforementioned factors as resource or management “input”, which are important variables for determining the quality of environment as experienced by the animals, and animal welfare is regarded as an “output” (Blockhuis et al. 2019).

Section 2.8 in this thesis dealt with the labelling of animal products and the approved schemes developed for the poultry industry in Australia. Blockhuis et al. (2019) recognised the importance of food labels by which consumers can evaluate the food quality and issues of ethical animal welfare in the form of simplified images and logos. One generic scheme for improving animal welfare is the organic movement, which has shown recent growth. For example, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2011) reported that from 1995 to 2006 the Chinese export market for organic products grew from $300,000 to $350 million, with an annual growth of 30%. Evans and Miele (2017) regarded Ethical Food Labels as icons that stand for a particular socio- economic political environmental relationship between producers and consumers. Shopping for these Ethical Food Labels has become a matter of studying the logos and symbols, and the concepts behind them, for addressing health, ethical and environmental concerns. Trauger and Murphy (2013) argued that the price premiums paid for organic or ethical food labels might not flow through to farmers and could create negative political, environmental and social adversity.

53 2.14 The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

The literature review revealed very little information regarding public knowledge of meat chicken production systems in South East Queensland, Australia and how it influences attitudes towards animal welfare and consumption. The literature supplied no reference regarding the conditions of chicken welfare during transport or slaughter under Australian conditions and the public were not aware that some Australian processing plants allowed birds to be slaughtered without being stunned, for religious reasons (Aussie Farms Repository 2019 – Aussie Abattoirs). The Aussie Farms Repository 2019 reported that since 2011, 15 abattoirs in Australia have permission from state governments to slit the throats of fully conscious animals as part of their religious practices. The first research study took into consideration consumers’ needs prior to engaging in certain actions, for example the questionnaire suggested to respondents that they could skip the parts dealing with meat consumption if they were vegetarians, which could affect behaviour regardless of their expressed attitudes.

The second research study investigated the knowledge of stakeholders in East and Southeast Asia regarding animal welfare considerations during livestock transport and slaughter, as set up by the OIE. This study linked the knowledge of the stakeholders to the OIE standards and guidelines. The study provided a platform for potential knowledge improvement by provision of training towards animal welfare issues and subsequently bringing the surveyed countries up to the international standards regarding animal welfare recommendations.

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) links one’s belief and one’s behaviour. The attitude towards behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behaviour control and shape the consumers’ behavioural intention and actual behaviours. The two studies correlated the attitudes and subjective norms with behavioural intention and subsequently with behaviour which lead to consumers’ food choices. The concept of perceived behavioural control was added to the theory and strongly supports that consumers’ given behaviour would lead to certain outcomes. The investigations carried out in the two studies have shown that consumers’ behaviour is influenced by their confidence in their ability to achieve the expected behavioural outcome.

54 The main important element of TPB is the predictability of behavioural intention which in turn is predicted by the three components: attitudes toward the behaviour, subjective norms regarding the behaviour and perceived control over behaviour, which have influence on intentions (Sussman & Gifford 2018). TPB supported the view that consumers are more likely to intend to enact certain behaviour (e.g., purchasing specific products) when they feel that they can enact such behaviour successfully (Ajzen 1991). Gbadamosi (2009) examined Cognitive Dissonance and the implication of low-income consumers’ shopping behaviour and the low-involvement grocery products (ie a routine food shopping involve low involvement activities and consumer involvement refers to feelings of interest, concern and enthusiasm held towards product) to explore the relevance of cognitive dissonance in consumers’ choices and found that female consumers engage in habitual purchasing behaviour and, more often than not, are not loyal to brands of grocery products, however, they often buy the stores’ own value-range brands that are similar to manufacturers’ brands. Gbadamosi’s work is relevant in my research studies as it shows that although some Australian consumers are seeking to buy animal welfare friendly products which often carry a premium price in comparison to other traditional products, yet; even the low- income consumers’ would be able to buy such premium products, if they desire; if the marketing strategies considers the value for money purchasing pattern and the potential of low-involvement animal welfare products in respect to the low-income consumers.

Wunderlich, Gatto & Smoller (2018) assessed consumers’ knowledge of food production systems regarding organic products, genetically modified (GM) food materials and conventional farming methods. The research acknowledged that there was a great deal of variance in consumers’ knowledge because of the ambiguity of the information promoted and how different perceptions impacted on food purchasing. The study found that 26.0% of the 123 residents surveyed displayed a high level of uncertainty about perceived environmental impact of conventional foods, 26.8% were concerned about the impact of GM foods and 14.6% were uncertain about organic food impact. Consumers who believed organic food was beneficial allowed these beliefs to impact on their purchasing more often than those who were unsure. The findings indicated a need for greater consumer education to eliminate uncertainty, as

55 strong beliefs about environmental impact may have the ability to influence consumer purchasing decisions.

Figure 7: The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991).

2.15 Conclusion of the literature review The literature showed that consumers were uncertain about the origins of the food they consumed and whether the animals were treated humanely because product labelling about animal welfare was inadequate. Consumers have indicated that they would be willing to pay more for their product if an accurate labelling system indicating the standards of animal welfare was established. There appears to be a great deal of variance in consumer knowledge because of the ambiguity of information promoted and how different perceptions impacted on food purchasing.

The TPB links one’s belief and one’s behaviour. The main element of the TPB is the predictability of behavioural intention which is predicted by three components, attitudes towards behaviour, subjective norms regarding behaviour and perceived control over behaviour, which all have an influence over intentions and subsequent

56 behaviour. TPB supports the view that consumers are more likely to intend to enact certain behaviour (e.g., purchasing specific products) when they feel that they can enact such behaviour successfully.

If consumers have adequate knowledge and information about the treatment of animals during growing, processing and marketing they will feel well equipped to make and enact decisions about purchasing, in accordance with the TPB.

57 Chapter 3:

Public Understanding of, and Attitudes towards, Meat Chicken Production Systems, and Relations to Consumption

Erian, I. and Phillips, C.J.C. 2017. Public Understanding and attitudes towards meat Chicken Production and relations to Consumption. Animals,7:20;doi:10.3390/ani7030020.pp28.incorporated as Chapter 3.

Contributor Statement of contribution Erian, I. Literature review (100%) Wrote the paper (80%) Edited paper (20%) Analysis and interpretation of data (60%)

Phillips, CJC Wrote the paper (20%) Edited paper (80%)

Analysis and Interpretation of data (40%)

Abstract for the first research study: Little is known about public knowledge of meat chicken production and how it influences attitudes to birds’ welfare and consumer behaviour. Five hundred and six members of the public in SE Queensland, Australia were interviewed to determine this and the influence of demographics. Knowledge was assessed as a series of 15 questions, and low scores were supported by respondents’ self-assessed report of low knowledge levels and agreement that their knowledge was insufficient to form an opinion about which chicken products to purchase. Older respondents and single people without children were most knowledgeable. There was uncertainty about whether chicken welfare was adequate, which was connected to a lack of knowledge. There was also evidence that lack of empathy towards chickens related to lack of knowledge, since those that thought it very acceptable that some birds are inadequately stunned at slaughter had low knowledge scores. More knowledgeable respondents ate chicken more frequently and were less likely to buy products with

58 accredited labelling. Approximately half of the respondents thought the welfare of the chicken to be more important than the cost. It is concluded that the public’s knowledge has an important connection to their attitudes and consumption of meat chickens. Respondents with low knowledge scores showed that they had both lack of empathy towards animal welfare and intolerance to religious slaughter practices.

Keywords: animal welfare, attitudes, chicken, knowledge, consumption, poultry

3.1 Introduction

The first research study within the framework of the current M. Phil study was based on the application of the “theory of planned behaviour” (Ajzen 1991) which has been used in many studies with regard to animal welfare eg Schnettler et al. (2008) examined consumer perception of animal welfare and livestock production in the Araucania region in Chile and stated that consumers were willing to pay a higher price for meat produced under animal welfare principles. Similar findings coincided with the previous findings, that consumers expressed strong support for establishing animal welfare labelling systems regarding the conditions in which the birds were raised, processed and transported (Hobson 2012). The question remains, will consumers actually pay more when given the choice? Or has the time for cheap chicken meat in Australia gone?

Two important concepts govern the intention to purchase animal welfare friendly products: consumer self-identification with ethical issues and Theory of Planned Behaviour, in which the attitudes, subjective norms and perceived level of behavioural control combine to influence the intention to purchase (Gracia 2013). Self-identity is proposed by Gracia 2013 to be influenced by socio-demographic factors and the consumer’s animal-related experiences. The latter is closely linked to their understanding of production systems, and we chose meat chicken production to investigate this, as it is one of the areas in which there is major concern for animal welfare. It is also important to recognize that consumers may identify animal welfare

59 as far from optimal but continue to buy and eat meat from the meat industry (Te Velde, Aats & Van Woerkum 2002).

Little is known about the public’s sources of information on animal welfare, including the role of the media, with the associated problem of the accuracy of reporting. Their understanding of animal production systems may be anthropomorphic3, an approach supported by some animal welfare scientists (Korte, Oliver & Koolhaas 2007). The media may particularly influence public opinion on contentious issues, such as the phasing out of battery cages (Sayer 2013 & Daigle 2014). Conversely some possible developments in chicken production, such as breeding blind chickens, are not supported by the public because of their interference with bird integrity, even if they do appear to give welfare advantages in intensive production (Verrinder & Phillips 2015). Other authors have attempted to alert the public to the welfare impact of intensifying production systems, starting with Ruth Harrison in the 1960’s (Sayer, 2013; Fraser, 2014).

As production systems have intensified it has become difficult for the public to assess the animals’ welfare, as the environment in which they are kept is unnatural. Because birds have unique perceptual, sensory and cognitive functioning, which is very different to our own, hence, it is difficult to understand their responses to such systems (Daigle, 2014). The modern industrial chicken meat production practices are designed to provide low cost meat to consumers, retailing at less than one half of the price of other meats (ACMF 2018). Nevertheless, many consumers have a negative perception of intensive farming and say that they are willing to pay more for food produced where animal welfare standards are considered and followed (Köbrich, Maino & Diaz 2001; Maria 2006). However, it is also acknowledged that many consumers do not purchase the products from animals kept in good welfare because of the high price (Akaichi & Revoredo-Giha 2016).

Despite a belief that welfare is being sacrificed for industrial scale production, the demand for chicken meat is increasing worldwide; for example the Australian market

3 The showing or treating of animals, gods, and objects as if they are human in appearance, character, or behaviour., the books "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Rabbit", and "Winnie-the-Pooh" are classic examples of anthropomorphism (Cambridge University Press 2019).

60 has increased by 160% in the last 20 years and the consumption of chicken meat has exceeded consumption of any other kind of meat (ACMF 2018). As well as low cost, the chicken industry attributes the rapid increase of demand to the versatility and ease of handling and cooking of chicken products, and the fact that they are a low fat protein source (ACMF 2018). However, some discriminatory buying by consumers is evidenced by their reluctance to buy meat produced from intensive systems if the quality of meat produced is perceived to be adversely affected by the way the animals have been treated (Schröder & McEachern 2004).

Increasingly the chicken meat industry has a “vertically integrated” structure. Individual companies control almost all aspects of production - breeding farms, hatcheries, feed mills, supply of feed to contractors, broiler growing farms/units, medication, transport, and initial and further processing plants (Kvaløy & Tvetera 2008; ACMF 2018). The management from day old stock until the day of processing, including staffing, housing and equipment, is mostly contracted out to growers (for example, 800 growers in Australia produce 80% of meat chickens, nearly all under contract to just two integrated national companies, (ACMF 2018). Growers are paid a negotiated monetary return per 100 birds or per weight at the end of the growing cycle. The typical modern unit has 3-10 poultry sheds that are tunnel ventilated, each about 150 x 15 m, with a capacity of 40-60,000 birds (ACMF 2018). Aspects of production that relate to welfare, such as stocking densities, lighting regime, and general husbandry practices, are usually determined by regulatory quality control systems or a code of practice (Robins & Phillips 2011). Apart from contract rearing, other meat chickens are produced by large company farms, or on farms owned and managed by intermediary companies, where each is controlled by a manager who is contracted to a processing company. Breeding farms owned by the major chicken companies are strategically located across Australia, with a trend towards siting of great grandparent and grandparent breeder farms in areas isolated from traditional poultry rearing places to reduce the risk of exposure to disease agents (ACMF 2018).

61 The aim of the study was to assess the public’s self-reported knowledge34 of chicken production systems and its influence on attitude towards animal welfare and chicken consumption. We hypothesized that in line with the Theory of Planned Behaviour, knowledge of the public towards chicken production systems would have an impact on attitudes and the way consumers choose chicken products, and that these would also be influenced by key demographic factors. The research study hypothesised: i. high level of public knowledge will increase concern for chicken welfare in intensive production systems ii. high level of public knowledge will decrease consumption of products.

Chapter 3 will explain the structure of the Australian chicken meat industry, how public attitude is linked to poultry meat consumption and the public knowledge linked to attitude and consumption. The chapter will include the materials and methods used for the study, the questionnaire design and the statistical analysis used in the study. The collected data from the study was summarized in the results section which linked these results with respondents’ knowledge and their attitude and consumption and linking the knowledge scores (K score) to other influencing factors such as demographics, attitudes regarding chicken welfare rearing systems, labelling and the gender effect, place of residence, marital status, religion, age and income effects on knowledge, attitudes and consumption. The chapter included the discussion section with reference to knowledge, attitude, consumption, the demographic effects and the accredited labelling systems available to the Australian chicken meat producers and finally the chapter spell out the conclusion drawn from the Research study.

3.2 Structure of the Australian Chicken Meat Industry

The Australian chicken meat industry is predominately a “vertically integrated” structure” (ACMF 2018) which means the company owns almost every element of the production lines including hatcheries, birds, food, health control, abattoirs and the

4 defined as “facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject” (Oxford University Press -OUP 2015)

62 transport fleet. The predominant meat chicken strain in Australia is a hybrid strain between Cobb birds, an American breed from Tyson Foods and Ross birds, a European breed. The licences for Cobb birds and Ross birds were purchased by Baiada Poultry and Ingham’s Enterprises respectively (Robins & Phillips 2011; ACMF 2018). The term “broiler” refers to chickens that are reared, genetically selected and bred to produce animal protein. The management of “grow-out” stock is contracted out to farmers and growers who are paid at the end of the growing cycle. Eighty percent of Australia’s meat chickens are under these contracts. The two largest Australian integrated national companies are Inghams Enterprises (publicly owned) and Baiada Poultry (privately owned) which both supply approximately 70% of Australia’s broiler chicken meat with breeding farms, processing operations, transport fleet and animal feed factories (ACMF 2018). Breeding farms include great grandparent and grandparent breeder farms that are owned by the main chicken companies. Approximately four medium-sized privately owned companies each supply 3-9% of the national market (ACMF 2018). Australian free-range chicken meat forms 10-15% of the total chicken produced with less than 1% of the total production being organic (ACMF 2018). Australian chicken meat consumption is estimated to be 48.8 kg / person (2016-2017) with a gross value of poultry farm production of AUD$2.86 billion for 2016/2017 (ACMF 2018).

Little is known about the public’s understanding of meat chicken production systems, this being one of the areas in which there is major concern for animal welfare. Consumers’ selection of food is governed by many factors, including culture, religion, lifestyle, diet, knowledge, health concerns and food trends, often promoted by the media (Popa et al. 2011). Because consumers are no longer intimately involved in the food production process, the public’s trust in the product is dependent on an empathetic approach to producing animals (Fraser 2014), which involves approved steps throughout breeding, growing and processing of the product.

The modern industrial chicken meat production practices are designed to provide low cost meat to consumers, retailing at less than one half of the price of other meats (ACMF 2018). Nevertheless, many consumers have a negative perception of

63 intensive farming and are willing to pay more for food produced where animal welfare standards are considered and followed (Köbrich et al. 2001; Maria 2006).

3.2.1 Attitudes and consumption

Sismanoglou & Tzimitra-Kalogiannai (2011) focused on public attitude and poultry meat consumption by interviewing 240 consumers in their research study titled “Consumer Perception of Poultry Meat”. Recommendations from the study were made that retailers should comply with consumers’ requirements by providing fresh products, proper labelling by connecting the product with the name of the producer and consumer focused marketing strategies such as cleanliness, reliability, proper food storage conditions, high quality and great variety. All these recommendations aimed for creating a trusting relationship with the consumers with strong emphases on maintaining this relationship and strengthening the purchasing decisions.

3.2.2 Knowledge links to attitude and consumption

Gifford & Bernard (2010) also examined the willingness of consumers to pay premium price for organic and natural products. The data was collected from surveys and from experimental auctions that were conducted before and after information sessions on organic versus natural products was presented to ascertain whether increased knowledge effected the amount consumers were willing to pay. The recommendations were collected during eight sessions with 20 to 25 participants in each session. The study illustrated that there was confusion regarding the consumers’ knowledge of organic and natural standards. Another Australian researcher, Bergman (2009), examined the factors that lead Australians to support or actively reject “Factory Farming”. Bergman’s study concluded that Australian consumers know little about the “Factory Farming” system. Napolitano et al. (2007) from Italy set a “Testing Panel” of 84 individuals from the Basilica region to test the difference between “artificially reared lambs” to naturally “ewe-reared” lambs. Selected panellists had a mean age of 28, were mainly students and employees in the area and ate lamb at home at least once a month. The study found that poor animal welfare knowledge reduced food acceptability. Similarly, Costell et al. (2009) from Spain assessed food acceptability / rejection of food regarding the Information obtained from observations, handling,

64 information acquired from the social & cultural surrounding, information gained from the Physiological effects and from the memory that stored from the past experience of the consumers. The study highlighted the role of consumers’ perception and attitudes and that social and cultural information about beef products determines acceptability or rejection of given food. Robins & Phillips (2011) examined international approaches to the welfare of meat chickens and concluded that more concern regarding chicken welfare could be addressed in self–regulated chicken companies and where industry compromises small competition and with less government regulation. The study also highlighted that animal welfare regulations are negligible or very limited in the two major chicken meat producing countries; Brazil and China, and future animal welfare requirements have to be established to meet the consumers’ demands.

In summary, the Australian public has limited understanding of meat chicken production systems, the source of such information is limited and what is available often lacks accuracy. Despite consumers have a negative perception of intensive farming, they expressed strong willingness to pay extra for products where animal welfare is considered. The above section highlighted (with research) the strong link between attitudes of consumers and their consumption of specific environmentally friendly products that take into consideration animal welfare during production. The link between attitudes and consumption was expressed in the form of considerable studies. The subsequent sections will deal with the “Demographic” links to knowledge, consumption and attitudes and Figure 8 below will give the reader an idea of the three different links as well as the demographics.

65 Figure 8: The interaction and links between Consumer Attitude, Public Knowledge of production systems, consumption of animal products and the Demographic effects on the three elements

3.3 Materials and Methods The study was based on a quantitative questionnaire survey. The first study addressed 1) public understanding of intensive chicken meat production, including transport and slaughtering systems, 2) the attitude of the public towards meat chicken welfare and 3) their choice of chicken meat products. Socio-demographic questions were also included, which were used to further explain consumer behaviour and identify potential market segments. The questionnaire was designed taking into account the literature on public knowledge and attitudes towards chicken production systems (Napolitano et al. 2007, Schnettler et al. 2008, Bergmann & Maller 2009, Costell et al. 2009, Prickett et al. 2010, Sismanoglou et al. 2011; Gifford & Bernard 2011).

A total of 2663 consumers were approached in a face-to-face survey conducted with respondents who were randomly selected from the public in shopping centres, social clubs, cultural events and professional gatherings in Brisbane CBD, Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast and a suburb of north Brisbane (Strathpine) during April and May 2013. Of the consumers who were approached, 506 people (19%) responded. Locations were selected to obtain a broad spectrum of views, in order to most accurately determine the relationships between knowledge and attitudes/consumption. Only respondents over 18 years of age were eligible to take part. Clearance was obtained from the Brisbane City Council and the University of Queensland Ethics Committee (reference number 2013000458 – Appendix Table 10). Data was collected by volunteers that were supplied with ID cards (Figure 9).

66

Front

Back

Figure 9: ID card provided to volunteers for data collection

3.4 Questionnaire design

A pilot survey for the first research study was conducted by selecting 15 individuals in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia on each of three successive days. Following this, adjustment was made to the order and language of some of the questions to avoid any possible bias or leading responses.

67

The final questionnaire focused on the public knowledge and attitude to meat chicken production systems and the consumption of meat chicken products. Questions covered three topics relating to meat chicken production: a) knowledge of common practices during rearing, transport and slaughter of broilers, how much knowledge public thought they had and whether it was sufficient for choosing which products to purchase, b) attitudes towards the welfare of birds on farm and during transport and slaughter, and c) frequency of consumption of different meat chicken products, their attitude towards labelling systems and willingness to pay more for accredited chicken products. Finally, demographic questions were included to determine the respondent’s gender, age, education level, place of residence, income, marital status, religion and cultural background. In total there were 15 knowledge questions, 10 attitude questions, 4 consumption questions, 4 product labelling questions, 2 chicken slaughter questions (abattoir) and 7 demographic questions, some questions fitted more than one category. In the knowledge section, there were eight principal questions, all of which were marked correct (score 1) or incorrect (score 0), except one which asked the normal distance that chickens travel from their place of rearing to the abattoir. Respondents were given a score of 1 for a distance of 5-100 km, this being normal in Australia, and 0.5 for a distance of 100-200 km. Respondents were also asked how long it takes in intensively-reared meat chickens to reach a slaughter weight of 2 kg. The question could be answered in days, months or years and all the responses were converted to days. One point was given to answers from 35-45 days and 0.5 point to answers from 30-35 and from 45-50 days, otherwise no score was given. Participants were asked to express their three biggest welfare concerns during transport and in production barns, with each valid welfare concern given a score of one, up to a maximum of 3. Total possible marks were a maximum score of 15 (Table 5) below. Table 3 shows the number and percentage of respondents to questions with significant relationship to knowledge (K) score, together with the K score for responders to each option (Standard Error of the Difference between two means = 0.042) and probability of these being different. Table 3 shows the “Demographics” of respondents’ compared with Queensland and Australia data.

The effects of knowledge of meat chicken production systems on attitudes towards meat chicken welfare and consumption

68

Table 3: Demographics of respondents compared with data from Queensland and Australia (n = 506)

Criteria No. of % of Queensland Australian respondents survey Data, %* Data, %* sample Gender Male 205 41.7 49.6 49.4 Female 286 58.2 50.4 50.6 Age 19 & under 36 7.4 27 25.8 20 – 29 66 13.6 13.7 13.8 30 – 39 111 22.9 13.7 13.9 40 – 49 135 27.8 14.2 14.2 50 – 59 98 20.2 12.7 12.7 60 & over 39 8.0 18.7 19.6 Education No formal schooling Primary 10 2.06 29.7 27 Secondary 74 15.2 20.2 20.5 Technical 61 12.5 6.2 7.3 College University 184 37.9 13.5 14.3 Higher 141 29.0 university degree Other 16 3.3 Dwelling Urban 421 86.6 Acreage 26 5.3 Rural - town 27 5.6 Rural - farm 9 1.8 Other 3 0.62 Annual Less than 95 22.3 Income $20000 $20000 - 47 11.0 $39000 $40000 – 75 17.6 $59000 $60000 - 81 19.0 $80000 More than 128 30.0 $80000 Marital Single, no 100 20.9 Status children Single, 20 4.2 16.1 15.9 children Married/Def 43 9.0 39.5 37.8 acto, no children

69 Married/Def 305 63.7 42.8 44.6 acto, children Widowed 11 2.3 5% 5.5 Religion Christian 234 46.4 64.8 61.6 Jewish 12 2.4 0.1 0.5 Hindu 1 0.2 0.7 1.3 Buddhist 7 1.4 1.5 2.5 Muslim 22 4.5 0.8 2.2 Atheist 53 11.7 22.1 22.3 Other 36 7.7 10.0** 9.6** * Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 Census QuickStats ** Includes other religions and/or not stated

Sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 Census QuickStats. http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/ quickstat/SOS30?opendocument&navpos=220

The Jewish Population of Australia: Key Findings from the 2011 Census. Dr David Graham, Monash University Australia Centre for Jewish Civilisation, 2014, p 8. http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/gen08/download/Australian-Census- 2011.pdf

Table 4: Number and % of respondents with answers to questions that were not significantly (P< 0.05) related to respondents’ knowledge (K score)

Questions and response options % of respondents No. respondents

Knowledge of chicken production systems Self-rated understanding of chicken production systems Expert 7 1.4 Good knowledge 38 7.5 Some knowledge 134 26.5 Little knowledge 191 37.7 No knowledge 136 26.9 Source of knowledge Formal qualifications – relevant 15 3.7 degree, training course Farm employment – hands on 23 5.7 experience, relevant training course Personal interest eg. Internet, 223 55.1 journals, newspaper articles, television programmes. Friends and acquaintances 136 33.6 All of the above 8 2.0

70 Visits to a chicken production farm? Yes, in the last two years 25 4.9 Yes, more than two years ago 153 30.2 or on a school trip I live on a chicken production 4 0.8 farm Never 324 64.1 Attitudes regarding chicken rearing systems Australian meat chickens not protected by government welfare standards Strongly agree 32 6.5 Agree 84 16.9 Neither agree nor disagree 233 47.0 Disagree 137 27.6 Strongly disagree 10 2.0 Welfare of Australian meat chickens on the farm Very good 23 4.6 Good 105 20.8 Neither good nor bad 120 23.8 Bad 99 19.6 Very bad 17 3.4 Unsure 141 27.9 Welfare of Australian meat chickens during transport Very good 15 3.0 Good 108 21.3 Neither good nor bad 101 20.0 Bad 89 17.6 Very bad 44 8.7 Unsure 149 29.5 Killing chickens that are conscious for religious reasons in Australian abattoirs Very unacceptable 173 36.1 Unacceptable 106 22.1 No strong feelings 89 18.5 Acceptable but with some 80 16.7 reservations Perfectly acceptable 32 6.7 Food must be produced and processed from chickens that are treated humanely Strongly agree 250 51.4 Agree 155 31.9 Neither agree nor disagree 64 13.2 Disagree 15 3.1 Strongly disagree 2 0.41 Cost of chicken meat is more important to me than the chicken’s welfare Strongly agree 32 6.6 Agree 101 20.7 Neither agree nor disagree 114 23.4 Disagree 166 34.1 Strongly disagree 74 15.2 Consumption of chicken products What brands of chicken meat are you most likely to buy? Free range 213 42.1 Corn or whole grain fed 46 9.1

71 The cheapest, home brand or 95 18.8 ‘on special’. Products from a known 71 14.0 producer Products with heart foundation 41 8.10 tick Whole chicken 187 37.0 Chicken portions 177 35.0 Processed chicken products, 72 14.2 eg chicken schnitzel What type of chicken products do you usually buy? Whole chicken 275 54.4 Chicken pieces 343 67.8 Flavoured chicken meals, e.g. 72 14.2 chicken schnitzel Processed chicken meat, e.g. 84 16.6 nuggets Importance of rearing system on the product label when purchasing chicken products Very important 144 29.3 Quite important 164 33.3 Neither important nor 97 19.7 unimportant Not very important 64 13.01 Not important at all 23 4.7 Need for chicken welfare information wherever they are sold? Yes 308 63.1 No 82 16.8 Not interested 98 20.1 Amount you would be willing to pay to set up animal welfare ratings on animal products 50 cents per product up to the 118 45.5 value of $20.00 $1.00 per product up to the 42 16.2 value of $20.00 $2.00 per product up to the 19 7.3 value of $20.00 Whatever it costs to include 37 14.3 I think it should be done but I 43 16.6 don’t think I should have to pay for it

72 Table 5: Number and % of respondents to questions with significant relationship to knowledge (K) score, together with the K score for responders to each option (Standard Error of the Difference between two means = 0.042) and probability of these being different

Questions and Number of % of √ K score K score/15 response Respondents respondents options Demographics Age ≤19 36 7.4 1.39c 1.93 20-29 66 13.6 1.97ab 3.88 30-39 111 22.9 1.99b 3.96 40-49 135 27.8 2.30a 5.29 50-59 98 20.2 2.35a 5.52 ≥60 39 8.04 2.18ab 4.75 P value < 0.001 Highest level of education Primary 10 2.1 1.45abc 2.10 High school 74 15.2 2.20b 4.84 Technical college 61 12.6 2.73a 7.45 certificate or diploma College/university 184 37.9 2.17b 5.88 degree Higher university 141 29.01 2.31b 5.34 degree Other 16 3.3 1.32c 1.74 P value 0.001 Place of residence Urban – city/town 421 86.6 2.06b 2.24 Acreage/large block 26 5.35 2.61a 6.81 Rural –country town 27 5.6 1.88b 3.5 Rural – farming 9 1.85 2.06ab 4.24 property Other 3 0.6 1.45b 2.10 P value 0.002 Marital status Single, no children 100 20.9 2.30a 5.29 Single, children 20 4.2 1.82ab 3.31 Partnered/de facto, 43 9.0 2.13ab 4.53 no children Partnered/de facto, 305 63.7 1.83b 3.35 children Widowed 11 2.3 2.08ab 4.32 P value 0.001 Attitudes Chicken welfare at the abattoir Very good 8 1.6 2.34a 5.47

73 Good 87 17.2 1.92ab 3.69 Neither good nor 141 27.9 1.87b 3.50 bad Bad 62 12.3 2.13ab 4.54 Very bad 34 6.7 2.35a 5.52 Unsure 174 34.4 1.57c 2.46 P value 0.001 1% of birds do not get adequately stunned in abattoir practices Very unacceptable 92 19.3 2.99a 6.15 Unacceptable 164 34.5 2.20a 4.84 No strong feelings 130 27.3 1.74b 3.03 Acceptable with 70 14.7 2.21a 4.88 reservation Very acceptable 20 4.2 1.52b 2.31 P value 0.001 Killing chickens that are conscious for religious reasons in Australian abattoirs Very unacceptable 173 36.0 1.73b 2.99 Unacceptable 106 22.1 2.14a 4.58 No strong feelings 89 18.5 2.22a 4.93 Acceptable with 80 16.7 1.93ab 3.72 reservation Very acceptable 32 6.7 2.13ab 4.53 P value 0.007 Self-rated knowledge of chicken welfare is enough to form opinion about buying chicken products Strongly agree 35 7.3 2.14ab 4.58 Agree 138 28.6 2.39a 5.71 Disagree 91 18.9 2.04b 4.16 Strongly disagree 37 7.7 1.73b 2.99 P value 0.001 Consumption / labelling Number of times per week you eat chicken Never/I’m vegan 7 1.5 2.32bc 5.38 Never/Don’t like 21 4.4 1.79bcd 3.2 chicken < 1/Week 133 28.0 0.66d 0.43 Once/Week 299 63.0 1.74c 3.03 2 or 3 /Week 11 2.3 2.14b 4.58 Daily 4 0.8 3.53a 12.46 P value 0.001 Type of chicken meat consumers buy Fresh 288 60.8 1.93ab 3.72 Frozen 37 8.8 2.26a 5.11 Mix of Both 149 31.4 1.90b 3.61 P value 0.05

74 Labelling – would you purchase a product with accredited labelling5? Yes 307 63.2 1.91 3.65 No 179 36.8 2.15 4.62 P value 0.002

3.5 Statistical analysis The questionnaire data was analysed in Minitab Version 16. The demographic backgrounds of participants were matched to the categories of the most recent Australian Census 2011. Knowledge scores (K score, out of 15) were constructed from the total number out of 15 questions (section A) that were answered correctly. Numerical distribution of the K scores was examined to determine its influence on attitude and consumption, the total score was regressed against 21 predictors describing attitude and consumer behaviour using forwards backwards stepwise regression with alpha levels of 0.015 and fitted intercepts. Effects of the 21 predictors which were found to be significantly (p ≤ 0.05) correlated with knowledge scores were entered into a General Linear Model to examine the differences between levels. Knowledge scores were transformed to square root to approximate a normal distribution of residuals. Back transformed and untransformed means were provided. Pairwise comparisons were carried out using Tukey’s test.

Logistic regression analyses (either Binary, Nominal or Ordinal as appropriate to the response structure) were used to analyse the effects of demographic variables and knowledge scores on the attitude and behaviour questions. To evaluate whether place of residence influenced responses to attitude questions, urban residents were used as a baseline group and compared to the other three groups, acreage / large blocks, rural (country town) and rural (farming property) using nominal logistic regression. Referent groups were selected as those with the most responses. A principal component analysis was used to cluster responses to attitude (13 questions) and knowledge (15 questions) questions.

5 Defined as FREPA (Free Range Egg and Poultry Association), RSPCA approved farming, ACO (Australian Certified Organic) farming, NASAA (National Association for Sustainable Agriculture, Australia) and OGA (Organic Growers of Australia).

75 3.6 Results

Of the 2663 eligible participants approached in the first research study, 506 answered the survey, a response rate of 19%. There were 205 males and 286 females, with 15 respondents choosing not to disclose their gender; this is a higher female proportion compared with Queensland and Australian census data (Table 3). The most common age bracket was 30-49 (50.7%), and the most common education level was to college or university degree level. Respondents were more concentrated into the 20-49-year-old bracket compared with the Queensland population (and Australian census data of 2011, which included 27.7% aged 20-39 years), and represented a more educated sample of the population. Most respondents were urban dwellers (87%), with few rural town dwellers (6%) or acreage (large block) dwellers (5.3%). Respondents’ income status was similar to the Australian average of AUD $78000/year (ABS, 2015). Most respondents (n = 305, 64%) were married with children, a higher percentage than in the Queensland and Australian populations, and almost half (n = 234, 46%) were of the Christian religion, fewer than in the state and country populations.

3.6.1 Respondents’ knowledge and its relation to attitudes and consumption for the first research study:

Respondents’ level of understanding of chicken production systems was most commonly reported as no, little or some knowledge, with fewer than 10% responding that their knowledge was good or expert (Table 4). Most gained their knowledge from the internet and media, with a significant number gaining it from friends. Most had never visited a chicken farm, and of the approximately one third that had visited one before, for most it was not a recent visit.

The distribution of K scores was not normal, but √K score approximated a normal distribution, except that there was a higher than expected number of zero values (n = 28) (Figure 10). The mean value for the square root of K score was 1.99 (K score 3.96/15), median 2.0 (K score 4/15), with a Standard Deviation of 1.24. Given that the mean and medians were very similar, √K score values were used for analysis.

76 60 Loc 2.002 N 506

50

40

y

c

n e

u 30

q

e

r F 20

10

0 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 Square root of K score (/15)

Figure 10: Distribution of K scores (out of 15) approximated a normal distribution curve with a higher than expected number of zero values (n = 28). The mean value was 1.99 (K score 3.96/15), Standard Deviation 1.24, and Median Value 2.00 (K score 4/15). Given that the mean and medians were very similar, √K score values were used for analysis.

After eight knowledge questions (Appendix Table 1), respondents were asked how long it takes for intensively-reared meat chickens to reach a slaughter weight of 2 kg, only 47 respondents (9%) gave the correct answer of 35-45 days, 32 (6%) said 30-35 or 45-50 days and 427 (84%) gave answers outside of these choices. Respondents were asked, what are three of the biggest welfare problems for meat chickens in barns? A total of 156 respondents (31%) gave three valid responses, a further 65 respondents (13%) gave two valid responses and a further 48 respondents (9%) gave one valid response. The remaining 47% (n = 237) did not respond. The most common responses were poor lighting systems, too little space per bird, unable to reach feeders, unable to spread wings and too rapid growth. When the same question was asked for chickens in transport, 143 respondents (28%) gave three valid responses, a further 63 respondents (12%) gave two responses and a further 50 respondents (10%) gave one response. The most common responses were overcrowding, hot temperatures, odours, absence of food and water and long distances.

Almost half of respondents (207, n = 49%) incorrectly thought meat chickens were reared in battery cages not loose in barns, however, they were mostly correct in

77 the floor space availability per bird in the shed (Appendix Table 3). Most respondents did not know that housing for egg production chickens was different to that for meat chickens; only just over one third were correct. A total of 61% and 39 % of participants, respectively, did not know that the sex of a chicken is usually determined from the feathers on their wings and that chickens were usually fed food of vegetable origin. However, 60% correctly identified that meat chickens in barns are usually fed pelleted cereal food. Almost half (46%) correctly identified the distance that chickens usually travel to the abattoir, but most (57%) thought that chickens were not stunned before slaughter. When asked what the three biggest welfare problems for meat chickens in barns are, the number and proportion of respondents giving valid responses was as follows: one response 269, 53.2%, two responses 221, 43.7%, three responses 156, 30.8%. When the same question was asked for chickens in transport, the numbers of respondents giving valid responses were as follows: one response 256, 50.7%; two responses 206, 40.7%, three responses 143, 28.3%.

3.6.2 Relationships between respondents’ knowledge and:

3.6.2.1 Demographics

Respondents’ K scores increased with age from 1.9/15 for respondents’ ≤19 years to 5.5/15 for respondents aged 50-59 (Table 3). College certificate or diploma graduates had higher levels of knowledge than respondents with high school certificates or university graduates. Acreage dwellers had higher knowledge scores than urban, rural town and other dwellers. K score was greater among single people with no children than married or de facto people with no children.

3.6.2.2 Respondents’ Attitudes

When asked about the welfare of meat chickens at Australian abattoirs, respondents that rated it very bad or very good had high K scores (36.8 and 36.5%, respectively) (Table 5). Those that rated it as bad, good, or neither bad nor good had

78 intermediate K scores and those that were not sure had the lowest K score. When told that 1% of birds do not get adequately stunned by normal abattoir practices prior to slaughter, respondents that regarded such practice as either very acceptable or neither acceptable nor unacceptable had lower K scores than other respondents. When asked if their knowledge about the welfare of meat chickens is sufficient to allow them to form an opinion about which chicken products to purchase, respondents who rated it as acceptable or very acceptable had higher K scores, compared with those in other agreement categories.

3.6.2.3 Respondents’ Consumption

K scores increased with frequency of eating chicken meat, those that did not eat chicken meat because they were vegetarian or they didn’t like meat had lower knowledge score than those with the highest consumption rate. Frozen chicken meat purchasers tended to have higher knowledge scores than consumers that bought fresh products or a mixture of fresh and frozen. Consumers willing to buy products with accredited labelling had lower K scores than those that were not willing to buy such products. When told that some Australian abattoirs are allowed to kill chickens without them being unconscious for religious reasons, respondents who rated the practice as unacceptable had a high K score of 4.58 (Table 5), compared with other acceptability ratings.

3.6.3 Relationship between K score and attitude/consumption.

In a stepwise regression, K scores were related to 21 predictors about attitudes to chicken meat production systems, consumption of chicken meat and demographics (Appendix Table 1). The final model included 13 significant predictors and had an R2 of 42.5%. The most important predictor was that as people said they had a greater understanding of chicken production systems, their K score increased. High K scores were next most closely correlated with a self-reported low level of education, and thirdly, that it was acceptable to kill chickens without stunning for religious purposes. The stepwise regression also indicated that those with high K scores were more likely

79 to be older, single with no children and agreeing that their knowledge is sufficient to form an opinion when purchasing chicken products. Of next importance was that they were eating chicken frequently, purchasing frozen products and that they did not purchase chicken products from accredited labelling. Respondents regarded the welfare of meat chickens at the abattoir as good, and they were more likely to live in rural areas (Appendix Table 1 – Stepwise regression No 11, 12 & 13).

3.6.4 Attitudes regarding chicken welfare rearing systems

A cluster analysis for the attitude questions produced 4 components with eigen values > 1, explaining 61% of the variation in total. A biplot of the first two components illustrated that there were similar responses to questions about how good or bad animal welfare on the farm, during transport and in the abattoir (Figure 11). Similar responses were observed at the opposite end of the scale for the first component for questions relating to attitudes to consumption, and to the two questions about chickens being conscious (religious slaughter and stunning acceptability). The first component appears to relate to purchasing issues, with cost Vs AW at one end and willingness to pay more, including of accredited products, at the other end.

0.5 Farm AW Abattoir AW Knowledge adequacy for purchase 0.4 Transport AW

0.3 AW information t

n Product label

e Pay more?

n o

p 0.2 Accreditation m

o Humaneness

C

d 0.1

n o

c Government standards adequate? e

S 0.0 Religious slaughter

-0.1 Stunning acceptability Cost Vs AW -0.2 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 First Component

80 Figure 11: Biplot of Principal Component Analysis of attitude questions, showing components First and Second

AW = animal welfare

Most respondents were unsure whether chickens reared in meat production systems are protected by government standards, which ensure that the welfare of birds is adequate (Appendix Table 2). They were also either unsure what they thought about meat chicken welfare on farms, or they thought it was good, bad or neither good nor bad in approximately equal numbers. Very few thought it was very good or very bad. For transport the pattern was similar, with many unsure or thinking that it was either good, bad or neither good nor bad, but more thought it was neither good nor bad. In the abattoir (Table 4) most were unsure, but many thought it was neither good nor bad and a significant proportion (17%) thought that it was good.

Over half of respondents (54%) felt that it was unacceptable or very unacceptable that 1% of birds do not get adequately stunned by normal abattoir practices (Table 4). Over half of respondents (58%) felt that it was unacceptable that some Australian abattoirs are allowed to kill chickens that are conscious, for religious reasons (Table 2). Most respondents (83%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “Food must be produced and processed from chickens that are treated humanely” (Table 4).

There was no consensus among respondents about whether their knowledge of the welfare of meat chickens was sufficient to allow them to form an opinion about which chicken products they should purchase (Table 4), but 49% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the cost of chicken meat was more important to them than the chicken’s welfare, compared with 27% who strongly agreed or agreed.

3.6.5 Consumption and attitude towards Labelling

The most common chicken products purchased were chicken pieces or whole chicken, not flavoured or processed products (Table 4). Free range chicken was the most common branded product purchased, then whole chicken and chicken portions (Appendix Table 2). Chicken was most commonly eaten weekly, and if not, it was

81 most likely to be eaten less than once a week (Appendix Table 4). Most bought it fresh (61.0%), not frozen, however, consumers with high K scores indicated that they were most likely to buy frozen chicken (Appendix Table 4). Most respondents considered labelling of production systems important, and an overwhelming majority (63%) wanted to see information regarding welfare wherever chicken products are sold (Appendix Table 5) and were specifically looking to buy accredited chicken products (Appendix Table 5). Just over half (56%) were prepared to pay to set up animal welfare standards and the amount most respondents were willing to pay was the lowest option, $0.50 (AUD) per product item, with some willing to pay up to AUD$20.00.

3.7 Gender effect regarding chicken welfare rearing systems The data below will analysis the “Gender” effect on the three criteria (ie knowledge, attitude and consumption / label)

3.7.1 Respondents’ Knowledge

For most questions females had the same level of understanding as males. However, females were less likely to correctly identify that food fed to chicken is usually of vegetable origin (Table 6). More males than females thought that a chicken’s diet can include cut grasses and hay.

Table 6: Significant differences in knowledge, attitudes, consumption/labelling and consumer behaviour between the referent group for gender, male respondents, and the comparative group, female respondents

Questions Males Females Coefficient Odds P Value and response Ratio options Knowledge Space for 1.61 1.88 -0.71 0.49 0.006 each bird in barn, (1, 0.25 m2- 4, 5 m2) Chickens are 1.82 2.04 -.80 0.45 0.001 usually fed food of vegetable

82 origin (1T, 2DK, 3F). The usual feed for meat chickens in barns, compared with those answering all: Cut grass 0.52 0.25 -1.89 0.15 0.001 Hay 0.52 0.10 -2.54 0.08 0.001 Pelleted 3.8 2.0 -0.78 0.46 0.02 Cereal food Attitudes Chicken 2.80 3.17 -0.79 0.45 0.001 welfare at the abattoir,1vg- 5vb 1% of birds do 2.66 2.38 0.57 1.77 0.007 not get adequately stunned in abattoir practices, 1vu-5va Abattoirs 2.49 2.26 0.91 2.49 0.001 slaughter birds without stunning, 1vu- 5va Chicken must 1.78 1.63 0.63 1.87 0.007 be treated humanely, 1sa-5sd Cost of 3.09 3.46 -0.74 0.48 0.001 chicken is more important than chicken’s welfare, 1sa- 5sd Consumption / labelling

What chicken meat products do you buy? Free Range 70 143 0.90 2.46 0.001 (no. resp.) Processed (no. 15 57 -1.11 0.33 0.003 resp.) Whole (no. 79 108 -0.53 0.59 0.004 resp.) Chicken 3.67 3.62 0.699 2.01 0.006 consumption (1 never, 6 daily). Need 1.60 1.49 0.53 1.69 0.038 information on

83 chicken welfare (1 yes, 2 DK, 3 no). Willing to pay 1.49 1.41 -0.43 0.65 0.045 more for animal welfare (1 yes, 2 no). Vg = very good, vb = very bad, vu = very unacceptable, va = very acceptable, sa = strongly agree, sd = strongly disagree, 1 (T) = true, (2) = unsure/Do Not Know (DK), (3) F = False

3.7.2 Respondents’ Attitudes

More females than males agreed that the welfare of meat chickens at Australian abattoirs is bad, but females thought that more space was given to birds in barns. Males considered it more acceptable than females that approximately 1% of chickens do not get adequately stunned at the abattoir and that some Australian abattoirs are allowed to kill chickens without them being unconscious for religious reasons. More females than males agreed with the statement “Food must be produced and processed from chickens that are treated humanely.”

3.7.3 Respondents’ Consumption

Females were less likely than males to regard the cost as more important than welfare in chicken production. Female were more likely than males to buy free range chicken products (143 compared to 70), whole chicken (108 compared to 79) and processed chicken products, e.g. chicken schnitzel (57 compared to 15). Females said that they ate chicken meat less frequently than males. However, males were more interested in seeing information regarding the welfare of chickens at the point of sale than female participants and were more prepared to contribute to the cost of setting up animal welfare ratings on animal products, by paying extra for the product.

3.8 Place of Residence effect regarding chicken welfare rearing systems The data below will analysis the “Place of Resident” effect on the three criteria (ie knowledge, attitude and consumption / label)

84 3.8.1 Respondents’ Knowledge

Compared to acreage dwellers, urban dwellers thought that the space availability for birds in barns was greater (Table 7). Participants living on acreage were more likely to be incorrect in stating that 1) housing for egg production is the same as for meat production, 2) gender is not determined from feathers on their wings, and 3) it is not normal practice that meat chickens are rendered unconscious before slaughter (stunning), compared to urban dwellers. Rural dwellers were more likely to be correct in relation to feathers, but incorrect in relation to housing systems, they were also more likely to believe that chickens travelled further to the abattoir, compared to urban dwellers.

Table 7: The difference in knowledge, attitudes and consumption towards meat chicken welfare according to dwelling place: urban (city/town) (referent group, 1), acreage/large block (AC) (group 2), rural (country town) (group 3), rural (farming property) (group 4) and other dwellers (group 5)

Questions Base Comparative Coefficient Odds P value and response Line Group ratio options Group Knowledge Space for each 1:1.61 2:1.34 8.00 0.003 bird in barn, (1, 2.08 0.25 m2- 4, 5 m2) Housing the 1:2.14 2:2.64 - 0.13 0.000 same for egg 3:2.32 2.06 0.08 0.003 and meat - production, 1T, 2.52 2DK, 3F Feather sexing 1:2.17 2:2.41 - 0.39 0.47 of chicken, 1T, 3:1.69 0.94 9.43 0.001 2DK, 3F 2.24 Chicken 1:2.23 3:2.39 - 0.23 0.02 travelling 1.46 distance to abattoir Is it normal 1:1.92 2:3.19 - 0.09 0.001 practice for 2.37 meat chickens to be rendered unconscious

85 (stunned) before slaughter? (1 yes, 2 Dk, 3 No). Attitudes Chicken welfare 1:2.96 2:3.38 -0.89 .41 0.038 is not adequately protected by government standards, 1sa- 5 sda Chicken welfare 1:2.99 2:2.69 1.48 4.34 0.001 on farm, 1vg- 5vb Unstunned 1:2.44 2:3.19 -1.51 0.22 0.001 birds at Abbatoir,1vu- 5spa Abattoirs 1:2.34 2:2.92 -1.11 0.33 0.007 slaughter birds without stunning, 1vu, 5pa

Chicken must 1: 1.69 2: 1.90 -1.55 0.21 0.001 be treated humanely,1sa, 5sd-21 My chicken 1:2.92 2:3.27 -1.35 0.26 0.001 welfare knowledge is adequate,1sa, 5sd Cost of chicken 1:3.33 2:2.63 1.73 5.65 0.001 is more important than chicken’s welfare, 1sa, 5sd Consumption Chicken 1:3.61 2: 3.93 -1.06 0.35 0.049 consumption, 1 3:4.00 -1.87 0.15 0.017 never, 6 daily. The importance 1:2.26 4:3.55 -2.22 0.11 0.001 of labelling chicken kept, 1VI, 5 NI

86 Need 1:1.49 2:2.21 -1.91 0.15 0.00 information on 4:1.88 -1.64 0.19 0.013 chicken welfare, 1 yes, 2Dk, 3 no

Buy chicken 1:1.36 4:1.66 1.67 5.28 0.025 with accredited labelling, 1 yes, 2 no. Vg = very good, vb = very bad, vu = very unacceptable, va = very acceptable, sa = strongly agree, sd = strongly disagree, T = true (1), 2 = unsure/do not know (DK), F = False (3); VI = very important; NI = not important (5).

3.8.2 Respondents’ Attitudes

Acreage / large blocks dwellers more strongly agreed than urban dwellers that the welfare of chickens reared for meat production systems is not adequately protected by government standards to ensure the welfare of the birds. Urban participants believed more than acreage dwellers that the welfare of meat chickens on the farm is bad. Acreage dwellers considered more than urban dwellers that 1% of birds being not adequately stunned and abattoirs slaughtering birds without stunning for religious reasons is acceptable. They also more strongly disagreed that chickens must be treated humanely but agreed that their meat chicken welfare knowledge is adequate to form an opinion about purchases, compared with urban dwellers. They agreed more than urban dwellers that the cost of chicken was more important than chicken welfare.

3.8.3 Respondents’ Consumption / labelling

The data from the study suggested that acreage and rural dwellers are likely to eat chicken more often than urban dwellers. Rural dwellers considered product labelling less important than urban dwellers and both acreage and rural dwellers were less interested in seeing information regarding the welfare of chickens at the point of sale or to look to purchase chicken products with accredited labelling systems.

87 3.9 Marital Status effects regarding chicken welfare rearing systems The data below will analysis the “Respondents’ Marital Status” effect on the three criteria (ie knowledge, attitude and consumption / label)

3.9.1 Respondents’ Knowledge

Single respondents with no children thought that they had a worse understanding of chicken production systems than those who were married/de facto with no children and they also thought space availability was more, compared with married respondents with children (Table 8). They were more likely be correct in saying that gender is usually determined by feathers on the wing, compared with singles with children, but less likely to be correct in indicating that chicken feed is usually of vegetable origin than singles with children and more likely to be correct than widowers. They were also more likely than widowers to know that chickens are stunned prior to slaughter. They were more likely to correctly estimate chicken travelling distance to the abattoir than single respondents with children or married respondents with or without children.

Table 8: The difference in knowledge, attitudes towards meat chicken welfare and consumption of respondents according to marital status: single, no children (referent group, 1), single with children (group 2), married/de facto, no children (group 3), married/de facto with children (group 4) and widowed (group 5)

Questions Single, no Comparative Coefficient Odds P value and children Group ratio response (Referent) options Knowledge Understanding chicken 1: 0.98 3: 1.60 -1.39 0.25 0.001 production system (1 little K to 4 expert) Space for each barn bird 1: 1.79 4: 1.57 0.72 2.00 0.049

88 (1, 0.25 m2- 4, 5 m2_) Feather sexing of chicken (1T, 1: 2.03 2: 2.45 -1.95 0.14 0.001 2DK, 3F) Chicken Food is of vegetable 1: 1.86 2: 1.15 3.55 34.82 0.001 origin 5: 2.1 -2.69 0.02 0.003 (1T, 2DK, 3F) Chicken travelling 1: 2.62 2: 2.16 1.59 4.87 0.004 distance to 3: 1.94 1.02 2.77 0.03 abattoir 4: 2.20 1 < 5 km-5 500 km + Stunned meat 1: 2.27 5: 2.70 1.10 3.01 0.002 chicken (1yes, 2 -2.33 0.10 0.012 DK, 3 no) Attitude Chicken welfare 1: 2.89 3: 2.23 1.17 3.22 0.009 not protected by government standards, 1sa- 5sda Chicken welfare on farm, 1vg-5vb 1: 2.95 5: 2.56 4.22 68.26 0.001 Chicken Welfare during transport 1: 4.36 2: 4.98 -1.32 0.27 0.009 1vg-5vb 4: 3.55 0.71 2.03 0.023 5: 3.73 2.12 8.33 0.009 Abattoir welfare rating,1vg-5vb 1: 4.58 3: 4.21 -1.17 0.31 0.01 5: 2.82 4.26 70.89 0.001

Unstunned birds 1: 2.31 5: 3.37 -.2.17 0.11 0.008 at abattoir, 1vn- 5pa Abattoirs slaughter birds 1: 2.41 3: 2.88 -1.14 0.32 0.008 without stunning, 5: 1.50 2.02 7.55 0.03 1vun-5pa Chickens must treated 1: 1.48 2: 2.15 -.2.05 0.13 0.001 humanely,1sa- 4: 1.72 -1.12 0.33 0.003 5sd Consumption My chicken 1: 3.01 5: 2.00 2.19 8.90 0.009 welfare knowledge

89 sufficient 1sa- 5sd

Chicken 1: 3.70 5: 3.27 3.65 38.55 0.000 consumption rate,1 never, 6 daily

The importance 1: 2.06 4: 2.47 0.75 0.47 0.02 of chicken rearing system on 1vi-5ni

Information on 1: 1.27 2: 2.00 -3.49 0.03 0.001 chicken welfare 3: 1.48 -1.53 0.22 0.009 1yes, 3 no 4: 1.63 -1.64 0.19 0.001 5: 2.00 -3.72 0.02 0.001 Willing to pay 1: 2.33 2: 3.67 B(4) 1.15 3.17 0.000 more animal 3: 1.13 (5) 3.19 24.35 0.003 welfare rating, 1 4: 1.25 30A 3.10 0.026 50c – 4 5: 3.87 3.49 0.001 whatever it 47.76 0.002 takes

Vg = very good, vb = very bad, vu = very unacceptable, va = very acceptable, sa = strongly agree, sd = strongly disagree, T = true (1), Unsure/Do Not Know (2), F = False (3); VI = very important; NI = not important (5).

3.9.2 Respondents’ Attitudes

Respondents that were single with no children were more likely than partnered respondents with no children to agree that the welfare of meat chickens is adequately protected by government standards. Widowers rated meat chicken welfare on the farm and in the abattoir to be worse and during transport to be better than single respondents without children; they also were more accepting of inadequate stunning procedures than single respondents without children. Partnered respondents with children rated welfare during transport to be better as well but single respondents with children rated it worse. Partnered respondents without children rated welfare worse in the abattoir. Partnered respondents with no children found killing without stunning for religious reasons more acceptable than widowers and single respondents without children. Single respondents without children agreed more with the statement that

90 food must be produced and processed from chickens that are treated humanely than single or partnered respondents with children.

3.9.3 Respondents’ Consumption

Single respondents with children agreed more than widowers that their welfare knowledge is sufficient for chicken product purchase, and they considered labelling information about chicken farming systems more important than married respondents with children did. They wanted information on welfare of chickens at point of sale more than any other group and they were more likely to say that they would pay for the cost of setting up animal welfare ratings on products.

3.10 Religion effects regarding chicken welfare rearing systems The data below will analysis the “Religion” effect on the three criteria (ie knowledge, attitude and consumption / label)

3.10.1 Respondents’ Knowledge

Christians claimed to have a better understanding of chicken production systems than atheists (Table 9). However, compared with Muslims they thought that birds had more space in barns than they do have, and they were less likely to know that housing for egg chickens is not the same as for meat chickens. Jews also answered the latter question correctly more often than Christians, however, more Christians accurately identified the distance that chickens normally travel to the abattoir than Muslims. Muslims more accurately identified that chickens are normally stunned before slaughter.

Table 9: Significant difference in knowledge, attitude and consumption/labelling between the referent groups for religion (Christian, Group 1), compared with comparative groups, Jewish (Group 2), Hindu (Group 3), Buddhist (Group 4), Muslim (Group 5), Atheist (Group 6) and others (Group 7)

91 Questions and Christian Comparati Coefficie Odds ratio P value response (Referent) ve Group nt options Knowledge Understanding 1: 1.13 6: 1.00 -0.72 0.49 0.037 chicken production systems Space for each barn bird (1, 1: 1.69 5: 1.47 1.17 0.03 0.03 0.25 m2- 4, 5 m2) Housing the same for egg & 1: 2.18 2: 1.47 1.86 6.44 0.02 meat production 5: 1.82 1.13 3.08 0.02 Chicken travelling 1: 0.72 5: 0.54 1.22 0.30 0.01 distance to abattoir Meat chickens stunned 1: 0.21 5: 0.50 1.19 3.3 0.01 Attitude Chicken welfare 1: 5.22 5: 3.54 5: - 0.26 0.003 on farm, 1vg-5vb 6: 3.71 1.34 6: 0.43 6: 0.019 6: - 0.83 Unstunned birds at abattoir, 1vu- 1: 2.88 2: 2.58 2.08 7.96 0.011 5pa 5: 3.08 - 1.009 0.36 0.020 6: 2.78 0.95 2.59 0.005 Chicken welfare not protected by 1: 2.89 6: 3.00 1.03 2.79 0.021 government standards, 1sa- 5 sd Chicken welfare during transport, 1: 3.63 6: 4.11 -3.71 0.49 0.03 1vg-5vb, 6us Abattoir welfare rating,1vg- 1: 3.91 5: 4.14 – 1.28 0.28 0.006 5vb,6us 6: 4.04 – 1.00 0.37 0.007 Abattoirs slaughter birds 1: 2.88 5: 3.78 – 1.80 0.16 0.001 without stunning, 1vu-5pa Chicken must be 1: 1.43 2: 1.04 2.39 10.94 0.036 treated 5: 0.89 2.41 11.12 0.002 humanely,1sa- 6: 0.98 1.79 5.97 0.001 5sd

92 My chicken welfare 1: 2.45 4: 2.45 – 2.27 0.10 0.045 knowledge is 5: 2.09 1.52 4.62 0.001 sufficient for 6: 2.18 1.42 4.16 0.001 food choice, 1sa-5sd,6us Cost of chicken is more 1: 4.14 2: 4.92 – 2.93 0.05 0.000 important than 5: 4.77 1.12 0.33 0.013 chicken’s 6: 4.58 – 0.79 0.45 0.022 welfare, 1sa- 5sd,6us Consumption / labelling The importance 1: 1.97 5: 1.29 2.60 13.49 0.001 of labelling 6: 1.66 1.10 3.00 0.002 chicken kept, 1vi-5ni,6us vg = very good, vb = very bad, vu = very unacceptable, va = very acceptable, sa = strongly agree, sd = strongly disagree, us = unsure, T = true (1), Do Not Know (2), F = False (3), VI = very important; NI = not important (5), unsure (6).

3.10.2 Respondents’ Attitudes

Muslims thought that the fact that 1% of birds are not adequately stunned was more acceptable than Christians, Jews and atheists found it less acceptable than did Christians. Muslims also found it much more acceptable to kill chickens without stunning for religious reasons than did Christians. Christians agreed with the statements that food must be from chickens that are treated humanely and that the cost was more important than the chicken’s welfare more than Muslims, Jews and atheists. They more strongly believed that their welfare knowledge about meat chickens was not sufficient for food purchasing, compared to Muslims, atheists and Buddhists.

3.10.3 Respondents’ Consumption / labelling

Christians thought that product labels giving details of chicken rearing systems were more important when making purchases than did Muslims and atheists.

93 3.11 Age effects regarding chicken welfare rearing systems. As age increased, respondents were less willing to pay more for an animal welfare rating (Table 10), however they were more likely to select products with a Heart Foundation approval and more likely to choose chicken portions or corn/whole grain fed chickens. The data collected from respondents in the study identified that the oldest respondents (>65 years) improved their knowledge most, even though the sample size was small. Human morality is recognised as increasing with age in Kohlberg’s progression of moral reasoning (Kohlberg 1973).

Table 10: Significant effects of age on responses

Coefficient Odds ratio P value Willing to pay more for animal welfare rating, 1 yes, -0.39 0.68 0.0001 2 no

Which kind of chicken meat products are you most likely to buy: -0.38 0.69 0.03 products with heart foundation tick. chicken portions. -0.35 0.71 0.003 ……… corn or whole grain fed. -0.36 0.70 0.0001

3.12 Income effects regarding chicken welfare rearing systems.

As income increased, respondents were more likely to believe the welfare of meat chickens on the farm (Regression Coefficient 0.16, OR 1.18, p = 0.04) and during transport (Regression Coefficient 0.16, OR 1.18, p = 0.04) were bad. As income increased respondents were more likely to know that gender could be determined from feathers (Regression Coefficient -0.28, OR 0.75, p = 0.02) and to know the distance that chickens travelled to the abattoir (Regression Coefficient 0.35, OR 1.42, p < 0.0001), but less likely to know that birds are usually stunned before slaughter (Regression Coefficient -0.32, OR 0.73, p < 0.0001). As income increased respondents were more likely to believe that chickens can be killed for religious reasons without stunning (Regression Coefficient 0.24, OR 1.27, p = 0.002).

3. 13 Discussion: the first research study

94 3.13.1 Response rate

The response rate was 19%, which is similar to other farm animal welfare surveys (Lusk et al. 2007). Randomly approaching members of the public who were not aware of the nature of the survey helped to minimize any potential bias (Manfreda et al. 2008; Fan & Yan 2010). However, some selection bias is evident and in particular the higher education level of the respondents compared to the Australian and Queensland population could potentially influence people’s understanding of chicken production systems. The preponderance of middle-aged respondents, compared with the Australian and Queensland population, may have influenced our results on consumption (Table 3) and knowledge scores (Table 4). Participants from the ages of 30 - 60 years were averaging 24% compared to 13.53% of the Queensland population of the same age range. Such a significant proportion of participants among this age bracket showed a willingness to take part in an industry survey as has never been done before. The high percentage of participants who were living in urban areas (86.6%) attributed to the significant low knowledge scores of 184.4 for 15 knowledge questions, which indicates a possible low understanding of farming systems. K scores generally increased with self-rated knowledge of chicken welfare, adding validity to the measure, however, there was incongruity in some responses, in particular that 39% of respondents believed that chickens were usually fed food of vegetable origin but 60% thought meat chickens in barns are usually fed pelleted cereal food. The inclusion of the word ‘pelleted’ may have led people to choose this option, with the alternatives being evidently impractical on a large scale.

The expected number of Zero values in the knowledge score may suggest that some respondents deliberately avoided answering all knowledge questions, but this may also have been because they genuinely did not know the answers. As a high percentage of respondents to this study lived in urban areas they may not be familiar with farming systems and this could contribute to low knowledge scores in general.

3.13.2 Respondents’ Knowledge

The results from the questionnaire showed that public knowledge of chicken production systems is very limited with many participants possessing little or no

95 knowledge of the industry (mean knowledge score 4 out of 15). Questions were designed to have a range of difficulty. Other studies have made similar findings. Bergmann & Maller (2009) studied the factors leading Australians to support or actively reject factory farming, especially poultry and pig productions, and concluded that Australian consumers know little about these systems, there is significant confusion and scepticism about ‘organic’ & ‘free range’ labelling and limited trust in the RSPCA labelling systems. Napolitano et al. (2007) examined the effect of information about animal welfare, expressed in terms of rearing conditions, on acceptability of lamb for consumption. Napolitano et al. (2007) sat a panel of 84 individuals were given samples of meat from lambs that were artificially raised and lambs that were raised by ewes and asked to disclose, before tasting, which one they thought would taste better. They tasted both samples without knowing which was which, and rated the samples. When the sample origin was revealed, it was discovered that the artificially raised meat tasted better than expected and the ewe-raised meat did not taste as good as expected, demonstrating that perceived knowledge of animal welfare conditions could influence consumer’s opinion of quality. Costell et al. (2009) assessed acceptability or rejection of food in Spain regarding the information obtained from observations, handling, information acquired from the social and cultural surroundings, information gained from the physiological effects and from the memory stored from past experiences of consumers. The study concluded that different approaches and methodologies had to be adopted to study food acceptability by consumers.

The aim of the first research study was to establish the level of public knowledge of Australian chicken production systems and the information that consumers have which could have an effect on their choice of poultry products when purchasing from supermarkets or elsewhere. The poultry industry worldwide has changed dramatically in the last 50 years, generally intensifying, which, together with urbanisation, may be responsible for the low level of understanding, which was apparent in the results of this survey. The high demand for chicken meat is attributed to affordable retail prices of chicken meat compared with the prices of alternative meats (ABARES 2015), as well as the versatility of different recipes using chicken meat. Only 24% of respondents correctly identified the type of housing for meat chickens in Australia and 65% incorrectly believed that the housing for egg producing chickens is the same as for meat chickens. In the past, chickens were kept for a few years for egg production and

96 then eaten at the end of their laying life (Hall & Sandilands 2007). By the mid twentieth century, with increased human population, producers are able to genetically select birds for either producing high numbers of eggs (egg lines) or for producing animal protein in the form of greater breast muscle mass (broiler lines).

Only 9% of survey respondents correctly identified the number of days for a chicken to grow from 45g at one day old in a typical intensively-reared production system to a slaughter weight of 2.0 kg (Julian 1998, Halevy et al. 2006; ACMF 2018). A total of 52% of participants in the survey thought meat chicken welfare on the farm was neither good nor bad, or they were unsure, suggesting that there is a great deal of uncertainty about this issue. In a survey of European consumers about farm animal welfare, Martelli (2009) reported that laying hens and broilers were the farm animal categories people judged to be most in need of welfare improvement. Only 12% of respondents correctly identified that chicks are sexed by their feathers, which is less than the percentage expected by chance, indicating that very few people are aware of detailed chicken husbandry.

3.13.3 Respondents’ Attitudes

The attitude of 52% of respondents was that meat chicken welfare on the farm was neither good nor bad, or they were unsure, suggesting that there is a great deal of uncertainty about this issue. Similarly, 49% and 62% of respondents had no definite attitude regarding the welfare of meat chickens during transport or at the abattoir, respectively. By contrast, in Europe most (77%) of the public believe that improvement in animal welfare is needed, with meat chickens being one of the systems of production most in need of reform (Martelli 2009). Similarly, there was little agreement about whether the existing Australian standards ensure that the welfare of reared meat chicken birds is adequate. Mench 2008 & Sumner et al. 2010 suggested that standards should not only minimise animal suffering during transport and slaughter but maintain quality of life for animals throughout their production life. The uncertainty appeared to be linked to respondents’ lack of knowledge, and those that were unsure about the chickens’ welfare in abattoirs had the lowest knowledge scores. Similarly those that had no strong feelings in relation to inadequate stunning, which may indicate uncertainty, also had low scores. Lowest scores in this question were given

97 by those finding it very acceptable, giving some credence to a relationship between empathy towards the chicken and knowledge.

3.13.4 Respondents’ Consumption

With the exception of those that avoided chicken because they were vegan or vegetarian or they didn’t like it, K scores increased considerably with the frequency of consumption, and more knowledgeable respondents were less likely to buy products with accredited labelling. The latter may be explained by those with knowledge believing accreditation to be unnecessary for their choice of chicken product. Regarding chicken consumption frequency, one possibility is that people consuming more chicken meat are interested to learn about the industry. Another is that people of higher socioeconomic status were more knowledgeable about farming systems and ate more chicken because they are more aware of its health benefits. However, the more knowledgeable respondents were less willing to pay for accredited labelling for chicken welfare, which would not be expected of high socioeconomic respondents. A third possibility is that the more knowledgeable, frequent chicken consumers were connected with the industry, however, we considered this unlikely as only 1% lived on a chicken farm, 5 % had visited one in the last two years and 6% indicated that they had gained their knowledge as farm employees.

The type of chicken meat that respondents said they were most likely to buy was free range chicken meat products, whereas Australian free range chicken meat production accounts for only 10 to 15% of the total production (ACMF 2018). This properly reflected an intention or desire, rather than actuality. Furthermore, a total of 63% of respondents sought to purchase a chicken product with accreditation, particularly if they had little knowledge about chicken production systems. This suggests that consumers are using accreditation as a means of ensuring products are of high welfare, replacing their limited knowledge, even though accredited labels exhibit no information regarding the conditions where birds were raised or processed and no reference to animal welfare (Caswell & Mojduszka 1996). Consumers have put pressure on retailers to properly label products and producers, manufacturers and supermarkets to have an animal welfare labelling system (Sismanoglou &Tzimitra-

98 Kalogianni 2010) as well as country of origin, production techniques (Marian & Thøgersen 2013) and conditions of rearing (Schnettler et al 2008).

Fifty six percent of respondents, particularly females, were prepared to contribute to the cost of setting up animal welfare ratings by paying extra for the products and the most common increase in cost that would be accepted was 2.5%. A study in Chile indicated a willingness to pay up to 15% more for meat produced to animal welfare standards (Schnettler et al. 2008). European consumers have indicated their willingness to change their usual place of shopping to be able to purchase more animal welfare friendly products (Velarde & Dalmau 2012). Consumers are also willing to pay more for natural or organic chicken (Sismanoglou & Tzimitra-Kalogianni 2011), the latter being perceived as safer, healthier and with fewer pesticides, hormones or antibiotics than other meat (Van Loo et al. 2010). Labelling systems are based on transparency, informing consumers that the products have satisfied the welfare conditions where animals were reared, transported and processed (Tonser, Olynk & Wolf 2009).

3.13.5 Demographic effects.

Socio-demographics as explanatory variables of behaviour may be less influential than values, attitudes, motives and life-styles. Nevertheless, in our study we had major effects of gender and dwelling place on attitudes and consumption, whereas religion had most influence on attitudes and little on consumption.

3.13.5.1 Gender effects. There was no evidence that females had a better understanding of chicken production systems than males. However, it is generally recognised that females have greater knowledge of animal welfare concerns, with males being more traditional in their purchasing habits for animal products (Beardworth et al. 2002). Females displayed greater sensitivity to chicken welfare than males, confirming much previous research (Vanhonacker et al. 2008) and (Kendall, Lobao & Sharp 2006). Females were more ethical about their chicken consumption intentions and reported being twice as likely to buy free range but only slightly more likely to buy whole chicken. They

99 were also much more likely to buy processed products, which may reflect their role in managing the nutrition of children. They reported buying less chicken meat than males, confirming a Eurasian survey which found that female students reported that they ate poultry meat less commonly than male students (Phillips et al. 2012). Males’ greater interest in seeing information regarding the welfare of chicken at the point of sale than females and even being more prepared to pay for this may reflect a perceived female duty to purchase the cheapest product if the income comes from their husband. In contrast to this, other studies (Henson 1996) and Tsakiridou et al. 2010) found that females were willing to pay extra for certified food products. Females reporting less frequent consumption of chicken than males probably reflects the fact that women show more health-related behaviours and considered attitudes towards food than men (Harvey et al. 2001 and Yen & Huang 2002).

3.13.5.2 Place of residence effects. Dwellers on acreage/large blocks were more knowledgeable than most other groups, but they were generally less sympathetic to chicken welfare than urban dwellers, in relation to stunning practices and treating birds humanely. The acreage or large block dwellers are more likely to keep chickens and gain their attitudes towards chicken welfare from this practice, rather than through the media, which would be the case for urban dwellers. Acreage/large block dwellers also ate more chicken than urban dwellers and were less interested in labelling about chicken welfare, even though they thought government standards were less than adequate to protect welfare. The latter suggests a better knowledge but less concern in acreage/large block dwellers, compared with urban dwellers.

3.13.5.3 Marital status effects. Single respondents with children were most likely to want information on the welfare of chicken at point of sale, probably reflecting their limited time for shopping, and they considered this information more than some other groups. Other research has identified that single parents with children spend more of their food budget eating away from the home, compared to partnered respondents with children (Ziol-Guest et al. 2006). The study suggested that the most sympathetic consumers were single

100 respondents without children, as they rated welfare worst on farm and in the abattoir and agreed most that chickens must be treated humanely. They were also least accepting of inadequate stunning or avoiding stunning for religious reasons.

3.13.5.4 Religion effects. Muslims knew more about stunning than Christians and they were less likely to find it acceptable. Stunning is not accepted by most Muslim scholars. Muslims believe the animal must be alive when its throat is cut and must die from loss of blood Ozari (1984) and [Surah al-Maa'idah 5:3]4. However, Gregory et al. (2012), summarising findings from fifty-eight countries, of over 1500 cattle commercially slaughtered without stunning as in Shechita or Halal slaughter, concluded that animals cut without effective prior stunning could experience pain and stress when conscious. Perhaps in recognition of this, 54% of our respondents believed that the practice of slaughtering birds without adequate stunning was either unacceptable or very unacceptable.

Critics argue that slaughtering animals without stunning compromise the welfare of animals and expose them to unnecessary shock at the time of slaughter (John Blackwell, the president of the BVA-Daily Mail Australia-29 January 2015, from Ben Wilkinson). Dr William Russell, Professor of Sociology at Reading University, England, United Kingdom, and his assistant Mr Rex Burch, published their research work which led to the introduction of the concept of the “Three Rs”, to Replace, Reduce and/or Refine the process in order to minimise animal suffering and improve animal welfare (Russell & Burch 1959). For Christians and Jews eating meat is permitted because God allows it, ‘However, you may slaughter and eat meat within all your gates, whatever your heart desires, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you’ (Deuteronomy 12:15 The Bible New King James Version, 2000). The Ritual Slaughter among Jews (Schechita) is derived from the Torah and the Talmud (Roni Ozari 1984), however Judaism accepts that animals have feelings. Ozari’s study showed that under the Jewish religion stunning an animal before slaughter is not obviously in contradiction with prescriptions, however, another study looked at the physiological and neurophysiological issues and concluded that Shechita is a painless and effective method by which to stun and dispatch an animal in a single rapid act (Rosen 2004).

101

My research study showed that Christians were more likely to be empathetic to animals, in terms of agreeing that birds should be treated humanely, but they were more likely to regard cost as being more important than an animal’s welfare and product labelling to be important, compared to Muslims and atheists. Christians have a strong belief that animals are put on earth for their own benefit, in contrast to atheists, so it is not surprising that Christians felt that chicken welfare was less important than the cost of chicken products and they had less agreement that chickens must be produced humanely, compared to atheists. Muslims and Jews have a similar fundamental religious belief in human supremacy over animals (Bergeaud-Blackler 2007, Silver 2011, Cenci-Goga et al. 2013; Zoethout 2013). Perhaps Australian Christians have confidence in animal welfare practices on farms, since it is part of their cultural heritage, but not in transport or abattoirs. In addition, the media portrays animal welfare practices in abattoirs and during transport in a generally negative way (Tiplady, Walsh & Phillips 2012).

3.13.5.5 Age, income and education effects. The reduced willingness to pay for animal welfare ratings as respondents aged may reflect reduced disposable cash for this purpose, or it may reflect changing attitudes, this not being a longitudinal study. Greater tolerance to not stunning the chicken for religious reasons was evident in higher income respondents, confirming previous findings in Chinese respondents (Phillips et al. 2012). A greater willingness to recognise poor welfare on farm and during transport in high income respondents may reflect a greater ability to pay for high welfare products. Respondents with a low level of education had high K scores. This suggests that there was a cohort of poorly- educated respondents that had had contact with the poultry industry, perhaps working in processing factories.

3.13.6 Labelling and accreditation systems:

The first research study identified the effect of labelling systems for chicken products sold in Australia. A total of 63% of respondents looked to purchase a chicken product that has accreditation, particularly if they had little knowledge about chicken

102 production systems. This suggests that consumers are using accreditation as a means of ensuring products are of high welfare, replacing their limited knowledge. Consumers have put pressure on retailers to properly label products and enforce producers, manufacturers and supermarkets to initiate an animal welfare labelling system (Sismanoglou & Tzimitra-Kalogiannai 2011) as well as country of origin, production techniques (Marian & Thøgersen 2013) and conditions of rearing (Schnettler et al. 2008). Just over half of participants in the survey (56.2%) indicated they were prepared to contribute to the cost of setting up animal welfare ratings on animal products by paying extra for the products, particularly females. Slightly less than half of participants (45.6%) indicated they would be prepared to pay 50 cents extra per product, with some participants being prepared to pay up to the value of $20.00. The findings of my study were supported by results from a similar study carried out in the USA which examined consumers’ willingness to pay for high-welfare animal products and found that 44% of respondents were willing to pay a premium of 5% more for “humane” produced products while 20% of respondents would be happy to pay up to 10% more (Napolitano et al. 2010). Velarde & Dalmu (2012) reported that 63% of the 29,152 people interviewed by the European Commission in 2007, in 25 member states of the European Union, showed their willingness to change their usual place of shopping to be able to purchase more animal welfare friendly products. Schnettler et al. (2008) examined consumer perception of animal welfare and livestock production among 384 consumers in Temuco at the Araucania region in Chile and the willingness of consumers to pay a higher price for meat produced under Animal Welfare (AW) principles.

The study concluded that consumers are willing to pay up to 15.0% more for meat produced to Animal Welfare Standards. Consumers were also willing to pay extra for natural and or organic chicken (Gifford & Bernard 2011). Van Loo et al. (2010) surveyed 976 respondents of which 59.0% indicated that they occasionally purchased organic chicken meat, but older, Caucasian respondents tended to purchase organic chicken meat more regularly as they perceived organic meat to be safer and healthier with fewer pesticides, hormones or antibiotics than the traditional meat.

103 Under the accredited labelling systems for the chicken products sold in Australia the final product or the condition of production must adhere to the pre-set measurements/requirements set by the accredited authority/organisation. Regular audit processes of the businesses under the scheme take place to guarantee the continuation of granting the seal of approval to the business. Ironically, the seals of these accredited labels exhibit no information regarding the conditions where birds were raised or processed and no reference to animal welfare in any of the accredited labels. The result of the study highlighted the need for establishing a mandatory accredited labelling system in compliance with the public interest regarding animal welfare expectations not only for the chicken industry but also for different species of livestock. A more voluntary labelling system could be initiated in countries where consumers are less concerned with the issue of accredited labelling (Caswell 1996).

The first research study recorded that 47.0% of the public neither agree nor disagree that the existing Australian standards do not ensure that the welfare of reared meat chicken birds is adequate nor do the standards cover some of the public’s animal welfare concerns. Hobson (2012) highlighted the fragility of the Australian meat industry in the light of live exports to Asia and Indonesia and the increased responsibilities of the industry to enhance the misperceptions of the welfare of exported Australian animals. Mench (2008 & 2010) set up a future challenge for the Australian Welfare standards not only minimising animal suffering during transport and slaughter but to maintain a “happy” quality of life for animals throughout their production life through disease control, minimisation of losses caused by bruising, stress and malnutrition and from pressure by international corporations to apply low animal welfare standards but update and uphold a set of standards (Fraser 2008). Other results indicate that 51.8%, 49.4% and 62.3% of participants had no definite beliefs regarding the welfare of meat chickens on the farm, during transport or at the abattoir, respectively. 53.8% of participants believe that the practice of birds being slaughtered without adequate stunning is unacceptable or very unacceptable. Participants from Muslim or Jewish backgrounds accepted such practice with some reservations, for religious reasons. Gregory et al. (2012) summarised the findings from fifty-eight countries, of over 1500 cattle commercially slaughtered without stunning as depicted by the Shechita and Halal slaughter procedures, the study concluded that animals cut without prior effective stunning could experience pain and

104 distress during the conscious period. Carotid arteries cut at C16 (Cervical Vertebrae position 1) should not be viewed as resolving all potential pain and stress (Gregory et. al 2011 & Grandin 2012). My result also showed that 36.0% of respondents regarded their knowledge about the welfare of meat chicken as enough for allowing them to form an opinion regarding which chicken products to purchase. The first research study acknowledged that 55.1% of participants gained their knowledge of chicken production systems through personal interest via internet, journals, newspaper articles, and television programmes. 49.3% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the cost of chicken meat is less important to them than the chicken’s welfare.

3.14 Conclusions for the first research study Public knowledge of the Australian poultry production systems was limited, giving cause for concern about welfare change being driven by public opinion. Most was indirectly gained from the media, and few respondents having direct experience with chicken farming. Our finding that knowledge related to an improved attitude towards chicken welfare is valuable, since it suggests that informing the public about chicken welfare would increase levels of concern. However, this was not associated with increased consumption of high welfare products, in fact high level consumers had a natural suspicion of accreditation programmes that would make it difficult to improve animal welfare through this method. The observed positive relationship between chicken consumption and knowledge may derive from a belief in high level consumers that they should understand the systems of production of the animals that they are consuming. The connection between knowledge and attitudes suggests that educating consumers will help to improve their empathy towards meat chickens, but the lack of relationship to consumption and suspicion of accreditation systems suggests that any increased empathy will not necessarily have an impact on sales of high welfare products.

6 Cut at C1 could partly reduce the potential for suffering during slaughter without stunning (Gregory et al 2012).

105 More scientific studies are needed to support public demand for improving the welfare conditions of chickens, as they were at least willing to contribute a small amount (median about 5%) to establish labelling systems that take into account the welfare of birds. The study also identified those consumers that were most concerned about the welfare of chickens in this context: females, urban dwellers and relatively high-income respondents.

The next section of this thesis broadens the scope of knowledge influences, to investigate knowledge about the livestock industries in a much broader population, that of SE and E Asia. For the sake of expedience, the survey is confined to stakeholders in the industries, and to a specific sector, the transport and slaughter of the animals. This enabled a large sample to be surveyed and connections between attitudes and knowledge again explored.

106 Chapter 4:

Knowledge of stakeholders in the livestock industries of East and Southeast Asia about animal welfare during transport and slaughter and its relation to their attitudes to improving animal welfare

Erian, I., Sinclair, M. and Phillips, C.J.C. 2019. Knowledge of stakeholders in the livestock industries of East and Southeast Asia about welfare during transport and slaughter and its relation to their attitudes to improving animal welfare. Animals, 9:99; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030099.incorporated as Chapter 4.

Contributor Statement of contribution Erian, I. Designed method (40%) Wrote the paper (100%) Edited paper (20%) Statistical analysis (70%)

Sinclair, M. Designed method (20%) Edited paper (10%)

Phillips, CJC Designed method (40%)

Edited paper (70%)

Statistical analysis (30%)

Abstract for the second research study:

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) sets standards and guidelines for international animal welfare for the international livestock trade. The potential to improve stakeholders’ knowledge of animal welfare in the livestock industries through training programmes and its influence on their attitudes to livestock welfare is unclear. The growing economic advancement in the East and Southeast Asian region suggested potential benefit of a research study to examine stakeholders’ understanding of animal welfare during transport and slaughter of livestock. A survey of stakeholders’ knowledge of livestock welfare in the transport and slaughter industries was conducted in four South East Asian countries, Malaysia, China, Vietnam and Thailand, in association with trainers and stakeholder workshops

107 conducted in each country. They then received training, after which their knowledge scores increased. Knowledge scores had few connections to attitudes, but whether respondents were certain or not about their attitudes to livestock welfare was most likely to have the strongest correlation to knowledge. Knowledge scores were in accordance with respondents’ assessment of their own knowledge level. The biggest knowledge improvement was among Thai respondents, who tended to be younger and less experienced than in other countries. Respondents with the biggest improvement in knowledge scores were most likely to be involved in the dairy industry and least likely to be involved in the sheep and goat industries, with meat processors and those involved in pig or poultry production showed intermediate improvement. Respondents who obtained their knowledge from multiple sources had most knowledge, but increased it the least after training. Connections between attitudes to improving animal welfare and knowledge were limited, being mainly confined to ambivalent responses about their attitudes. The study suggests that knowledge can be improved in animal welfare training programmes focused on livestock welfare around transport and slaughter, but that local cultural backgrounds must be considered in designing the future training programmes.

Keywords: animal welfare; Asia; knowledge; slaughter; transport; training

4.1 Introduction Asia accounts for 39% of global meat production, with China producing almost twice as much meat globally as the second highest producer, the United States of America (FAOSTAT 2017-Commodities by country). In 2016, China produced 76.4 million metric tons of meat (beef, pork and chicken), the second highest year on record (Cook 2018) and driven by the fact that meat consumption in this region is rapidly increasing. Annual animal slaughter increased from 10.2 to 13.5 billion animals between 1996 and 2016 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2018 (The State of Food and Agriculture 2018). Domestic beef consumption increased by 111% from 3.5 million tons in 1996 to 7.3 million tons in 2015 (Xiang, Chang & Lin 2018). The improvement of animal welfare practices in developing countries can also lead to improved product quality and increased export trade

108 opportunities. There is also an important social element, since approximately 70% of the world’s poorest economies are tied to livestock industries, including many Asian countries (World Bank 2016), which have the advantage of cheap labour and land (World Bank 2017).

The recent animal welfare guidelines of the OIE have advocated a number of ways of influencing regional and global approaches to animal welfare standards, but particularly suggest the implementation of OIE guidelines in legislation and education (OIE Global Animal Welfare Strategy May 2017). Apart from seeking to identify knowledge in the livestock industry stakeholders, there have been few attempts to understand public knowledge of animal production systems (Erian & Phillips 2017) and to discover their sources of information. One qualitative study used the concept of Planned Behaviour theory to identify the most noticeable consumer beliefs regarding dairy products in the food markets (Nolan-Clark et al. 2011). These studies can be used to guide implementation of OIE standards, as knowledge gaps can be identified and rectified. The recommendation of the OIE is for each country to implement animal welfare standards or introduce a “Code of Practice” for animal welfare conditions. However, there remain instances where developing Asian countries have accepted lower animal welfare standards of practice than would be acceptable in developed countries e.g. (Tiplady, Walsh & Phillips 2012). Stakeholders in the livestock industries now have roles and responsibilities to effect changes in the way society treats and views animals (Haynes 2008) and in providing the care and conditions to make the animals contented, not just avoiding pain and stress (Rollin 1995).

The second research study hypothesised: A high knowledge level of OIE guidelines will increase concern for animal welfare during transport and slaughter. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006) highlighted three elements of training that would have positive changes: knowledge, skills and attitudes. They also acknowledged that individuals or organisations, including the whole livestock industry, must embrace changes, know the way to alter the intended behaviour and prepare to change the work conditions and practices to accommodate the changes, which must be rewarded by incentives. Hardeman et al. (2002) contemplated that training programmes designed to mass-produce changes were a

109 challenging and difficult task within the limited time frame of most training courses and changes in knowledge or skills during such training sessions are somehow straightforward tasks in comparison to behaviour changes.

The aim of the study was to assess the stakeholders’ knowledge 7 of the OIE standards and guidelines for international animal welfare during transport and slaughter. The potential of improving local husbandry knowledge in the four diverse Asian countries through training would enhance their eligibility for acceptance into the international livestock trade. The study attempted to understand not only knowledge and skills but the attitude towards animal welfare in the livestock industry in general, to be in line with the western animal welfare standards.

The data collected from the questionnaire (Appendix table 2) in the second research study focused on enhancing the first of the four goals of RAWS for AFEO which is summarised as: (A) Promoting and achieving a high level of understanding and awareness of animal welfare issues in the region through effective communication, co- ordination and dissemination of relevant positive information and education;

4.2 Materials and Methods Human ethical clearance for the second research study was obtained from the University of Queensland Ethics Committee (Reference Number 2015000059 – Appendix Table 11). The study used a quantitative questionnaire that was administered at training sessions in Malaysia, China, Vietnam and Thailand (Appendix table 4), which addressed stakeholders’ knowledge of livestock production systems, with a focus on livestock welfare during transport and slaughter and their attitude towards livestock welfare. These countries were selected due to their future export potential for international livestock products within the next few decades and the diverse cultures they represent.

7 defined as “facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject” (Oxford University Press -OUP 2015)

110 4.2.1 Questionnaire design The second research study focused on the importance of understanding local husbandry knowledge of, and attitude towards, animal welfare during transport and slaughter in four diverse countries in SE Asia (the Federation of Malaya, hereafter referred to as Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, hereafter China, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, hereafter Vietnam, and the Kingdom of Thailand, hereafter Thailand).

A pilot survey with 10 respondents from all the countries was conducted through industry stakeholders. The initial questionnaires were developed in English in collaboration with researchers, academics, international experts in the animal welfare domain and literature. Adjustments were made to avoid leading questions or a possible bias. The final questionnaire was translated to Bahasa, Mandarin, Vietnamese and Thai and then back-translated to English to ensure that the translated version to the local language was consistent with the original questionnaire. The questionnaire was delivered as a hard copy to all the trainers, in their local language. Participants were given a unique code to facilitate identification before and after the workshops. The trainers are the stakeholders who are involved in the animal transport and/or slaughter industries such as livestock business managers, farmers, professionals who work directly with animals, team leaders or supervisors at the slaughterhouses, veterinarians who treat animals (hands on), government advisors, livestock business owners or haulage company managers. The trainers will also act as mentors for new trainees after the completion of their training.

The first section of the questionnaire comprised 18 questions that focused on the trainers’ knowledge of OIE animal welfare standards and common local livestock practices in each country, with specific reference to livestock welfare during transport and slaughter (Appendix Table 2).

The second section examined the participants’ attitude to animal welfare during transport and slaughter, how satisfactory they believed animal welfare to be, whether any improvements at their workplace could be initiated by imposing new legislation or by international monetary gains to their local products (Sinclair. Morton & Phillips 2018,

111 Sinclair et al. 2017a and Sinclair, Zito & Phillips 2017b). The attitude questions were grouped into four subsections, personal assessment, community assessment, ability to make improvements and encouragement to change practice, all separately identified for slaughter and transport, thereby covering the central components of the theory of Planned Behaviour. The response to each question was ranked on a five point Likert scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The first eight questions focussed on general attitudes to animal welfare. The second set of questions investigated the key factors influencing the stakeholders’ assessments of animal welfare during slaughter and transport, which included, personal beliefs, relevant laws, the importance of animal welfare within the workplace, community and peers, the benefits of improving animal welfare within the community, workplace and industry, in general and in terms of monetary gain. The thirteen questions also investigated the factors influencing the stakeholders’ evaluation, capacity to improve and sources of improvement of animal welfare practices during slaughter and transport (Sinclair. Morton & Phillips 2018, Sinclair et al. 2017a and Sinclair, Zito & Phillips 2017b).

The final and third section contained demographic questions: the participants’ country, their age, sex, religion and residential region, their role within their industry, how long they have been involved in the industry and how their knowledge was gained (formal, employment or otherwise).

Attitudes questions included towards the effect of local laws, the effect of personal and religious beliefs and the importance of any improvement to workplace, community and peers. It was hypothesized that knowledge of the standards would improve attitudes towards animal welfare. The study also examined the cross-cultural differences between these countries and the way the knowledge had been acquired. Previous work with these stakeholders has examined their intention and ability to enhance animal welfare (Sinclair, Morton & Phillips 2018), as well as the differences between the different countries and stakeholders in their attitudes to livestock welfare during transport and slaughter (Sinclair, Zito & Phillips 2017a and 2017b).

4.3 Administering the questionnaire in workshops

112 Four two-day ‘train the trainer’ workshops were conducted (Appendix table 5) under the auspices of an Animal Welfare Standards Project (http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net/), one in each country. These were led by four international livestock experts in animal slaughter and livestock transport. The participants comprised 118 trainers (30 from Malaysia, 46 from China, 20 from Vietnam and 22 from Thailand) (Appendix table 4), who were given access to a resource package with presentations in the local language (http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net/). The trainers were chosen by country coordinators based on involvement in the livestock industry, slaughter or transport.

The questionnaire was also answered by 896 stakeholders (94 in Malaysia, 338 in China, 196 in Vietnam and 268 in Thailand), who were trained by the trainers in a series of forty-four one-day regional workshops (Appendix Table 4). A total of 330 stakeholders (Malaysia 7, China 294, Vietnam, 16 and Thailand 13) were excluded from the analysis because their data was incomplete. All stakeholders received travel allowances, free lunch and per diem expenses. The project coordinators in each country were responsible for selecting participants for the workshops based on their involvement in the livestock slaughter or transport industries in the different capacities identified in the questionnaire. The workshop invitees included delegates from local OIE veterinary services, local animal welfare focal point personnel, and personnel working directly with livestock in the transport and or slaughter industries. Farmers, team leaders who supervise people who work directly with the animals, business owners in the livestock industries, business managers in the industry, veterinarians who treat animals or work for the government as advisors and university researchers were also invited. After completion of the training on the OIE standards in each country, the same knowledge questionnaire was reissued and answered by the majority of the participants (n=896).

The initial questionnaires were developed in English in collaboration with researchers, academics, international experts in the animal welfare domain and literature. Adjustments were made to avoid leading questions or a possible bias. The final questionnaire was translated to Bahasa, Mandarin, Vietnamese and Thai and then back-translated to English to ensure that the translated version in the local language was consistent with the original questionnaire. The questionnaire was

113 delivered as a hard copy to all the trainers, in their local language. Participants were given a unique code to facilitate identification before and after the workshops.

4.4 Statistical analysis The questionnaire-response data for the second research study was initially tabled in a Microsoft Excel 2013 spread sheet for each country and then transferred to Minitab Version 17 for analysis. A total of 330 stakeholders (Malaysia 7, China 294, Vietnam, 16 and Thailand 13) were excluded from the analysis because their data was incomplete, mainly due to a failure to redo the knowledge test after the training. Only invited attendees’ data were included in the analysis. A husbandry knowledge score (K score) was determined for each respondent from the total number that were correct, out of eighteen knowledge questions. The change in numerical distribution of K scores was examined after the completion of the workshops to determine the usefulness and benefits of the training sessions.

A principle component analysis of respondents’ answers was undertaken first but showed little evidence of clustering. A general linear model was constructed with total knowledge score as output, the demographic responses as factors and attitude responses as covariates. Fisher's test was used for pairwise comparisons of means. The connection between knowledge and attitudes was examined in a stepwise regression with all attitude variables and their interaction with each country available for selection and an alpha value of 0.10 for variables. The total K score was regressed against the personal background of participants for each country as shown in Erian & Phillips 2017. The least squared means of rated importance for each knowledge and attitude question was calculated for each country. A stepwise General Linear Model regression analysis assessed the significance of the relationships between respondents’ demographic data, which were regarded as the independent variables, and the distribution of the Likert scale responses for the total of the knowledge questions, which was regarded as the dependent variable, using a Logit link function. Least squared means are quoted, Alpha values for parameters to enter or leave the equation were set at 0.1. Plots of residuals were examined to ensure that the correlated factors between attitude and knowledge questions and demographics

114 approximated a normal distribution and all probability values were considered significant at p ≤ 0.05.

4.5 Results The mean response time to answer the questionnaire for the second research study was 33 minutes. A total of 683 male respondents (67.4%), 310 female respondents (30.6%) and 21 respondents who did not indicate their gender (2.0%) completed the workshops and questionnaires (Appendix Table 12). The gender balance appeared different in Thailand, being almost equal, whereas in the other three countries the majority were male. The most common age group among all the countries was 26-45 (n= 634; 62.5%), only 45 respondents (4.4%) were in the category 56-65 years of age. Thai respondents were also more likely to be under 25 and to have less than one year of experience than in other countries. The most common source of gaining knowledge was from formal qualifications in the livestock industry, either through a relevant degree or training course (n=464; 45.8%), with 14.0% gaining their knowledge from hands-on experience through employment in the relevant livestock industry. Vietnamese respondents were more likely to indicate that they gained their knowledge from all possible sources. Slightly more respondents, 575 (56.7%), indicated that they lived most of their lives in metropolitan or urban areas than those who indicated they lived in rural areas, 416 (41.0%). Chinese were more likely to be from an urban zone. Of 998 respondents (98.4%) who identified a religious affiliation, 411 respondents (40.5%) were Buddhist, 393 (38.8%) did not follow a religion, 77 (7.6%) were Muslim and 38 (3.7%) Christian. In Malaysia and Thailand most indicated that they were moderately or very religious, but in China and Vietnam most said that they were not religious.

Respondents’ roles in the livestock transport and slaughter industry were varied: There were 304 (30.0%) respondents who worked directly with animals, 238 (23.5%) respondents were supervisors, team leaders, business owners or managers within the industry and 290 (28.6%) were veterinarians working “hands-on” in the field or in a government advisory role. Those respondents were more likely to be farmers and the Vietnamese were more likely to be vets. Three hundred and thirteen respondents (30.9%) regarded themselves as being experts or having good knowledge of their

115 relevant livestock industry, but 222 respondents (21.9%) regarded themselves as having little or no knowledge in the livestock production systems regarding animal welfare standards during transport or slaughter.

The most common involvement of respondents was in abattoirs or in meat processing facilities (n = 291, 28.7%), followed by involvement in the pig (n = 193, 19%) and poultry (n = 161, 15.9%) production industries. The most common length of involvement in the relative industry was 2-5 years (n = 327, 32.2%). One hundred and eighty-four respondents (18.1%) had had 5-9 years involvement in their respective industries, and 149 respondents (14.7%) had over 15 years.

The following sections will analyse the respondents’ husbandry knowledge in the four countries regarding how they gain the knowledge of livestock production systems during transport and slaughter, the attitude effects on knowledge score, the attitude effects on knowledge score post training, the different demographic effects on knowledge score, before and after the training sessions.

4.5.1 Respondents’ husbandry knowledge for the research study:

The respondents’ self-assessed level of knowledge of livestock production systems was most commonly reported as some, little or no knowledge (n=670, 66.1%) with fewer than 6.0% (n=61) of respondents regarding their knowledge as expert. Very few Chinese or Vietnamese claimed little knowledge, but a significant proportion of Malaysian and Thai respondents did. Most gained their knowledge from training courses or relevant degrees (n=464, 45.8%), with a significant number gaining their knowledge from personal interest such as the internet, television programmes, journals and newspaper articles (n=92, 9.1%) (Appendix Table 12).

Overall, in the pre-workshop knowledge test, Thai respondents had a lower proportion correct out of 15, compared with Malaysian and Chinese respondents (Malaysia, 3.80a; China, 3.44a, Vietnam 3.23ab, Thailand 2.80b, SED 0.221, F value, 4.56, P = 0.004). However, the improvement in the proportion correct by the end of the workshop was greater in Thai respondents than in Chinese or Vietnamese

116 respondents (Malaysia, +5.80ab; China, +5.50b, Vietnam +4.46c, Thailand +6.24a, SED 0.291, F value, 5.05, P = 0.002)

4.5.2 Attitude effects on knowledge score.

There were six attitude questions that significantly influenced respondents’ K scores (Appendix Table 13). Mostly, the difference related to greater or lesser scores for those that neither agreed not disagreed, compared with the other responses. For the following four attitude questions the score was lower: I intend to make improvements to welfare of animals in my care; the laws on animal slaughter and transport influence my assessment of their AW at this time; my knowledge about animal slaughter and transport limits my ability to improve AW during transport; and changes prescribed by my company encourage me to change practices. For the following two attitude questions the score was greater: vehicle design makes improvement to AW during transport difficult; and changes prescribed by my supervisor encourage me to change practices.

4.5.3 Attitude effects on change in knowledge score post training

There were 9 attitude questions that significantly influenced respondents’ increase in K scores (Appendix Table 14). Mostly, the difference related to greater or lesser score improvement for those that neither agreed nor disagreed, compared with the other responses. For the following attitude questions the improvement was greater: welfare of transported animals is satisfactory; importance to my peers of factors influencing welfare of animals; and encouraged to change if prescribed by government. For the following two attitude questions the improvement was less: encouraged to change if prescribed by law; and monetary gain influences my personal assessment of welfare. When respondents strongly disagreed with the statement “Importance of welfare to peers influences ability to make improvement during slaughter”, the improvement in their knowledge score was very low. Those strongly agreeing that their personal beliefs influence their ability to make improvement during transport had reduced improvement.

117 4.5.4 Demographic effects on knowledge score.

Apart from their country, there were two demographic questions that significantly influenced K scores. Respondents who considered that they had good knowledge of livestock production systems actually had higher K scores compared with those that said that they had just some knowledge (expert, n = 54, 3.36ab, good, n = 195, 3.78a, some, n = 296, 3.18b, little, n = 105, 3.29ab, none, n = 21, 2.97ab, SED 0.221, F value 2.65, P = 0.03). In relation to where they got their knowledge, those that indicated that they got it from all the possible sources had a higher K score than those that indicated any one particular source (formal qualifications, n = 326, 3.27b, farm employment n = 102, 3.25b, personal interest (internet, journals, newspapers, TV), n = 67, 2.95b, friends and acquaintances, n= 47, 3.21ab, and all of these n = 129, 3.91a; SED 0.221, F value 3.00, P = 0.02) (Appendix Table 12).

4.5.5 Demographic effects on change in knowledge score post-training:

Apart from their country, there were three demographic questions that significantly influenced respondents’ increase in K scores. Age had a significant effect on K Score improvement, being highest in those over 65 and lowest in those 56-65 (18-25, n = 101, 5.60b, 26-35, n = 232, 5.44b, 36-45, n = 197, 4.97bc, 46-55, n = 95, 5.54b, 56-65, n = 23, 4.10c, >65, n = 13, 7.35a, SED 0.221, F value 3.00, P = 0.01). In relation to where they got their knowledge, those that indicated that they got it from all the possible sources had a lower K score increase than those that indicated that they got their knowledge from formal qualifications or friends (formal qualifications, n = 321, 5.59ab, farm employment n = 103, 5.09bc, personal interest (internet, journals, newspapers, television), n = 65, 5.53abc, friends and acquaintances, n= 47, 6.34a, and all of these n = 125, 4.94c; SED 0.300, F value 2.48, P = 0.04). In relation to the type of livestock industry, respondents involved with the dairy industry had greater improvement than meat processors or those involved in the pig industry, which along with those involved in cattle, abattoirs and meat processors, in turn had greater improvement than those in the sheep and goat industries (cattle, n = 98, 6.12ab, dairy, n = 35, 6.71a, abattoir, n = 221, 5.77ab, sheep/goat, n = 30, 3.69c, poultry n = 101, 5.58b, meat processors, n = 25, 5.28ab, pigs, n = 151, 5.36b, SED 0.300, F value 3.89, P = 0.001).

118

The following section will discuss the demographic effects on the knowledge (K) score. The discussion will compare the obtained data from the study with the available literature and the previous studies done in the field. The demographic effects on the respondents’ husbandry knowledge included the age effects, the religion effects, the industry the respondents’ involved in, the role and the length of the respondents in the industry and how the respondents gained their husbandry knowledge from.

4.6 Discussion: the second research study

Measurement of knowledge in the second research study appears to have been successful, since scores generally agreed with stakeholders’ self-rated knowledge assessment. Also, those citing multiple knowledge sources had greater knowledge scores but the lowest increase after training, as expected. The questions were chosen to cover a mixture of knowledge levels and to be generic to the four countries.

4.6.1 Demographics effects on knowledge score.

The recruitment and selection criteria for the trainers had some potential bias when the local participants were selected for workshops. The trainers were nominated by the local authority in each country, who were under instruction to choose trainers with extensive involvement in livestock slaughter or transport. Although respondents at the workshops were selected by the prospective authorities in their countries, some selection bias may have occurred by not inviting or including legislative personnel and animal welfare regulators in the workshops.

Respondents from the four countries identified that the main source of gained knowledge was through training courses and relevant formal qualifications (n=464, 45.8%) from professional institutions such as universities, agricultural and veterinary success of the training to deliver the desired outcome and give local people hands-on experiences of the OIE animal welfare recommendations (Hodge, Wright & Bennett 2018). The study also identified that the least likely source of gaining knowledge was through television programmes, internet, academic journals, newspaper articles, friends and acquaintances (n=162, 16%), which could be attributed to the limited

119 access of some respondents to multimedia means of dissemination of information (Appendix Table 12). There were just 70 respondents (n=1014, 6.9%) who gained their animal welfare knowledge through their friends and acquaintances, and 92 respondents (9.1%) gained it through personal interest via internet, journals, newspaper articles and television programmes. However, those that did gain knowledge from friends had a greater increase in K score. This supports the fact that the peer effect in the East and Southeast Asian region is regarded as being a strong influence on disseminating knowledge (Green 2013). Previous research regarding the relationship between knowledge and animal welfare issues advocated that knowledge supplied by animal protection organizations was the most credible source of knowledge, however, this is likely to be because the respondents were from these organisations (Ross & Phillips 2018). Further research on the effect of peers on the increase of knowledge in similar cultural backgrounds could be beneficial for the success of animal welfare programs and industry engagement. The research of Ross & Phillips (2018) also identified that original scientific literature was highly regarded, which accords with the recognition in our study that gaining animal welfare knowledge through formal education is likely to lead to increased receptivity to new knowledge.

4.6.2 Respondents’ husbandry knowledge

The data collected from respondents identified that the oldest respondents (>65 years) improved their knowledge most, even though the sample size was small. Human morality is recognised as increasing with age in Kohlberg’s progression of moral reasoning (Kohlberg, L. 1973). Also respondents who are involved in the dairy cattle industry had a higher K core increase post training than those involved in other industries, particularly sheep and goats. Dairy farming is a labour-intensive, capitally- intensive industry, offering considerable benefits to those that do it well; whereas sheep farming is extensive and offers little financial benefit to welfare improvement. Hence it is possible that those drawn to these industries have different levels of motivation for knowledge improvement, with dairy farmers likely to benefit most. Dairy industries offer the employees strong sound experience in breeding, nutrition, processing and management and require sound experience in all these field, the ”Thailand 4.0” Dairy project (Poapongsakom & Chokesomritpol 2017) provides sound groundings for increasing husbandry knowledge. In all cases, compliance with the

120 international animal welfare standards will promote the livestock industry not only in the region but within the international trade.

The study highlighted the strong differences in religion between the different countries, with a contrast between two countries with high religiosity, Malaysia and Thailand, and two with low levels, China and Vietnam. In addition, Malaysia and Thailand had different dominant faiths, Islamism and Buddhism, respectively. Despite these strong contrasts, religion did not influence knowledge or the acquisition of knowledge in the training sessions. It could be hypothesized that the religious beliefs of Malaysian participants may have hindered them from, for example, improving their knowledge of the pig welfare standards, since 60% of respondents were Muslims, similar to the 61% of Malaysians overall (Caumont 2016). Islamic doctrine advocates prevention of unnecessary suffering of an animal before and during slaughter (Halal Food Authority 2016). Malaysia is among the most religious countries in the world (Mooney 2012), whereas China and Vietnam are amongst the least, and this was reflected in survey respondents’ beliefs – 67% of respondents claimed not to follow any religion, the same proportion as has been recorded nationally (Religion prevails in the world 2017). Agriculture is very important to both of the less religious countries, China and Vietnam (44% of the working population in Vietnam are employed in agriculture (Trading Economics-The World Bank Collection of development indicators, n.d) as of 2015 statistics.

Thai respondents showed the lowest level of knowledge pre-training and were more likely to indicate that they thought they had little knowledge, but this is likely to reflect the fact that the stakeholders were younger and more likely to have less than one year of experience than in other countries. They showed the most significant improvement in the OIE animal welfare recommended standards, with a mean improvement difference of +33.9% after the workshops. Thailand’s agriculture sector is also very important, employing over 70% of the working population (Leturque & Wiggins 2011) and it has a particularly strong dairy industry, which is used for social support (Thongnoi 2015) and (Suwanabol (n.d.). As respondents associated with the dairy industry improved their knowledge more than those in other industries, as did those from Thailand, compared with the other countries, further training sessions to

121 livestock stakeholders regarding the OIE animal welfare standards would probably be of substantial benefit to Thai stakeholders involved in the slaughter and transport of dairy cattle. The Thai government may be supportive as in 2016 it introduced ”Thailand 4.0”, an economic model which aims to achieve a seven-fold increase in average annual income of farmers from 56,450 baht (5,470 USD) to 390,000 baht (15,000 USD) by 2037 (Poapongsakom & Chokesomritpol 2017).

4.6.3 Attitude effects on Knowledge score.

Respondents that were uncertain about improving animal welfare generally, the influence of the law and their company, and the limitations of their knowledge actually had less knowledge. This suggests a common approach of not considering their beliefs and not attempting to acquire knowledge. This could indicate a lack of incentive or capacity to make change (Sinclair, Morton & Phillips 2018). Conversely, uncertainty about the importance of vehicle design, a much more tangible topic, was associated with higher K scores. This may be because the respondents were not livestock transporters and a recognition of this uncertainty appears to have been more common amongst more knowledgeable respondents. Understanding the impact of vehicle design would be limited in those in other professions. Similarly, uncertainty about the importance of encouragement by their supervisor appears to have been more highly associated with a high level of knowledge. Thus the personal influence of the supervisor appears to be differently perceived to that of the company, and more influential on knowledge potentially, whereas the company influence is generally antagonistic to knowledge. Those that were uncertain or agreed that the supervisor was influential had more knowledge. For knowledge improvement, there was evidence that those with uncertainty about the importance of peers and knowledge on their ability to make improvements, or uncertainty about whether welfare of transported animals was satisfactory had greater improvement. This is to be expected because, at least for knowledge and law importance, the scores were lower in the first assessment, therefore they were likely to rise more in the second. Similarly, those uncertain about the importance of vehicle design had greater scores in the first assessment and they increased less than those with firm views in the second.

122 Overall, there was little impact of knowledge on attitudes to animal welfare, in agreement with a recent study on the effects of knowledge of meat production systems on attitudes of people in Brisbane, Australia, towards meat welfare and consumption, which concluded that increasing knowledge of the industry does not necessarily increase empathy towards animal welfare (Erian & Phillips 2017).

The following section discusses the “Demographic Effects” on the improvement of knowledge score. Demographic effects include gender, cultural background, formal training, attitude, consumption and labelling.

4.6.4 Demographic effects on Knowledge Score and its improvement

Gender was not an apparent barrier to knowledge. Wambui et al. 2018 reported that female stockpeople, aged over 50, and with livestock experience greater than 10 years had a significantly higher level of animal welfare knowledge which is reflected in their attitudes and livestock practices.

The workshops highlighted the fact that significant improvement in animal welfare understanding can be achieved, which may lead to improved behaviour in interactions with animals. Coleman and Hemsworth (2014) found that training had the capacity to improve stockpersons’ beliefs and behaviours towards enhancing animal welfare. Our study also suggested that ethical and cultural backgrounds, rather than necessarily people’s religion, must be considered in designing training programs for the region. They should highlight the commercial advantages for each country to adopt animal welfare practices as well as the forecast economic future of a progressive advancement that is anticipated for the region. The major importance of country in the study encourages the integration of local communities to develop specific tailored training to deliver successful programmes to improve the understanding of the OIE animal welfare standards in relation to livestock transport and slaughter practices. The tailored training programmes must take into consideration the cultural and socioeconomic measures and the encouragement of local relevant bodies to take responsibility for monitoring the agreed programme.

123 Formal training was an important predictor of knowledge score improvement, indicating that this provided an improved ability to learn. It would be therefore desirable to students in current university agriculture, veterinary studies and other animal related fields in these countries to receive a compulsory animal welfare and ethics syllabus to ensure that they have a good understanding of contemporary welfare issues.

4.6.5 Respondents’ Attitudes on knowledge score.

The aim of the second study was to highlight the correlation between public knowledge and attitude towards animal welfare standards, social issues and what ethical attitudes can influence the public’s consumption or purchasing behaviour in making the choice to purchase animal welfare friendly products. Researchers, scholars and animal welfare enthusiasts looked into the attitudes towards farm animal welfare (Phillips et al. 2009; Nocella et al. 2012). In the second study the attitude responses were linked to the demographic questions to help draw a prominent model of beliefs. Other studies cautioned that measuring and drawing a model of salient beliefs from focus groups should be within the context of social psychology (Fishbein & Ajzem 2010).

4.7 Respondents’ Consumption effects on knowledge scores. Total of 42.0% of participants indicated that they would be more likely to buy free range chicken meat products in their grocery shopping followed by whole chicken and chicken portions. Australian free range chicken meat production accounts for 10 to 15% of the total production (ACMF 2018). Free range meat chickens are allowed access, after the brooding period, to an outside open area for most of the day. The use of antibiotics for therapeutic treatment of sick birds could preclude the birds being sold as free range. The study identified that people with a high K score (√K score of 3.53 and K score % of 12.46) are more likely to eat chicken meat regularly (Table 3) and more likely to buy frozen chicken meat (√K score of.2.26 and K score % of 5.11). One possibility is that people consuming more chicken are interested to learn about the industry. Another possibility is a socioeconomic factor that people who are of higher socioeconomic status are more knowledgeable about farming systems and eat more chicken because they are more aware of its health benefits. A third possibility

124 is that they are connected with the industry, but only 23 respondents, or 6%, indicated that they had gained their knowledge as farm employees. In support of the last factor is that more knowledgeable respondents were less willing to pay for accredited labelling for chicken welfare, this would not be expected of high socioeconomic respondents.

4.8 Implementation of Labelling and accreditation Animal Welfare systems:

Figure 12: Livestock labelling system as used in America

Source: https://art4agriculture.chat/tag/naomi-hobson/

The above labelling systems are used in America and identify the animal welfare rating for the way the animals are raised, reared and processed.

Naomi Hobson (2012), one of the 100 Australian “Young Farming Champions” for 2013, suggested a 5-step colour coded labelling system program which could be tailored to each specific species, designed to inform consumers of how the animal was raised so consumers can make conscious informed decisions about which products they purchase (above is in-store labelling for beef products with 5-step animal welfare standards). Table 11 highlights the 5-step animal welfare rating standard for pigs and the in-store labelling for step 3/4. The 100 “Young Farming Champions” is an initiative by Australian cattle and sheep farmers to deliver more sustainable cattle and sheep

125 farming by 2020. The Australian pig industry as well as livestock industry in general ought to follow and be guided by the example below. Source: https://art4agriculture.chat/tag/naomi-hobson/

Table 11: 5-step animal welfare rating standards for pig industry; in-store labelling.

Step 1: No crates, stalls or cages Step 2: Enriched environment Step 3: Enhanced outdoor access Step 4: Pasture centred Step 5: Animal centred – No physical alterations Step 5+: Animal centred – Entire life on same farm

The issue of product labelling, consumer preferences and a willingness to pay for the establishment of a clear system that should cover the empirical aspects of any labelling system can promote market incentives for companies and clarify any information dilemma in the food industry. Food producing organisations respond by supplying information covering environmental, animal-welfare and fair-labour practices. More importantly and currently requested by consumers is a statement that the products are free of genetically modified (GM) ingredients and advising where the products originated from.

Figure 13: Supplied information for consumers regarding different types of beef production, veal, pork, lamb, chicken, turkey and buffalo production. The

126 labelling information includes the animals’ diet, clarifying if the animals/birds have been fed a “vegetarian” diet or fed animal products. The information also includes the animal welfare programme for different species (Hobson 2012).

Source: https://art4agriculture.chat/tag/naomi-hobson/

Regardless of how much information the consumer requests to be included in food product labels, the three essential levels which must be covered are: a) the conditions of animal production types especially in intensive productions; b) the abattoir or processing environment conditions, and c) the retail consumer level.

The supplied information at any of the above levels could be complacent, misleading or confusing to consumers. A survey carried out in 2011 by an online questionnaire, Toluna (Market Research Organisation in USA) which was commissioned by Applegate Farms, producers of “natural and organic” meat, polled 2211 adults aged 18 years and older on their purchasing habits and attitude toward the food they eat, found that over 70% of respondents claimed that the use of “natural” products on meat and poultry produced from animals treated with antibiotics for health reasons was misleading (Applegate Farms Amplifies Appeals for Antibiotic-Free Food- Kolova 2011). The data released by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2009 showed that up to 80% of the antibiotics given to American animals aimed to promote animal weight gain and compensate for unhealthy living conditions (Bottemiller 2011)

During a 2007 food labelling survey, consumers requested a definite classification of “natural” on labels on meat purchased from retail outlets. 83% of respondents identified “natural” as being meat that came from “animals that were raised in a natural environment”, 77% said animals had to have access to outdoors and 76% emphasised that animals must be treated humanely, however, the “natural” labelling does not describe the housing or the treatment of the animals

127 4.9 Gender effects on knowledge scores. Female consumers displayed greater sensitivity to chicken welfare than males, confirming much previous research (Vanhonacker et al. 2008, Kendall et al. 2006). Females are more ethical about their chicken consumption, buying free range, wanting to see clearer and more reliable animal welfare labelling, but they also reported buying less chicken meat than males. In surveys across 11 Eurasian countries, female students reported that they ate poultry meat less commonly than male students (Phillips et al. 2012).

The high level of female acceptance of the statement that the welfare of meat chickens at the abattoir is bad could be explained by females having a greater knowledge of environmental, ecological and animal welfare concerns than males, who are generally more traditional in their animal purchase product habits (Beardworth et al. 2002). On that line, Tsakiridou et al. (2010) reported that Henson (1996) found that females and young consumers were willing to pay extra for certified food products and Wandel & Bugge (1997) also found in their three food selection groups, based on the Norwegian diet, which were chosen for consumer evaluation of food quality, that consumers with a higher level of education were willing to pay extra for food that was produced in an environmentally sound manner. The demands for roast or steak and other beef products were price elastic with respect to total meat expenditure. Although price appears to be the dominating factor influencing the demand for beef products, the results also document the important and significant effects of demographic characteristics such as house hold composition, urbanization, regional location, home ownership, ethnicity, gender of meal planner, and food stamp participation on demand for beef product. Yen & Huang (2002) and Harvey et al. (2001), reported differences in the consumption of animal products depending on the gender as women showed more health-related behaviours and attitudes towards food than men, which is also reflected in their lower consumption of meat and the age of consumers as young adults eat healthier food.

4.10 Marital status effects on knowledge scores. The marital status results suggest that the most empathetic consumers are single respondents without children, as they agreed that chickens must be treated humanely,

128 and they were least accepting of inadequate stunning of chickens at the abattoir. They rated their knowledge as being worse, but actually had better knowledge on several issues, compared to groups with other marital statuses. They differ from other respondents in having more money to spend on high welfare products and more often eating away from the home. They may also have more time to acquire knowledge of chicken production systems through the media.

Single respondents with children were likely to support ethical consumption of chicken, through labelling and animal welfare rating systems on chicken products. Single respondents with children were prepared to “Vote with their money at the retail shelf” (Tonsor et al. 2009) to establish labelling systems based on transparency, informing consumers that the products have satisfied the welfare conditions where animals were reared, transported and processed. Single respondents with children also spend more of their food budget eating away from the home, compared to married respondents with children (Ziol-Guest et al. 2006).

4.11 Conclusions for the second research study The workshops highlighted that significant improvement in animal welfare understanding can be achieved, which may lead to improved behaviour in interactions with animals. The study highlighted that training had the capacity to improve stockpersons’ beliefs and behaviours towards enhancing animal welfare. The study also suggested that ethical and cultural backgrounds, as well as a person’s religion, must be considered in designing regional training programs highlighting the commercial advantages of adopting animal welfare practices. The study encourages the integration of local communities to develop specific tailored training mechanisms aimed at improving the understanding of the OIE animal welfare standards in relation to livestock transport and slaughter practices and must take into consideration the cultural and socioeconomic measures and the encouragement of local relevant bodies to take responsibility for monitoring the agreed programme.

Formal training was an important predictor of knowledge score improvement, indicating that this provided an improved ability to learn. The study supported that it

129 is desirable to update current university agriculture, veterinary studies and other animal related fields in these countries to include a compulsory animal welfare and ethics syllabus to ensure a long-term change of attitude on contemporary welfare issues. The feedback received from participants in the workshops identified that improving knowledge of the OIE animal welfare standards during transport and slaughter, by training, is achievable, effective, well received by locals in the four East and Southeast Asian countries and forms a real future challenge for OIE for spreading animal welfare standards in the region.

The concept of animal welfare is quite new to the region and there are encouraging steps which have been taken by the four countries. Prevention of cruelty legislation has been enacted in Thailand (Cruelty Prevention and Welfare of Animal Act 2014) and Malaysia has developed an Animal Welfare Bill that has recently been enacted (World Animal Protection 2016). Currently there is no animal welfare legislation in Vietnam, nor national animal welfare legislation in China, however some animal protection control was introduced in China in September 2009.

Future training programmes targeting stakeholders involved in animal transport and slaughter are likely to make a significant improvement by changing the cognitive behaviour of the stakeholders and would have a direct effect on animals’ level of fear, welfare and productivity.

130 Chapter 5: General discussion

The following chapter will discuss in general terms the first and second research studies. Almost all the points that will be discussed in this section have not been reviewed before in the previous discussions. The first part of the chapter will focus on the impact of chicken production systems on animal welfare and counter discuss the claims made by the industry. The second part of the chapter is related to the impact of transport and slaughter practices on animal welfare in comparison to the OIE international guidelines for the two practices. The discussion will link the first and second studies together and explain how the two studies are tied together. A visual representation in the form of a Flowchart of the whole project is included (Figure 14). The general discussion will conclude by explaining the limitations and practical implications of the studies and how the studies could be conducted differently should the opportunity arise. The discussion will also highlight the most important and long- term results for the study and conclude with recommendations for future work.

5.1 First Research study

Public Understanding of, and Attitudes towards, Meat Chicken Production Systems, and Relations to Consumption

Animal welfare and environmental issues have become of major concern to the public in recent years in addition to other topics such as globalization, international trade, refugees, poverty, human rights, international health and law and justice. As a result, consumers have become concerned regarding the credibility, accuracy and availability of information, at point of sale, on what they eat and how the food they consume is produced and processed. The conditions of raising animals was of concern long before Ruth Harrison wrote her book “Animal Machines” and explored the concept of “Factory Farming” (Sayer 2013).

Over half of the respondents, 51.4% from the first research study agreed that food must be purchased and processed from chickens that are treated and raised humanely. The term “humanely raised” ranked as the most important food label, over “organic” and “natural” labels, in a consumer food survey completed in 2007,

131 investigating public opinion strategies (The Humane Touch-American Humane Association 2007). Similarly, 70% of all respondents to a survey commissioned by the Animal Welfare Institute on the welfare of chickens raised for meat, and 77% of frequent chicken meat shoppers, indicated that they thought the claim “humanely raised” on the chicken package meant that birds were raised under a standard of care better than typical industry practice (Animal Welfare Institute 2010). An online poll conducted by the American Meat Institute8 and the Food Marketing Institute asked consumers to identify their top three reasons for purchasing “natural” or “organic” meat and 38% chose “better health and treatment of animals”. Animal treatment ranked third highest among the nine criteria for meat selection, above “freshness”, “better taste”, and “environmental impact” (Animal Welfare Institute 2010). In her “Animal Machines” book, Ruth Harrison (1964 pp 6) finished saying “cruelty is acknowledged only when profitability ceases”.

Throughout the literature review of the first research study, there were repeated references to consumers’ demand for more information regarding the conditions in which the birds are raised and reared. In inside closed confined places their movement is restricted by limited area to exercise and express their natural behaviour, with limited unnatural light regime aimed at making the birds less active and utilising the energy content in their diet to put on weight, which translates to speeding the time for the birds to be ready for slaughter. Questions raised regarding the condition of the litter inside the shed, which remains for the entire 5-8 weeks of rearing time for the birds, the floor of the shed would accumulate a significant amount of urine and faecal matter and the build-up of such matter could cause strong ammonia levels, over the permitted levels, and coupled with poor animal welfare management practices, can cause birds to develop breast blisters, hock burns and footpad dermatitis (ACF 2019). Moreover, as a way to save on costs, more often than not, chicken meat growers recycle litter between batches, and only the litter in the brooding area of the shed is freshly replaced with new sawdust or rice hulls. The new batch of birds is then reared on the faeces of the previous occupants as well as the build-up of their own. This could double the amount of ammonia present. The official web site for Australian Chicken Meat

8 The American Meat Institute (AMI) was the largest trade association representing the U.S meat and poultry industry. As of 2005, merged and called North American Meat Institute (NAMI).

132 Federation (ACMF), under the heading: Cleaning Barns between Flocks, asserts that “a full cleanout is done after every second or third flock of chickens” (ACMF 2018).

In an article in The Guardian (14/10/1991) Professor John Webster of Bristol University's veterinary school said: "Broilers are the only livestock that are in chronic pain for the last 20 percent of their lives. They do not move around not because they are overstocked but because it hurts their joints so much." (Australian Chicken Farming 2019). Rapid growth causes skeletal issues such as lameness and metabolic disorders, causing suffering, pain and death. A significant proportion of meat chicken stock have a detectable abnormal gait by the time they are slaughtered (Rath et al. 2000, Williams et al. 2000; Yu 2011).

To sum up the above discussion, consumers are keen to establish animal welfare rating systems for every species, as mentioned in the Literature Review Section. 4.8- (Implementation of Labelling and accreditation Animal Welfare systems).

5.2 Second Research study:

Knowledge of stakeholders in the livestock industries of East and Southeast Asia about welfare during transport and slaughter and its relation to their attitudes to improving animal welfare.

The ultimate aim for the entire study is to raise empathy and awareness of animal welfare. With the success of the first research study at the local level regarding testing the local public on their knowledge of chicken production systems, the Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics (CAWE) initiated and progressed project negotiations regarding the issue of animal welfare in the East and Southeast Asia region. Due to the progressive economic advancement of the region and that CAWE was previously involved in the region, the idea of conducting research study was acceptable. The project proposal regarding the objectives of the contemplating research study was: A) Assessing the knowledge of key stakeholders involved in animal slaughter and transport practices in a selection of countries in East and Southeast Asia

133 (China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand) with the aim of determining impediments to improving animal welfare standards;

B) Measuring the attitude of key stakeholders in East and Southeast Asia towards slaughter and transport and identifying/determining the ability to modify their attitudes through positive effective training sessions in each country; and

C) Exploring the links between the stakeholders’ knowledge and attitudes, as determined above.

Additional information came to light to justify why I did the current research, which is summarised as:

Since 2005 a framework of animal welfare activities and strategies was adopted and supported by OIE members for Asia, Far East and Oceania (AFEO). The OIE Regional Animal Welfare Strategy (RAWS) aims to facilitate the implementation and adoption of the same animal welfare guidelines adopted by OIE members.

The original strategy developed in 2008 was to provide a vision of a region where the welfare of animals is respected, promoted and incrementally advanced, simultaneously enhanced with the pursuit of progress and socio economic development of these countries. Previous research work identified significant differences in attitudes to animal welfare issues within the region (Phillips et al. 2012).

The main focus for my second study was on stakeholders’ and trainers’ knowledge about transport and slaughter, including the animal welfare impacts of stunning livestock in abattoirs.

5.3 Linking the 2nd research study with the 1st research study Under the auspices of the University of Queensland’s (UQ) Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics (CAWE), School of Veterinary Science, my first research study focused on the “Public Knowledge and Attitude to Chicken Production Systems and Slaughter and its Effect on Consumption of Chicken Meat Products”. The data of the first study was already published (Erian & Phillips 2017). The data of the second research study was collected from workshops, seminars and training programmes

134 from four Southeast Asian countries (i.e. China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand) which targeted stakeholders in the livestock slaughter and transport industries in each country. The training materials delivered in all workshops highlighted the OIE standards and their implementation to enable these standards to be delivered to stakeholders in each country via local and international presentations. The data of the second study was already published (Erian, Sinclair & Phillips 2019).

Four two day “train the trainer” workshops were conducted (Appendix Tables 10 & 11), one in each country. The workshop invitations included delegates from local OIE veterinary services, local animal welfare focal points, local collaborators, local stakeholder industries and universities. Survey questionnaires were distributed to professional and local participants to assess their knowledge and attitude to animal production systems and slaughter prior to conducting the workshop. The survey questions composed followed the theme of the questions used in my first M Phil research. After completion of the training on the OIE standards in each country and the group exercise final workshop, a final knowledge and attitude questionnaire was distributed among participants. A comparatively clear idea was therefore developed with regard to knowledge and attitude before and after the workshops. The data was statistically analysed and results have been reported to regional and local commissions, representatives, stakeholders and national and local supporting bodies.

The second research study followed a similar approach to that which was adopted during the first research study, but with more in depth statistical analysis and wider consideration of cultural diversity and livestock production differences in the four South East Asian countries. The initial phase of the data analysis focused on the assessment of the trainers’ knowledge (ie K score) before and after the workshops which took place in the four countries. A flowchart of Project Aims is highlighted in Figure 14.

135

Figure 14: Flowchart of Project Aims

The second research study underwent three stages of project and study monitoring:

Stage 1: concluded by finalising and publishing the results of the data from analysis after contacting the regional Animal Welfare OIE leaders regarding clarification for any potential bias in the data that could arise during the analysis. Data from over one thousand stakeholders from the four South East Asian countries was analysed, which included pre and post workshop surveys in each country. The analysis considered the effect of demographics, such as level of education, experience in the livestock industry, length of service in the industry as well as other individual attributes, on the knowledge score.

Stage 2: focused on reviewing relevant literature on the topics of the OIE data and carrying out more statistical analyses regarding the links between K scores, demographics and attitude between countries with the datasets derived from stakeholder workshops in each country, conducted by the trainers. Two sets of data, as highlighted before, were statistically analysed as well:

A. The demographic effects on K score using only the K score of the stakeholders and trainers before the workshops took place. There is a potential future paper

136 to be published to look into the differences between countries regarding this data; and

B. The interaction/link between the K scores and attitudes in all stakeholders (regardless of the countries). Trainer data was added to the stakeholders’ data to increase numbers of respondents.

Stage 3: Highlighted the answer to the hypothesis question of the study of “How the OIE standards regarding animal welfare are understood in the industry and the ways to enhance and continuously improve the understanding of these standards in the four Southeast Asian countries” (see Figure 14).

The common theme between the two research projects was establishing the level of knowledge of animal production systems and animal welfare practices and ascertaining the need for and effectiveness of a credible and informative product labelling system. Both studies highlighted that there was limited public knowledge of production systems and implementation of welfare strategies but there is a need for an adequate labelling system showing how the animal was raised, bred, transported and slaughtered (summary in Figure 14).

5.4 Relationship between the first research study and previous literature:

The first study highlighted the need for a more credible and clear labelling system, however, as discussed before, some labelling terminology, such as “organic” and “natural”, is not clear to consumers. Consumers were continually questioning how birds are raised and under what conditions. The study supported the consumers’ willingness to pay more to establish animal welfare rating systems, and such issue was not only related to the poultry industry but to the whole livestock industry. The role of the media is to inform the public, clearly and honestly, the way livestock are cared for from birth to the final product at the dinner plate of the consumers. Clark et al. (2019) stated that the public are unfamiliar with how food is produced and the intensification of production is becoming common practice in modern farming and as such livestock are susceptible to diseases during production practices with potential negative consequences for farm animal welfare. Leinonen et al. (2015) applied the

137 life cycle assessment (LCA) method from cradle to gate to quantify the environmental burdens per 1000 kg of edible carcass weight in three main broiler production systems (ie standard indoor, free range and organic) and found that feed consumption and manure production per bird were higher in the free range and organic systems than those in the standard indoor system, however; the direct use of gas, oil, and electricity were lower in free range and organic systems than those of the indoor systems. Such findings suggested that the free range and organic systems had lower environmental impacts on chicken productions systems.

5.5 Relationship between the second research study and previous literature:

The second study identified that there are cross-cultural differences between the four countries that were surveyed. The differences came about due to their different beliefs, faith and religion. Highlighting these differences was important regarding animal welfare and maintaining respectable international trade relationships between the countries. Dawkins (2016) stressed that the conflict between animal welfare issues and current farming practices can be resolved by showing the financial return benefit that can be gained from improving ethical animal welfare practices and, by adopting these practices, producers and the whole of society will gain. Dawkins spelled out in detail the financial profit of adopting these improved practices in reducing mortality, including improved health for livestock, improved disease resistance, reducing the use of medications, lowering the risks of foodborne diseases and improving the producers’ job satisfaction, all of which would lead to being able to seek higher prices from the sale of stock. Dawkins summarised the ways that conflict between animal welfare enthusiasts and farming practitioners can be resolved by future improvement of genetics, improved management practices and the introduction of new technologies. New technologies can be used across all aspects of farming and animal welfare practices by providing up to date information and a means of communicating with other farmers and professionals, thus addressing and enhancing public animal welfare concerns. Improvement of livestock disease management could reduce dependence on the use of drugs either as therapeutic or prophylaxis use.

138 Again, throughout both studies, the benefit and importance of supplying the right information or knowledge to consumers places them in a better position to make informed purchasing choices. Bell et al. (2017) highlighted that some people wilfully and deliberately avoid listening to information they are provided with and even questioned whether people want to know how farm animals are raised and transported to the processing plants. Bell et al. used an internet survey of 1,000 participants from the state of Oklahoma, USA, which showed that over 30% of livestock producers, in particular pork producers, would rather look at a blank screen than to view a picture of how pregnant hogs are housed. The study concluded that consumers’ avoidance of guilt was shown to be a motivator for their behaviour. Bell et al. attributed such behaviour as a strategic or wilful ignorance, and without a keen understanding of its prevalence and nature a complete understanding of food preferences is impossible. The wilful ignorance was because respondents trust farmers and/or have more important issues to tend to and “cognitive limitations” prevent respondents from understanding all issues.

On 6th March 2014, Elise Meakin from the Royal Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) reported concerns around exporting cattle to China after an announcement by the Federal Minister of Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce at that time, that a Memorandum of Understanding between the Australian and Chinese governments would no longer be required for live export markets, removing the need for safeguards to be in place to reduce the risk of animals being rejected. This is regarded as a step backwards regarding the welfare of exported Australian livestock, unless there is a clear understanding of the country’s capacity to comply with OIE animal welfare international standards, being verified by regular transparent audit checks RSPCA (2014). Ms Meakin advocated that slaughtering animals in Australia under Australian standards is better for the animals and Australian producers and supported that the Australian government should invest in the boxed meat trade rather than live animal trade. More recently, in an ABC radio interview on 18th January 2018, Ms Heather Neil supported that a review of live animal export standards is “overdue” and also supported that an independent audit should take place soon (RSPCA 2018).

The second study highlighted that livestock stakeholders in the Southeast Asian countries had very limited knowledge of the OIE standards and guidelines for animal

139 welfare during transport and as such, the opinions of Ms Meakin and Ms Neil verified that slaughtering animals in Australia, under Australian standards, is more efficient and humane and the issues relating to animal welfare are protected to some extent.

5.6 The practical implications that can be drawn from the work and how it can be put into practice

The first research study found that public knowledge regarding the Australian poultry production systems was limited and most knowledge of the industry was indirectly gained from the media. The study also found that knowledge is related to an improved attitude towards chicken welfare and the more information about the industry the more valuable it is and increases the public awareness of the chicken welfare conditions. Consumers were naturally suspicious of the accreditation labelling systems and respondents to the survey stated they are willing to contribute a small amount (median about 5%) to establish labelling systems that take into account the animal welfare. Accredited authorities should explain to consumers in detail and in clear jargon language what the accreditation means in terms of consumers towards animal welfare.

The first research study suggested that educating consumers would help to improve their empathy towards meat chickens, but the lack of relationship to consumption and suspicion of accreditation systems suggests that any increased empathy will not necessarily have an impact on sales of high welfare products.

The second research study suggested that animal welfare improvement in the four Southeast Asian countries should focus on: (A) Improving the understanding of the OIE animal welfare standards and husbandry knowledge of livestock industry stakeholders. (B) Local research and training programs based on moral and ethical concepts about animal welfare during slaughter and transport. The education programs should be aimed at all age groups; and

140 (C) Adopting local public animal welfare awareness campaigns aimed at students in education, multimedia platforms and social organizations, which will bring about improvements in knowledge about animal welfare.

5.7 Limitations of the study

In the first research study, a total of 2663 consumers were approached in a face- to-face survey conducted with respondents who were randomly selected from the public in shopping centres, social clubs, cultural events and professional gatherings in Queensland, Australia. Only 506 answered the survey, a response rate of 19%, the duration of the survey could be extended with more trained volunteers being involved in collecting the data as well as initiating a system similar to postal voting where survey could be mailed to respondents who then return the completed survey by mail. Randomly approaching members of the public who were not aware of the nature of the survey helped to minimize any potential bias however, some selection bias is evident and in particular the higher education level of the respondents compared to the Australian population could potentially influence people’s understanding of chicken production systems. The preponderance of middle-aged respondents, compared with the Australian population, may have influenced our results on consumption (Tables 8 & 9) and knowledge scores (Tables 4 & 5). Most respondents indicated that they were urban dwellers, which is representative of the Australian population, as urban residents may not have the exposure to the rural living or might have limited knowledge of the livestock industry. Further work on knowledge sources is warranted as the Australian public spends about $5.6 Australian billion dollars per year on poultry products (ACMF 2018).

The workshop invitees included delegates from local OIE veterinary services, local animal welfare focal point personnel, and personnel working directly with livestock in the transport and/or slaughter industries. Farmers, team leaders who supervise people who work directly with the animals, business owners in the livestock industries, business managers in the industry, veterinarians who treat animals or work for the government as advisors and university researchers were also invited. The recruitment and selection criteria for the trainers had some potential bias when the

141 local participants were selected for workshops. The trainers were nominated by the local authority in each country, who were under instruction to choose trainers with extensive involvement in livestock slaughter or transport. Although respondents at the workshops were selected by the prospective authorities in their countries, some selection bias may have occurred by not inviting or including legislative personnel and animal welfare regulators as well as religious leaders in the workshops who may be able to influence their followers to accept new livestock practices based on new technology not just religious beliefs.

5.8 How would I do it differently if I was starting again?

In addition to what has already been mentioned before, in case the first research study were to be repeated again, I would: a) Make sure that the places where the data was collected were representative of the general public. b) Get experience of local poultry industry for study 1, however; my principal supervisor wrote to some industry companies in Brisbane, Australia and the reply which came was not positive,

In relation to the second research study, the following steps could be considered at the beginning: 1) Avoid bias in the recruitment of individuals between countries. Better involvement with the recruitment of participants in the workshops to ensure that some government officials involved in the industries were invited; and 2) Establish a feedback questionnaire from the participants and consider their feedback on the workshops.

5.9 The broader implications of my studies, for society, for animals, for trade, for welfare-conscious members of society

Impact on animal welfare

142 The study highlighted that attention to detail regarding the welfare of chickens and the consumers’ willingness to pay for the establishment of a production system of high animal welfare standards has become of paramount importance and will provide a platform for future strategic marketing and animal welfare enthusiasts.

This study also highlighted the lack of public knowledge and awareness of chicken production systems in Australia. More public awareness of poultry production systems could increase public pressure on the industry to improve the conditions that chickens are reared, transported and processed in and could help develop systems that allow birds to express their natural behaviours. With perching, natural light, reasonable production life, more room per bird and less human handling, the welfare of the chicken is improved. More scientific studies are needed to support public demand for improving the welfare conditions of chickens, as expressed in their willingness to contribute more to establishing labelling systems that consider the welfare of birds and other animals without resorting to religious ritual arguments that ultimately compromise the wellbeing of the animals. The interaction between knowledge, attitude and behaviour could be linked together as a benchmark for industry to consider in the future.

5.10 The most important results and how long they will be relevant

a) Consumer demands for more information regarding the accreditations certificates regarding the way birds are raised, transported and processed. b) Consumers are willing to pay extra to establish “animal welfare credited systems”. c) Training is fundamentally important for stakeholders in the related industry to be able to successfully engage in forming the intention to affect their behaviour and increase the social norms of society in general for animal welfare issues. The study envisaged that training should take place every two years to stakeholders in East and Southeast Asian countries.

5.11 Recommendations for future work

143 i. More scientific studies are needed to support public demand for improving the welfare conditions of chickens, as they were at least willing to contribute a small amount (median about 5%) to establish labelling systems that take into account the welfare of birds. The study also identified those consumers that were most concerned about the welfare of chickens in this context, females, urban dwellers and relatively high income respondents ii. Advocate and support the concerned government/s to facilitate the introduction of animal welfare legislation iii. Regular check-up and monitoring schedules to enforce the legislation, this can be done by independent third party/s to avoid any potential bias or favouritism. iv. Continuous enforcing of the international OIE animal welfare guidelines, which can be done by OIE personnel trained in animal welfare, by local staff or expatriates v. Adapt a continuous media campaign in the local livestock industry to update the local stakeholders regarding livestock animal welfare measures and concerns vi. Improving the workplace knowledge of animal welfare measures through regular training programmes, which can be done by locals or expatriates, expert in livestock slaughter and transport.

144 Chapter 6 Conclusions

Two research studies were included in the current thesis. The first study was titled “Public Understanding of, and Attitudes towards, Meat Chicken Production Systems, and Relations to Consumption”. The first study found that public knowledge of the Australian poultry production systems was very limited. Gaining contemporary knowledge about the industry was done through the internet, journals, newspaper articles, television programmes and more noticeably, through friends and acquaintances. The Australian public spends about AUS $5.6 billion dollars per year on poultry products. Australian consumers expressed a hedonic willingness to contribute to the establishment of a more robust labelling system that gives consumers accurate information about the way birds were reared, transported and processed, a system that takes into consideration the welfare of the birds throughout their production lives. Even though there are regular media advertisements by the predominant poultry companies in Australia, public knowledge regarding the industry has not increased. Respondents’ survey results showed that they believe that some Australian abattoirs being allowed to slaughter chickens without pre-stunning, for religious reasons, was either unacceptable or very unacceptable. Australian consumers expressed their willingness to pay more for welfare-friendly animal products that enable chickens to be produced in a naturally, humane way. The industry is still governed by profits and consumers look for chicken products that are “on-special” (Table 4). Industry needs to adopt intrinsic production procedures to promote the wellbeing of animals, which will then facilitate the establishing of a niche market for the pioneering companies and could result in significant financial rewards by meeting consumer demands. Consistent education of the public on assessing how food and animal products are produced would provide greater public confidence on whether what they are eating would comply with the public choices.

The second research study was titled “Knowledge of stakeholders in the livestock industries of East and Southeast Asia about animal welfare during transport and slaughter and its relation to their attitudes to improving animal welfare”. The aim of the study was to establish a unified global approach, and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) has become involved in the development and adaption of scientifically based animal welfare standards and guidelines. To do so, improving the

145 knowledge of the OIE recommendations has become a pre-requisite for providing the tools for any future improvement of animal welfare practices in the four East and Southeast Asian countries. Without such improvement of knowledge, a change of attitude towards animal welfare cannot be achieved. Future training programmes targeting stakeholders involved in animal transport and slaughter are likely to make a significant improvement towards animal welfare practises and change the behaviour and beliefs of stakeholders toward animals’ levels of fear, welfare and productivity.

The second study concluded that animal welfare improvement in the four Southeast Asian countries should focus on:

a) Improving the OIE animal welfare and husbandry knowledge of livestock industry among stakeholders; b) Local research and training programmes based on moral and ethical concepts about animal welfare during slaughter and transport, with education programmes being aimed at all age groups; and c) Adopting local public animal welfare awareness campaigns aimed at media platforms, youth clubs and social associations, which might bring about improvements in knowledge about animal welfare.

It has been said, and not entirely in jest, that knowledge is power, but the author of the study emphatically believes that sharing knowledge is far reaching and more rewarding.

146 List of References

Ajzen, I 1991, ‘The theory of planned behavior’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Akaichi, F, & Revoredo-Giha, C 2016, ‘Consumers demand for products with animal welfare attributes: Evidence from Homescan data for Scotland’, British Food Journal, vol. 118, no.7, pp. 1682-1711. doi:10.1108/BFJ-09-2015-0321

American Humane Association 2014, 2014 Humane Heartland Farm Animal Welfare Survey, viewed 4 June 2019, https://www.americanhumane.org/app/uploads/2016/08/2014-humane-heartland- farm-survey.pdf

Animal Liberation NSW 2019a, Australian chicken farming: Catching, crating, slaughter, viewed 4 June 2019, https://www.aussiechickens.com.au/facts?s=catching-crating-slaughter

Animal Liberation NSW 2019b, Australian chicken farming: Rapid growth, viewed 28 May 2019, https://www.aussiechickens.com.au/facts?s=rapid-growth

Animal Welfare Institute 2010, Consumer perceptions of farm animal welfare, viewed 4 June 2019, https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/fa- consumer_perceptionsoffarmwelfare_-112511.pdf

Animal Welfare Standards Project 2019, International animal welfare standards project, viewed 4 June 2019, http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net/

Aussie Farms Repository 2019, Aussie Abattoirs, viewed 4 June 2019, https://www.aussieabattoirs.com/slaughterhouses

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) 2015, ‘Chicken meat outlook 2019-2020’, Agricultural Commodities, March Quarter, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 129-133, viewed 4 June 2019,

147 http://data.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/agcomd9abcc004/agcomd9abcc20150303/A gCommodities201503_1.0.0.pdf.

Australian Government Department of Agriculture 2017, Regional animal welfare strategy for Asia, the Far East and Oceania, viewed 4 June 2019 http://www.agriculture.gov.au/animal/welfare/regional-animal-welfare-strategy-for- asia-the-far-east-and-oceania

Australian Chicken Meat Federation 2018, viewed 10 May 2019, https://www.chicken.org.au/the-acmf/

Battula, V, Schilling, MW, Vizzier-Thaxton, Y, Behrends, JM, Williams, JB & Schmidt, TB 2008, ‘The effects of low-atmosphere stunning and deboning time on broiler breast meat quality’, Poultry Science, vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 1202-1210. doi:10.3382/ps.2007- 00454

Beardworth, A, Bryman, A, Keil, T, Goode, J, Haslam, C, & Haslam, E 2002, ‘Women, men and food: The significance of gender for nutritional attitudes and choices’, British Food Journal, vol. 104, no. 7, pp. 470-91. doi:10.1108/00070700210418767

Bell, E, Bailey Norwood, F & Lusk, JL 2017, ‘Are consumers willfully ignorant about animal welfare?’, Animal Welfare, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 399-402. doi:10.7120/09627286.26.4.399

Bergeaud-Blackler, F 2007, ‘New challenges for Islamic ritual slaughter: A European perspective’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 965-980. doi:10.1080/13691830701432871

Bergmann, I & Maller, CJ 2009, ‘What factors lead Australians to support or actively reject Factory Farming?’ Presentation at the International Inaugural Minding Animals Conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle Civic Precinct, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, 13-18 July.

148 Blockhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M & Jones, B 2019, ‘Safeguarding farm animal welfare’ in Vogt, M, Jonell, M & Baily, M (eds.) Sustainability certification schemes in the agricultural and natural resource sectors: Outcomes for society and environment. 1st edition, London and New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 137-153.

Botreau, R, Bracke, MBM, Perny, P, Butterworth, A, Capbeville, J, Van Reenen, CG &. Veissier, I 2007, ‘Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: Analysis of constraints’, Animal, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 1188-1197. doi:10.1017/S1751731107000547

Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM & Keeling, LJ 2007, ‘Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare’, Animal Welfare, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 225-228.

Bottemiller, H 2011, Most US antibiotics go to animal agriculture, viewed 5 June 2019, https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/02/fda-confirms-80-percent-of-antibiotics- used-in-animal-ag/

Brambell, FWR 1965, Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems (reprint 1974), Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.

Broom, DM 2003, ‘Transport stress in cattle and sheep with details of physiological and other indicators’, Deutsche tierärztliche.Wochenschrift, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 83-89.

Broom, D n.d. Broiler Chickens, viewed 4 June 2019, http://todarkrealm.tripod.com/broiler_chicken.html

Byrne, P 2019, Genetically modified (GM) crops: Techniques and applications, viewed 4 June 2019, https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/agriculture/genetically- modified-gm-crops-techniques-and-applications-0-710/

149 Cambridge University Press 2019, Cambridge English Dictionary, viewed 14 February 2019, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anthropomorphism

Cambridge University Press 2019, Cambridge English Dictionary, viewed 14 February 2019, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lux

Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2019, Guidelines for the humane care and handling of food animals at slaughter, viewed 22 May 2019, http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/food-specific-requirements-and-guidance/meat- products-and-food-animals/guidelines-humane-care-and- handling/eng/1525374637729/1525374638088

Castellini, C, Mugnai, C & Dal Bosco, A 2002, ‘Meat quality of three chicken genotypes reared according to the organic system’, Italian Journal Food Science, vol.14, no. 4, pp. 401-412.

Caswell, H 2000, ‘Prospective and retrospective perturbation analyses: Their roles in conservation biology’, Ecology, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 619-27. doi:10.2307/177364

Caswell, JA & Mojduszka, EM 1996, ‘Using informational labelling to influence the market for quality in food products’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 1248-1253. doi:10.2307/1243501

Caumont, A 2016, Pew Research Center’s most read research of 2016, viewed on 14 February 2019, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/29/pew-research- centers-most-read-research-of-2016/

Cenci-Goga, B, Sechi, P, Cuccurese, A, Poeta, A, De Angelis, G, Marini, P, Mattiacci, C, Rossi, R, Pezzato, R, Salamano, G & Santori, P 2013, ‘Religious slaughter: Data from surveys and spot-check visits in Italy and animal welfare issues’, Society & Animals, vol.21, no. 5, pp. 459-488. doi:10.1163/15685306-12341311

150 Chabault M, Baéza E, Gigaud V, Chartrin P, Chapuis H, Boulay M, Arnould C, D’Abbadie F, Berri C & Le Bihan-Duval, E 2012, ‘Analysis of a slow-growing line reveals wide genetic variability of carcass and meat quality-related traits’, BMC Genetics 2012, 13:90. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-13-90

Charles, RG, Robinson, FE, Hardin, RT, Yu, MW, Feddes, J & Classen HL 1992, ‘Growth, body composition, and plasma androgen concentration of male broiler chickens subjected to different regimens of photoperiod and light intensity’, Poultry Science, vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 1595-1605. doi:10.3382/ps.0711595

Clark, B, Panzone, LA, Stewart, GB, Kyriazakis, I, Niemi, JK, Latvala, T, Tranter, R, Jones, P & Frewer, LJ 2019, ‘Consumer attitudes towards production diseases in intensive production systems’, PLoS ONE 14(1): e0210432. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210432

Coleman, G 2018, ‘Public animal welfare discussions and outlooks in Australia’, Animal Frontiers, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 14-19. doi:10.1093/af/vfx004

Coleman, G & Hemsworth, P 2014, ‘Training to improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards livestock enhances welfare and productivity’, Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 131–137. doi:10.20506/rst.33.1.2257 viewed 3 February 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25000785

Cook, R 2018, China Meat Production By Year, viewed 11 June 2018, http://beef2live.com/story-china-meat-production-year-0-113958

Cooke, R, Dahdah, M, Norman, P & French, D 2014, ‘How well does the theory of planned behaviour predict alcohol consumption? A systematic review and meta- analysis’, Health Psychology Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 148-167. viewed 14 February 2019. doi:10.1080/17437199.2014.947547

151 Cornish, A, Raubenheimer, D & McGreevy, P 2016, ‘What we know about the public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare in food production in developed countries’, Animals, vol.6, no. 11, 74. doi:10.3390/ani6110074

Costell, E, Tárrega, A & Bayarri, S 2009, ‘Food acceptance: The role of consumer perception and attitudes’, Chemosensory Perception, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 42-50. doi:10.1007/s12078-009-9057-1

Daigle, CL 2014, ‘Incorporating the philosophy of technology into animal welfare assessment’, Journal Of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 633- 647. doi:10.1007/s10806-013-9482-7

Dawkins, MS 2016, ‘Animal welfare and efficient farming: Is conflict inevitable?’, Animal Production Science, vol.57, no. 2, pp. 201-208. doi:10.1071/ANI5383

Deep, A, Raginski, C, Schwean-Lardner, K, Fancher, B & Classen, H 2013, ‘Minimum light intensity threshold to prevent negative effects on broiler production and welfare’, British Poultry Science, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 686-694. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2013.847526

Deep, A, Schwean-Lardner, K, Crowe, TG, Fancher, BI & Classen, HL 2010, ‘Effect of light intensity on broiler production, processing characteristics and welfare, Poultry Science, vol, 89, no. 11, pp. 2326-2333, doi:10.3382/ps.2010-00964

Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives 2014,Cruelty Prevention and Welfare of Animal Act, B.E. 2557, viewed 14 February 2019,http://www.dld.go.th/th/images/stories/law/english/en_cruelty_prevention_act20 14.pdf

Erian, I & Phillips, C 2017, ‘Public understanding and attitudes towards meat chicken production and relations to consumption’, Animals, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 20-48. doi:10.3390/ani7030020

152 Erian, I, Sinclair, M & Phillips, C 2019, ‘Knowledge of stakeholders in the livestock industries of East and Southeast Asia about welfare during transport and slaughter and its relation to their attitudes to improving animal welfare’ Animals, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 99. doi:10.3390/ani9030099

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2012, Guidelines for risk assessment for animal welfare, viewed 14 February 2019, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/120125

ESDAW (European Society of Dog and Animal Welfare) (n.d.), Animal welfare and rights in China, viewed 9 June 2018, http://www.esdaw.eu/animal-welfare-and-rights- in-china.html.

Evans, A & Miele, M 2017, ‘Food labelling as a response to political consumption: Effects and contradictions’, in Keller, M, Halkier, B, Wilska, T & Truninger, M (eds.) Routledge handbook on consumption. 1st edition, Florence: Taylor & Francis, pp. 194-203.

Fabrigar, L, Petty, R, Smith, S, & Crites, S 2006, ‘Understanding knowledge effects on attitude-behavior consistency: The role of relevance, complexity, and amount of knowledge’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol.90, no.4, pp. 556-577. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.556 Accessed on 3 February 2019.

Fan, W & Yan, Z 2010, ‘Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 132-139. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015

Fanatico, AC, Pillai, PB, Hester, PY, Falcone, C, Mench, JA, Owens, CM & Emmert, JL 2008, ‘Performance, livability, and carcass yield of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access’, Poultry Science, vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 1012-21. doi:10.3382/ps.2006-00424

Finch, T, Chae, S, Shafaee, M, Siegel, K, Ali, M, Tomei, R, Panjabi, R & Kishore, S 2011, ‘Role of students in global health delivery’, Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A

153 Journal of Translational and Personalised Medicine, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 373-381. Accessed on 13 February 2019. doi:10.1002/msj.20254

Fishbein, M, & Ajzen, I 2010, ‘Review of predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach’, The Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 151, no. 3, pp. 382- 385. doi:10.1080/00224545.2011.563209

Fisher, AD, Colditz, IG, Lee, C & Ferguson, DM 2009, ‘The influence of land transport on animal welfare in extensive farming systems’, Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, vol. 4, no. 4, pp 157-162. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2009.03.002

Fletcher, DL 2002, ‘Poultry meat quality’, World’s Poultry Science Journal, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 131-145. doi:10.1079/WPS20020013

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2018. The State of Food and Agriculture 2018, viewed 13 November 2018, http://www.fao.org/3/I9549EN/i9549en.pdf

Food Innovation Australia Limited 2017, Australia’s recent meat export performance, viewed 5 Jun 2019, https://fial.com.au/australia-meat-export-performance

Franco, B, Souza, A & Molento, C 2018, ‘Welfare-friendly products: availability, labeling and opinion of retailers in Curitiba, Southern Brazil’, Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol.56, no. 1, pp. 9-18. doi:10.1590/1234-56781806-94790560101

Fraser, D 2008, ‘Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 113, no. 4, pp.330-339, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.011

Fraser, D 2014, ‘Could animal production become a profession?’, Livestock Science, vol. 169, pp. 155-162. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2014.09.017

FREPA (Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia) 2012, ‘Chicken meat bird standards’, viewed 14 February 2019, http://www.frepa.com.au/standards/meat-standards/

154

Frewer, LJ, Kole, A, Van de Kroon, SM & de Lauwere, C 2005, ‘Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 345-367. doi:10.1007/s10806-005-1489-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806- 005-1489-2

Gbadamosi, A 2009, ‘Cognitive dissonance: The implicit explication in low‐income consumers' shopping behaviour for ‘low‐involvement’ grocery products’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, vol. 37, no. 12, pp.1077- 1095. doi:10.1108/09590550911005038

Gibson, TJ, Johnson, CB, Murrell, JC, Hulls, CM, Mitchinson, SL, Stafford, KJ, Johnstone, AC & Mellor, DJ 2009, ‘Electroencephalographic responses of halothane- anaesthetised calves to slaughter by ventral-neck incision without prior stunning’, New Zealand Veterinary Journal, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 77-83. doi:10.1080/00480169.2009.36882

Gifford, K & Bernard, JC 2011, ‘The effect of information on consumers' willingness to pay for natural and organic chicken’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 282-289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00929.x

Gracia, A, Loureiro, ML. & Nayga, RM, Jr, 2009, ‘Valuing animal welfare labels with experimental auctions: What do we learn from consumers?’, Contributed Paper, International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, China, 16- 22 August 2009, viewed 8 January 2019. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae09/51918.html

Gracia, A 2013, ‘The determinants of the intention to purchase animal welfare-friendly meat products in Spain’, Animal Welfare, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 255-265. doi:10.7120/09627286.22.2.255

Grandin, T 2010, ‘Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants’, Meat Science, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 56-65. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.022

155

Grandin, T 2012, Cattle should be cut in the cervical (C1) position to improve welfare during Kosher and Halal slaughter without stunning, viewed 22 May 2019, https://www.grandin.com/ritual/cattle.cut.jawbone.improve.welfare.html

Grandin, T & Regenstein, JM 1994, Religious slaughter and animal welfare: a discussion for meat scientists. Wallingford, UK, CAB International.

Green, A 2013, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intellectual Capital Knowledge Management & Organisational Learning, e-book, The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA, viewed 4 June 2019, available at https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mZ4TBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA326&dq=influencin g+factors+for+disseminating+knowledge&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjraHquc_XAh WKTbwKHc6NAfkQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=influencing%20factors%20for%20dis seminating%20knowledge&f=false

Gregory, N.G., Schuster, P., Mirabito, L., Kolesar, R., and McManus, T. 2011. Arrested blood flow during false aneurysm formation in the carotid arteries of cattle slaughtered with and without stunning. Meat Science, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. , Pages 368-372. Doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.07.024

Gregory, NG, von Wenzlawowicz, M, von Hollenben, K, Fielding, HR, Gibson, TJ, Mirabito, L & Kolesar, L 2012, ‘Complications during shechita and halal slaughter without stunning in cattle’, Animal Welfare, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 81-86. doi:10.7120/096272812X13353700593680

Grujic, S, Grujic, R, Petrovic, D & Gajic, J 2013, ‘The importance of consumers’ knowledge about food quality, labelling and safety in food choice’, Journal of Food Research, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 57-65. doi:10.5539/jfr.v2n5p57

Guerin, B, Serano, P, Iacono, M, Herrington, T, Widge, A, Dougherty, D, Bonmassar, G, Angelone, L & Wald, L 2018, ‘Realistic modelling of deep brain stimulation implants for electromagnetic MRI safety studies’, Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 63, no. 9, 095015. Accessed on 14 February 2019. doi:10.1088/ 1361-6560/aabd50

156

Halal Food Authority 2016, Animal Welfare, viewed 10 June 2018, https://www.halalfoodauthority.com/animal-welfare

Halevy, O, Yahav, S & Rozenboim, I 2006, ‘Enhancement of meat production by environmental manipulations in embryo and young broilers’, World's Poultry Science Journal, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 485-497. doi:10.1017/S0043933906001103

Hall, C & Sandilands, V 2007, ‘Public attitudes to the welfare of broiler chickens’, Animal Welfare, vol. 16, no 4, pp. 499-512.

Hardeman, W, Johnston, D, Bonetti, D, Wareham, N & Kinmonth, AL 2002, ‘Application of the theory of planned behaviour in behaviour change interventions: A systematic review’, Psychology & Health, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 123-158. doi:10.1080/08870440290013644a

Harrison, R (2013), Animal machines, 2nd edn, CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, Great Britain, UK

Harvey, J, Erdos, G, Challinor, S, Drew, S, Taylor, S, Ash, R, Ward, S, Gibson, G, Scarr, C, Dixon, F, Hinde, A & Moffat, C 2001, ‘The relationship between attitudes, demographic factors and perceived consumption of meats and other proteins in relation to the BSE crisis: A regional study in the United Kingdom’, Health, Risk & Society, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 181-197. doi:10.1080/13698570125586

Haynes, RP 2008, Animal welfare: competing conceptions and their ethical implications, Springer Science, pp 82, available at https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781402086182

Hemsworth, P 2003, ‘Human-animal interactions in livestock production’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 185-98. doi:10.1016/S0168- 1591(02)00280.

157 Henson, S 1996, ‘Consumer willingness to pay for reductions in the risk of food poisoning in the UK’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 47, no. 1-4, pp. 403-420. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.1996.tb00701.x

Hobson, N 2012, ‘Animal welfare is becoming a growing challenge in Australia, what is the US industry doing to combat poor consumer perception?’, Australian Intercollegiate Meat Judging Association, 2012 Australian National Team Report.

Hodge, B, Wright, B & Bennett, P 2018, ‘The role of grit in determining engagement and academic outcomes for university students’, Research in Higher Education, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 448-460. doi:10.1007/s11162-017-9474-y

Hogan, J 2011, Potential for imports of fresh meat and seafood into Australia, ABARES report to client for Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Canberra, March 2011

Jacobs, L, Delezie, E, Duchateau, L, Goethals, K & Tuyttens, FAM 2016, ‘Impact of the separate pre-slaughter stages on broiler chicken welfare’, Poultry Science, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 266-273. doi:10.3382/ps/pew361

Jeong, S & Kim, K 2016, ‘Influencing factors on hand hygiene behaviour of nursing students based on theory of planned behaviour: A descriptive survey study’, Nurse Education Today, vol. 36, pp. 159-164. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2015.09.014

Julian, RJ. 1998, ‘Rapid growth problems: ascites and skeletal deformities in broilers’, Poultry Science, vol. 77, no. 12, pp. 1773-80. doi:10.1093/ps/77.12.1773

Jurcoane, A, Draghici, M, Popa, M & Niculita, P 2011, ‘Consumer choice and food policy. A literature review’, Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 708-717.

Kendall, H, Lobao, L & Sharp, J 2006, ‘Public concern with animal well-being: place, social structural location, and individual experience’, Rural Sociology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 399-428. doi: 10.1526/003601106778070617

158

Kirkpatrick, DL & Kirkpatrick, JD 2006, Evaluating training programs: The four levels, 3rd ed, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA:

Kittelsen, K, Granquist, E, Aunsmo, A, Moe, R & Tolo, E 2018, ‘An evaluation of two different broiler catching methods’, Animals, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 141. doi:10.3390/ani8080141

Köbrich, K, Maino, M & Diaz, C 2001, ‘El bienestar animal como atributo de diferenciación en la compra de alimentos de origen animal’, Economía Agraria, vol. 6, pp. 251-260 (Abstract)

Kohlberg, L 1973 ‘The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment’, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 70, no. 18, pp 630-646. doi:10.2307/2025030

Kolova, G 2011, Applegate Farms amplifies appeals for antibiotic-free food, viewed 15 June 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganakoleva/2011/12/16/applegate- farms-amplifies-appeals-for-antibiotic-free-food/#151614cc5a92

Korte, SM, Oliver, B & Koolhaas, JM 2007, ‘A new animal welfare concept based on allostasis’, Physiology & Behaviour, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 422-428. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.10.018

Krosnick, JA, Judd, DM & Wittenbrink, B 2005, ‘The measurement of attitudes’, in Albarracin, D, Johnson, BT & Zanna MP (eds), The Handbook of Attitudes, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Mahway, New Jersey, USA, pp, 21-76.

Kumar, R 2011, ‘Evaluation of two instrumental methods of comparing writing paper’, Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 514-17. doi:10.1111/j.1556- 4029.2010.01661.x

Kvaløy, O & Tvetera, R 2008, ‘Cost structure and vertical integration between farming and processing’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 296-311. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00149.x

159

Langkabel, N, Baumann, MPO, Feiler, A, Sanguankiat, A & Fries, R 2015, ‘Influence of two catching methods on the occurrence of lesions in broilers’, Poultry Science, vol. 94, no. 8, pp. 1735-1741. doi:10.3382/ps/pev164

Leinonen, I & Williams, AG 2015, ‘Effects of dietary protease on nitrogen emissions from broiler production: A holistic comparison using Life Cycle Assessment’, Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 95, no. 15, pp. 3041-3046. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7202

Leturque, H & Wiggins, S 2011 Thailand’s progress in agriculture: Transition and sustained productivity growth, viewed 13 November 2017, https://www.odi.org/publications/5108-thailand-agriculture-growth-development- progress#downloads

Lewis, PD, Perry, GC, Farmer, LJ & Patterson, RLS 1997, ‘Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diets and stocking densities typical of UK and ‘Label Rouge’ production systems: I. Performance, behaviour and carcass composition’, Meat Science, vol. 45, no. 4, pp 501-516. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00084-8

Li, J, Zuo, J, Cai, H & Zillante, G 2017, ‘Construction waste reduction behaviour of contractor employees: An extended theory of planned behaviour model approach’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 172, pp. 1399-1408. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.138

Liu, Y-P, Wu, G-S, Yao, Y-G, Miao, Y-W, Luikart, G, Baig, M, Beua-Pereira, A, Ding, Z-L, Palanichamy, M & Zhang, Y-P 2006, ‘Multiple maternal origins of chickens: Out of the Asian jungles’, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 12-19. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2005.09.014

Lu, J, Bayne, K & Wang, J 2013, ‘Current status of animal welfare and animal rights in China’, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 351-357. doi:10.1177/026119291304100505

160 Lusk, JL, Norwood, FB & Prickett, RW 2007, ‘Consumer preference for farm animal welfare: Results of a nationwide telephone survey’, Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University. Last updated 17 August 2007.

Magdelaine, P, Spiess, MP & Valceschini, E 2008, ‘Poultry meat consumption trends in Europe’, World’s Poultry Science Journal, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 53-64. doi:10.1017/S0043933907001717

Main, DCJ, Mullan, S, Atkinson, C, Cooper, M, Wrathall, JHM & Blokhuis, HJ 2014, ‘Best practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes’, Trends in Food Science & Technology, vo. 37, no, 2, pp. 127-136. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2014.03.009

Manfreda, KL, Bosnjak, M, Berzelak, J, Haas, I & Vehovar, V 2008, ‘Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates’, International Journal of Market Research, vol. 50, no. 1, pp:79-104. oi:10.1177/147078530805000107

Maria, GA 2006, ‘Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain’, Livestock Science, vol. 103, no.3, pp. 250-256. doi:10.1016/j.livsc.2006.05.011

Marian, L & Thøgersen, J 2013, ‘Direct and mediated impacts of product and process characteristics on consumers’ choice of organic vs. conventional chicken’, Food Quality and Preference, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 106-112. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.03.001

Martelli, G 2009, ‘Consumers’ perception of farm animal welfare: an Italian and European perspective’, Italian Journal of Animal Science, vol. 8, no. 1s, pp. 31-41. doi:10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.31

McEachern, MG, Schroder, MJA, Willock, J, Whitelock, J & Mason, R 2007, ‘Exploring ethical brand extensions and consumer buying behaviour: The RSPCA and the ‘Freedom Food’ brand, Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 168-177. doi:10.1108/10610420710751546

161 Meat & Livestock Australia 2019, viewed 14 February 2019, https://www.mla.com.au/about-mla/

Mench, JA 2008, ‘Farm animal welfare in the USA: Farming practices, research, education, regulation and assurance programs’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol, 113, no. 4, pp. 298-312. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.009

Midfield Commodities n.d. Australian poultry export, viewed 5 Jun 2019, http://www.midcom.com.au/sa/midfield/main/australian-poultry-export/

Miele, M n.d., ‘Report concerning consumer perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare’, European Animal Welfare Platform, Cardiff, UK, viewed 25 May 2019, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/M_Miele/publication/267250171_Report_concer ning_consumer_perceptions_and_attitudes_towards_farm_animal_welfare/links/551 50cc60cf283ee08397f47.pdf

Miele, M 2016, ‘Killing animals for food: How science, religion and technologies affect the public debate about religious slaughter’, Food Ethics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 47- 60. doi:10.1007/s41055-016-0004-y

Miranda-de la Lama, GC, Estevez-Moreno, LX, Villarroel, M, Rayas-Amor, AA, Maria, GM & Sepulveda, WS 2019, ‘Consumer attitudes toward animal welfare-friendly products and willingness to pay: Exploration of Mexican market segments’, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 13-25. doi:10.1080/10888705.2018.1456925

Mooney, S 2012, Global index of religion and atheism, viewed 11 June 2018, https://sidmennt.is/wp-content/uploads/Gallup-International-um-tr%C3%BA-og- tr%C3%BAleysi-2012.pdf

Napolitano, F, Caporale, G, Carlucci, A & Monteleone, E 2007, ‘Effect of information about animal welfare and product nutritional properties on acceptability of meat from Podolian cattle’, Food Quality and Preference, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 305-312. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.02.002

162

Napolitano, F, Girolami, A & Braghieri, A 2010, ‘Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products’, Trends in Food Science & Technology, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 537-543. doi:10.1016/J.tifs.2010.07.012

Nicol, CJ & Scott, GB 1990, ‘Pre-slaughter handling and transport of broiler chickens’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 28, no. 1-2, pp.57-73. doi:10.1016/0168- 1591(90)90046-G

Nijdam, E, Arens, P, Lambooij, E, Decuypere, E & Stegeman, JA 2004, ‘Factors influencing bruises and mortality of broilers during catching, transport and lairage’, Poultry Science, vol. 83, no. 9, pp. 1610-1615. doi: 10.1093/ps/83.9.1610

Nocella, G, Boecker, A & Scarpa, R 2012, ‘Eliciting consumer preferences for certified animal-friendly foods: Can elements of the theory of planned behaviour improve choice experiment analysis?’, Psychology & Marketing, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 850–868. doi:10.1002/mar.20569

Nolan-Clark, D, Neale, E, Probst, Y, Charlton, K & Tapsell, L 2011, ‘Consumers’ salient beliefs regarding dairy products in the functional food era: A qualitative study using concepts from the theory of planned behaviour’, BMC Public Health. 11:843. viewed 14 February 2019. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-843

OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) 2017, Global animal welfare strategy, viewed 14 February 2019, http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Welfare/docs/pdf/Others/EN_OIE_AW _Strategy.pdf

OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) 2019, Terrestrial animal health code, viewed 14 February 2019, http://www.oie.int/standard-setting/terrestrial-code/

Olanrewaju, HA, Miller, WW, Maslin, WR, Collier, SD, Purswell, JL & Branton, SL 2015, ‘Influence of photoperiod, light intensity and their interaction on health indices

163 of modern broilers grown to heavy weights’, International Journal of Poultry Science, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 183-190. doi:10.3923/ijps.2015.183.190

Oxford University Press 2019, Oxford English Dictionary, viewed 14 February 2019, Oxford University Press, UK, https://www.oed.com/

Ozari, R 1984, Rituelles Schlachten bei Juden (Schechita), Muslimen (Dhabḥ) und Sikhs (Jhatkā). Dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Germany (Abstract)

Phillips, C 2016, ‘The welfare risks and impacts of heat stress on sheep shipped from Australia to the Middle East’, The Veterinary Journal, vol. 218, pp. 78-85. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2016.09.011

Phillips, C, Izmirli, S, Aldavood, S, Alonso, M, Choe, B, Hanlon, A, Handziska, A, Illmann, G, Keeling, L, Kennedy, M, Lee, G, Lund, V, Mejdell, C, Pelagic, V. & Rehn, T 2012, ‘Students' attitudes to animal welfare and rights in Europe and Asia’, Animal Welfare, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 87-100. doi:10.7120/096272812799129466

Phillips, CJC & Sinclair, M 2017, ‘Livestock welfare in China and surrounding countries’, International Cooperation Committee of Animal Welfare (ICCAW) conference proceedings of the World Conference of Animal Welfare, ed. Bao. J, et al. September, 2017, pp. 200-211

Phillips, CJC, Wojciechowska, J, Meng, J & Cross, N 2009, ‘Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production’, Animal, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 1152-66. doi:10.1017/S1751731109004479

Pirscher, F 2016, ‘Consuming for the sake of others: Whose interests count on a market for animal-friendly products?’ Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 67-80. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9592-5

Poapongsakorn, N & Chokesomritpol, P 2017, Agriculture 4.0: Obstacles and how to break through, viewed 13 November 2017,

164 https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/1278271/agriculture-4-0-obstacles- and-how-to-break-through

Popa, A, Draghici, M & Popa, M 2011, ‘Consumer choice and food policy. A literature review’, Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 708-717. Prayitno, DS, Phillips, CJC & Stokes DK 1997, ‘The effects of color and intensity of light on behavior and leg disorders in broiler chickens’, Poultry Science, vol. 76, no. 12, pp. 1674-1681. doi:10.1093/ps/76.12.1674

Primary Industries Standing Committee 2002, The Australian Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Domestic Poultry 4th edition, viewed 14 February 2019 http://www.publish.csiro.au/ebook/download/pdf/3451

Prickett, RW, Norwood, FB & Lusk, JL 2010, ‘Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: results from a telephone survey of US households’, Animal Welfare, vol. 19, no. 3, pp.335-347.

Queensland Government 2017, Starting a meat chicken farm in Queensland, viewed 25 May 2019, https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/farms-fishing- forestry/agriculture/livestock/poultry/poultry-farming-queensland/chicken-meat- production/starting-meat-chicken-farm

Rath, NC, Huff, GR, Huff, WE & Balog, JM 2000, ‘Factors regulating bone maturity and strength in poultry’, Poultry Science, vol. 79, no. 7, pp. 1024-1032. doi:10.1093/ps/79.7.1024

Rault, JL, Clark, KV, Groves, PJ & Cronin, GM 2016, Effects of light intensity on broiler welfare, productivity and leg health, viewed 24 March 2019, https://zootecnicainternational.com/poultry-facts/effects-light-intensity-broiler-welfare- productivity-leg-health/

Religion prevails in the world 2017, viewed 11 Jun 2018, https://www.religionworld.in/religion-prevails-world-wingallup-survey/

165 Robins, A & Phillips, CJC 2011, ‘International approaches to the welfare of meat chickens’, World’s Poultry Science Journal, vol.67, no. 2, pp. 351-369. doi:10.1017/S0043933911000341

Rollin, BE 1995, Farm animal welfare: Social, bioethical and research issues, Wiley International: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.

Ross, T & Phillips, C 2018, ‘Relationships between knowledge of chicken production systems and advocacy by animal protection workers’, Society & Animals, vol.26, no. 1, pp. 73-92. doi:10.1163/15685306-12341463 Accessed on 20 January 2019. https://brill.com/abstract/journals/soan/26/1/article-p73_73.xml.

Rosen, SD 2004, ‘Physiological insights into Shechita’, The Veterinary Record, vol. 154, no. 24, pp. 759-765. doi:10.1136/vr.154.24.759

RSPCA 2014, Concerns over new plans to export cattle to China, viewed 6 June 2019, https://www.rspca.org.au/media-centre/news/2014/concerns-over-new-plans-export- cattle-china

RSPCA 2018, ABC interview with Heather Neil on review of live animal exports standards, viewed 6 June 2019, https://www.rspca.org.au/media- centre/news/2018/abc-interview-heather-neil-review-live-animal-exports-standards

RSPCA 2019, It’s time to end live exports, viewed 6 June 2019, https://www.rspca.org.au/election/it-s-time-to-end-live-exports

Russell, WMS, Burch RL & Hume, CW 2005, The principles of humane experimental technique, Johns Hopkins Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, viewed 14 February 2019, http://altweb.jhsph.edu

Santurtun, E, Moreau, V & Phillips, C 2014 ‘A novel method to measure the impact of sea transport motion on sheep welfare’, Biosystems Engineering, vol. 118, pp. 128- 137. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2013.12.001

166 Santurtun, E & Phillips, C 2015, ‘The impact of vehicle motion during transport on animal welfare’, Research in Veterinary Science, vol. 100, pp. 303-308. doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2015.03.018

Sayer, K 2013, ‘Animal machines: The public response to intensification in Great Britain, c. 1960-c. 1973’, Agricultural History, vol. 87, no. 4, pp 473-501. doi:10.3098/ah.2013.87.4.473 Accessed on 10 May 2019.

Schnettler, BM, Vidal, RM, Silva, RF, Vallejos, LC & Sepúlveda, NB 2008, ‘Consumer perception of animal welfare and livestock production in the Araucania region, Chile’, Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 80-93. doi:10.4067/S0718- 58392008000100008

Schröder, MJA & McEachern MG 2004, ‘Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food purchase decisions: A focus on animal welfare’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 168-177. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2003.00357.x

Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare 2000, The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers), European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, viewed 4 June 2019 https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/sci-com_scah_out39_en.pdf

Shields, S & Greger, M 2013, ‘Animal welfare and food safety aspects of confining broiler chickens to cages’, Animals, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 386-400. doi:10.3390/ani3020386

Silver, J 2011, ‘Understanding freedom of religion in a religious industry: Kosher slaughter (shechita) and animal welfare’, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 671-704.

Sinclair, M, Morton, J & Phillips, C 2018, ‘Turning intentions into animal welfare improvements in the Asian livestock sector’, Journal for Animal Welfare Science (online version) doi:10.1080/10888705.2018.1534590 https://www.animalsandsociety.org/jaaws/turning-intentions-into-animal-welfare- improvement-in-the-asian-livestock-sector/

167

Sinclair, M, Zito, S, Idrus, Z, Yan, W, van Nhiem, D, Lampang, P & Phillips, C 2017, ‘Attitudes of stakeholders to animal welfare during slaughter and transport in SE and E Asia’, Animal Welfare, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 417-425. doi:10.7120/09627286.26.4.417

Sinclair, M, Zito, S & Phillips, C 2017, ‘The impact of stakeholders’ roles within the livestock industry on their attitudes to livestock welfare in Southeast and East Asia’, Animals, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 6-18. doi:10.3390/ani7020006

Singer, P & Mason, J 2006, ‘Are we what we eat?’ Soundings, vol. 34, no. 34, pp. 67- 71. doi:10.3898/136266206820466020

Sismanoglou, A & Tzimitra-Kalogianni, I 2011, ‘Consumer perception of poultry meat in Greece’, World’s Poultry Science Journal, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 269-276, doi:10.1017/S0043933911000298

Summerfield E 2018, ‘Department to investigate claims of animal cruelty on live export voyage’, Radio 3AW, 29 April 2018, viewed 24 March 2019 https://www.3aw.com.au/podcast/department-to-investigate-claims-of-animal-cruelty- on-live-export-voyage/

Sumner, DA, Matthews, WA, Mench, JA & Rosen-Molina, JT 2010, ‘The economics of regulations and hen housing in California’, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 429-438. doi:10.1017/S1074070800003618

Sun, T, Liu, Z, Qin, L & Long, R 2012, ‘Meat fatty acid and cholesterol level of free- range broilers fed on grasshoppers on alpine rangeland in the Tibetan Plateau’, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 92, no. 11, pp. 2239-2243. doi:10.1002/jsfa.5609

Sussman, R & Gifford R 2018, ‘Causality in the Theory of Planned Behavior’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol.45, no. 6, pp. 920-933. doi:10.1177/0146167218801363

168 Suwanabol, I (n.d.). School milk programme in Thailand, viewed 18 October 2015, http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/COMM_MARKETS_MONITORING/Dairy/ Documents/School_Milk_Programme_in_Thailand.pdf

Talbot, A, Dorrian, J & Chapman, J 2015, ‘Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to examine enrolled nursing students’ intention to care for patients with alcohol dependence: A survey study’, Nurse Education Today, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1054-1061. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2015.05.017

Te Velde, H, Aarts, N & Van Woerkum, C 2002, ‘Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers' and consumers' perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 203-219. doi: 10.1023/A:1015012403331

Thongnoi, J (2015). Milking the system, viewed 13 November 2017, https://www.bangkokpost.com/archive/milking-the-system/733380

Tiplady, C, Walsh, D & Phillips, C 2012, ‘Cruelty to Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs-how the public responded to media coverage’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 869-885. doi:10.1007/s10806-012-9412-0

Toma, L, McVittie, A, Hubbard, C & Stott, AW 2011, ‘A structural equation model of the factors Influencing British consumers' behaviour toward animal welfare, Journal of Food Products Marketing, vol. 17, no. 2-3, pp.261-278. doi:10.1080/10454446.2011.548748

Toma, L, Stott, AW, Revoredo-Giha, C & Kupiec-Teahan, B 2012, ‘Consumers and animal welfare. A comparison between European Union countries’, Appetite, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 597-607. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.015

Tonsor, G, Olynk, N & Wolf, C 2009, ‘Media coverage of animal handling and welfare: Influence on meat demand’, IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, 2009

169 Tonsor, G & Wolf, C 2011, ‘On mandatory labelling of animal welfare attributes’, Food Policy, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 430-437. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.02.001

Trading Economics n.d. The World Bank collection of development indicators, viewed on 14 February 2019, https://tradingeconomics.com/vietnam/employment-in- agriculture-percent-of-total-employment-wb-data.html

Trauger, A & Murphy, AJ 2013, ‘On the moral equivalence of global commodities: Placing the production and consumption of organic bananas’, International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 197-217.

Tsakiridou, E, Tsakiridou, H, Mattas, K & Arvaniti, E 2010, ‘Effects of animal welfare standards on consumers’ food choices’, Acta Agricluturae Scandinavica, Section C - Food Economics, vol. 7, no. 2-4, pp. 234-244. doi:10/1080/16507541.2010.531949

Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E & Tuyttens, AM 2008, ‘Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?’ Livestock Science, vol. 116, no. 1-3, pp. 126-136. doi:10.1016/j/livsci.2007.09.017

Van Loo, E, Caputo, V, Nayga, M, Rodolfo, J, Meullenet JF, Crandall, PG & Ricke, SC 2010, ‘Effect of organic poultry purchase frequency on consumer attitudes towards organic poultry meat’, Journal of Food Science, vol. 75, no. 7, pp. 384-397. doi:10.1111/j,1750-3841.2010.01775.x

Veissier, I & Miele, M 2014, ‘Animal welfare: Towards transdisciplinarity – the European experience’, Animal Production Science, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 1119- 1129. doi:10.1071/AN14330

Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bock, B & Roe, E 2008, ‘European approaches to ensure good animal welfare’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 279-297. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008

170 Velarde, A & Dalmau, A 2012, ‘Animal welfare assessment at slaughter in Europe: Moving from inputs to outputs’, Meat Science, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 244-251. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.009

Verrinder, J & Phillips, CJC 2015, ‘Author’s Response’, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 174-175. doi: 10.3138/jvme.0515-079

Von Alvensleben, R & Kohler, F 1999, The nature of consumer concerns about animal welfare – the German focus groups report, The University of Kiel, Germany, EU Fair CT98-3678, viewed 9 June 2019, http://www.uni- kiel.de/agrarmarketing/EU/koefocaw.PDF

Wambui, J, Lamuka, P, Karuri, E & Matofari, J 2018, ‘Animal welfare knowledge, attitudes, and practices of stockpersons in Kenya’, Anthrozoos, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 397- 410. Accessed on 14 February 2019, doi:10.1080/08927936.2018.1482111

Wandel, M & Bugge, A 1997, ‘Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food quality’, Food Quality and Preference, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 19-26. doi:10.1016/S0950- 3293(96)00004-3

Wang, C, Liu, W, Li, B & Xin, H 2015, ‘Overview of 2015 International Symposium on animal environment and welfare held in Chongqing, China’, International Journal of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 179-180.

Wei, S (2015). China animal welfare legislation: Current situation and trends ----- From analysis of three cases in recent years, The Animal Law Conference October 16-18, 2015, Lewis & Clark Law School Portland U.S.A., viewed on 9 June 2018. http://animallawconference.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/09/China-Animal- Welfare-Legislation.pdf

Wilkinson, B 2015, Millions more animals are slaughtered for halal food: Numbers rise 60 per cent amid calls for them to be stunned before death’ The Daily Mail 30 January 2015, viewed on 14 February 2019, https://bak.megam.info/news/article-

171 2932463/Millions-animals-slaughtered-halal-food-Numbers-rise-60-cent-amid-calls- stunned-death.html

Williams, B, Solomon, S, Waddington, D, Thorp, B & Farquharson, C 2000, ‘Skeletal development in the meat-type chicken’, British Poultry Science, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 141- 149. doi:10.1080/713654918

Wisch, RF 2006, Table of State Humane Slaughter Laws, viewed 14 February 2019. https://www.animallaw.info/article/table-state-humane-slaughter-laws

World Animal Protection Index 2016, Malaysia, viewed 4 June 2016, https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/sites/default/files/api_malaysia_report.pdf

World Bank 2016. World Bank Annual Report 2016, viewed on 16 November 2017. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=world+bank+annual+report&oq=World+Bank+ Annual&aqs=chrome.2.0j69i57j0l4.23334j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

World Bank 2017. World Bank Annual Report 2017, viewed on 16 November 2017. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=world+bank+annual+report&oq=World+Bank+ Annual&aqs=chrome.2.0j69i57j0l4.23334j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Wunderlich, S, Gatto, K & Smoller, M 2018, ‘Consumer knowledge about food production systems and their purchasing behavior’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 2871-2881. doi:10.1007/s10668-017-0021-y

Xiang, Z, Chang, G & Lin, S 2018, ‘Current situation and future prospects for beef production in China - A review’, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 984-991. Accessed on 11 November 2018. doi:10.5713/ajas.18.0212

Yen ST & Huang CL 2002, ‘Cross-sectional estimation of U.S. demand for beef products: A censored system approach’, Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 320-334.

172 Yu, D 2011, ‘Consumer and sensory perceptions of black bone discoloration in broiler chickens’, Master of Science thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Ziol-Guest, KM, Deleire, T & Kalil, A 2006, ‘The allocation of food expenditure in married and single-parent families’, Journal of Consumer Affairs, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 347-371. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2006.00061.x

Zoethout, CM 2013, ‘Ritual slaughter and the freedom of religion: Some reflections on a stunning matter’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol.35, no.3, pp. 651-672. doi:10.1353/hrq.2013.0040

173 Appendices

Appendix Table 1. Stepwise regression of 21 attitude, consumption and demographic predictors on √ Kscore values for 378 respondents

Steps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Constant 3.3 6.3 5.4 6.6 5.5 5.9 7.4 5.2 6.1 4.9 6.0 5.5 6.5 5 8 5 4 9 2 8 0 0 5 0 4 2 Self-rated 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 understa 1 4 5 0 2 0 3 0 9 7 4 3 7 nding of chicken productio n systems T-Value 8.4 9.1 8.9 8.8 8.4 8.6 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.1 0 8 6 0 2 1 4 5 6 8 7 5 8 P-Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Highest ------level of 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 049 0.4 0.4 0.4 education 5 5 6 0 5 6 8 9 9 5 6 T-Value ------4.4 5.2 5.4 5.7 4.6 3.9 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.3 3 0 0 4 8 9 3 7 7 8 1 0 P-Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 00 00 01 01 Killing 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 chickens 4 5 8 7 8 8 2 1 3 2 1 that are consciou s for religious reasons in Australia n abattoirs T-Value 5.0 6.4 6.6 6.0 6.2 5.3 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.8 5.7 4 3 9 6 2 8 9 9 2 0 7 P-Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1% of -.70 ------birds do 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 not get 0 0 7 6 1 1 0 1 1 adequate ly stunned in

174 abattoir practices T-Value ------3.9 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.7 5.1 5.2 4.4 1 6 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 P-Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Age 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 4 7 0 2 0 2 0 8 1 T-Value 3.4 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.0 6.2 6 1 7 4 3 3 3 8 6 P-Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Marital ------status 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 3 3 7 9 4 7 8 T-Value ------5.0 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.7 6.0 6.2 6.3 0 2 2 9 7 4 2 2 P-Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Self-rated ------knowledg 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 e of 4 2 1 9 4 2 0 chicken welfare is enough to form opinion about buying chicken products T-Value ------3.1 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.9 7 2 9 2 1 9 6 P-Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 02 00 00 00 01 02 03 Number 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 of times 4 0 3 5 3 2 per week you eat chicken T-Value 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 8 0 8 8 0 3 P-Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 04 07 04 03 04 05

Type of - -.56 - -.55 - chicken 0.4 0.5 0.5 meat 5 2 9

175 consume rs buy T-Value - - - - - 2.6 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.4 6 7 5 3 5 P-Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 08 01 02 01 01

Would 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 you 4 1 0 9 purchase a product with accredite d labelling T-Value 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.6 3 4 2 4 P-Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 02 03 03 09

Chicken - - - welfare at 0.2 0.2 0.2 the 2 2 2 abattoir T-Value - - - 2.2 2.1 2.1 2 3 4 P-Value 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 34 33 Place of 0.4 0.4 residence 3 8 T-Value 1.8 1.9 1 8 P-Value 0.0 0.0 71 48 Australia - n meat 0.3 chickens 2 not protected by governm ent welfare standard s T-Value - 1.9 2 P-Value 0.0 56

176 S 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 6 8 8 2 7 8 4 1 9 6 4 3 2 R-Sq 15. 19. 25. 28. 30. 34. 36. 37. 38. 40. 41. 41. 42. 81 99 08 03 27 67 40 80 97 56 34 87 45

177 Appendix Table 2

Collective descriptive statistics for each husbandry knowledge question in the stakeholders workshops. Correct answers are indicated in bold. Number of respondents=1014, X1=mean husbandry knowledge scores before training in %, X2=mean husbandry knowledge scores after training in %, D=mean difference of husbandry knowledge scores after training, in %).

Question X1% X2% D%

Q1 When taking a laying hen out of a multiple bird cage: 27.9 65.2 37.3 • hold bird firmly by the neck and tail and remove from cage slowly with bird facing towards the door ………. • grasp bird by one leg and the comb and remove from cage slowly with bird facing backwards ………. • grasp bird by shanks of both legs with one hand and support breast with other hand. Flip onto back before withdrawing from cage with head towards the door ………. • grasp shanks of both legs with one hand and support breast with other hand. Withdraw slowly from cage with bird facing backwards ………. • grasp right wing and left leg and remove slowly from cage with bird facing backwards ……….

Q2 Is it normal practice in your country for livestock to be rendered unconscious (stunned) before being 26.5 35.0 8.5 killed? • yes ………. • no/don’t know ……….

Q3 The organisation that sets international standards for livestock transport and slaughter is: 32.4 77.7 45.3 • Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) ………. • World Animal Protection ………. • World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) ………. • World Society for Protection of Animals (WSPA) ………. • Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) ……….

Q4 Pigs are prone to heat stress during transport; they naturally avoid heat stress by: 20.9 44.9 24.0

178 • panting ………. • dust bathing ………. • wallowing ………. • huddling ………. • burrowing ……….

Q5 Which of the following gases can cause problems in transport, especially in ships that are 17.0 61.3 44.3 inadequately ventilated? • ammonia ………. • carbon dioxide ………. • carbon monoxide ………. • hydrogen sulphide ………. • all of the above ……….

Q6 Which of the following is incorrect in relation to handling races for cattle? 13.9 44.4 30.5 • curved races are more likely to make cattle baulk compared with straight ones ………. • narrow shafts of light make cattle stop moving ………. • they should be wide enough to allow the animal to move freely but not turn around ………. • a solid side facilitates movement ………. • the floor should be non-slip ……….

Q7 What is the maximum angle of a loading ramp into a vehicle or ship? 15.2 59.2 44.0 • 10o ………. • 20o ………. • 25o ………. • 30o ………. • 35o ……….

Q8 When selecting cattle for slaughter using teeth eruption for ageing cattle, which of the following 7.6 49.1 41.5 statements is correct? • six permanent incisors erupt at 30-42 months • six permanent incisors erupt at 12-24 months • six permanent incisors erupt at 24-36 months • six permanent incisors erupt at 40 months

179 • none of the above

Q9 By using a body condition score to select animals for slaughter we are describing which of the 23.9 54.0 30.1 following: • the immediate health status of livestock • the amount of fat tissue in livestock • the amount of fat and muscle tissue in livestock • the level of contents of the digestive tract in livestock • the amount of muscle tissue

Q10 To move pigs effectively, the best method to use is: 34.7 88.5 53.8 • a collar around the neck with a leash ………. • a halter around the head ………. • a pig board to block the pigs and a paddle to guide them in the desired direction ………. • a whip ………. • a cattle prodder ……….

Q11 When selecting sheep for slaughter by looking at their teeth, what is the approximate age of a sheep 29.0 54.0 25.0 with two permanent incisor teeth? • 6 months ………. • 12 months to 18 months ………. • 2 years ………. • 3 years ………. • 4 years ……….

Q12 Which one of the following is not a result of spending time off food and water during transport? 36.4 74.1 37.7 • hunger ………. • reduction in rumen microbial activity ………. • potential increase in enteropathogenic bacteria ………. • mobilising energy from fat stores ………. • weight gain of 10-15% ……….

Q13 Which one of the following is not a means of determining how may animals to put on a truck? 14.6 49.6 35.0 • weight of the animal ……….

180 • fleece length in sheep ………. • the animals’ pregnancy status ………. • length of the journey ………. • whether the animal have horns or not ……….

Q14 For cattle and sheep, heat stress occurs above what temperature? 14.7 52.3 37.6 • 15-19oC ………. • 20-25oC ………. • 26-30oC ………. • 31-35oC ………. • 36oC ……….

Q15 Which of the following is not a result of stress in animals before slaughter? 19.3 50.0 30.7 • bruising …………………………………………………………. • bone breakage …………………………………………………… • loss of carcass weight ……………………………………………….. • pale soft exudative (PSE) meat …………………………………………. • dark firm dry (DFD) meat …………………………………………………..

Q16 Cattle droving: when taking cattle to market during good weather conditions, what it the maximum 10.9 46.4 35.5 distance that well fed, fit cattle can be driven in one day? • 5 km ………………………………………………………. • 10 km …………………………………………………….. • 15 km ……………………………………………………….. • 30 km ………………………………………………………… • 50 km …………………………………………………………….

Q17 Which of the following is not a method used for stunning animals prior to slaughter? 39.5 65.6 26.1 • hitting against a solid wall for piglets ……………………………………….… • captive bolt for cattle ……………………………………………………………….. • electrical tongs for sheep and pigs ……………………………………………….. • electrified water bath for chickens ………………………………………………... • gas stunning by carbon dioxide for chickens and pigs ……………………….…

181 Q18 Approximately what output in chickens per hour can a typical modern chicken slaughter and 30.4 52.2 21.8 processing facility produce? • 100 birds ……………………………………… • 500 birds ……………………………………... • 4000 birds …………………………………… • 8000 birds…………………………………….. • 15000 birds……………………………………

Total mean average % 23.52 56.39 32.87

182 Appendix Table 3 Responses to the knowledge questions (with the correct answer in Bold italics) – number and percentage of respondents

Questions and response options No. respondents % of respondents What type of housing is most commonly used to rear meat chickens in Australia? Multi-tier battery cages in 207 49.3 barns No housing, free range on 30 7.1 pasture is normal Single tier battery cages on 81 19.3 the floor of barns Loose in barns 102 24.3 How much space is it usual to give each bird in barns? About 1 m2 168 38.9 About the size of a piece of 224 51.9 A4 paper (50 x 50 cm) About 5 m2 25 5.8 About 2 m2 15 3.5 Housing for egg production chickens is the same as for meat production chickens True 84 16.7 False 179 35.5 Don’t know 241 47.8 The sex of a chicken is usually determined from the feather on their wings True 61 12.4 False 133 27.00 Don’t know 299 60.6 Chickens are usually fed food of vegetable origin True 197 39.2 False 108 21.5 Don’t know 197 39.2 The usual feed for meat chickens in barns is: Hay 24 5.4 Pelleted cereal feed 266 59.9 Cut grass 35 7.9 Household waste food 15 3.4 All of these 104 23.4 What is the normal distance that chickens travel from their place of rearing to the abattoir? Up to 5 km 85 20.8 5 to 100 km 187 45.7 100 to 200 km 92 22.5 200 to 500 km 29 7.1 500 km or more 16 3.9 Is it normal practice for meat chickens to be rendered unconscious (stunned) before slaughter? Yes 116 23.9 No 279 57.4 Don’t know 91 18.7

183

Appendix Table 4 Number of participants in the initial ‘Trainer the Trainer’ and livestock stakeholders’ workshops for the second research study

Malaysia China Vietnam Thailand Total participants

Trainers 30 46 20 22 118

Stakeholders 94 338 196 268 896

Total 124 384 216 290 1014

Appendix Table 5 Number of participants in the livestock stakeholders’ workshops in each country.

Country Locations of the Workshops

Malaysia Zon Selatan, Tengah, Utara, Sabah, Sarawak, Pantai Timiur and Kuala

Lumpur

China Guandong, Hain, Hubei, Hun, Shandong, Zhejiang and Jiangxi

Vietnam Hanoi, Halphong, Vinh, Dang, Vungtau, Binhduong and Cantho

Thailand Khon Ratchasima, Udon Thani, Champon, Khon Kaen, Sakon Khon,

Petchaburi and Bangkok

Appendix Table 6 Demographic characteristics of respondents in the second research study, (n = 1014) in Malaysia, China, Vietnam and Thailand.

Respondents, n (% of total responses within country)

Malaysia China Vietnam Thailand

Total 124 (12) 384 (38) 216 (21) 290 (29)

Gender

184 Male 90 (73) 294 (77) 157 (73) 142 (49)

Female 30 (24) 87 (23) 53 (25) 140 (48)

No answer 4 (3) 3 (1) 6 (2) 8 (3)

Residential zone

Rural 60 (48) 121 (32) 87 (40) 148 (51)

Urban/ metropolitan 59 (48) 258 (67) 123 (57) 135 (47)

No answer 5 (4) 6 (1) 6 (3) 7 (2)

Age

Under 25 7 (6) 50 (13) 13 (6) 81 (28)

26-35 47 (38) 157 (41) 99 (46) 52 (18)

36-45 26 (21) 117 (30) 64 (30) 72 (25)

46-55 29 (23) 50 (13) 29 (13) 41 (14)

56-65 11 (9) 2 (0.5) 3 (1) 29 (10)

Over 65 1 (1) 5 (1.3) 1 (1) 7 (2)

No answer 3 (2) 3 (0.8) 7 (3) 8 (3)

Religion

Buddhist 15 (12) 47 (12) 69 (32) 280 (97)

Atheist/don’t follow 0 (0) 259 (67) 134 (62) 0 (0) religion 74 (60) 1 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1)

Muslim 23 (18) 10 (3) 3 (1) 2 (1)

Christian 12 (10) 71 (18) 10 (5) 6 (2)

Other

Religiosity

Not religious at all 2 (2) 193 (51) 106 (49) 31 (11)

Not very religious 5 (4) 63 (16) 64 (30) 66 (23)

Moderately religious 70 (57) 109 (28) 21 (10) 176 (61)

Very religious 40 (32) 16 (4) 5 (2) 12 (4)

185 No answer 7 (5) 3 (1) 20 (9) 5 (1)

Job role

Work with animals 33 (27) 150 (39) 45(21) 76 (26)

Team Leader 24 (27) 61 (16) 11 (5) 30 (10)

Business owner 2 (1) 11 (3) 3 (1) 20 (7)

Business manager 11 (9) 41 (11) 5 (2) 9 (3)

Farmer 7 (6) 6 (2) 14 (7) 130 (45)

Practising veterinarian 11 (9) 94 (25) 28 (13) 13 (5)

Veterinary advisor 19 (15) 17 (4) 101 (47) 7 (2)

No answer 7 (6) 4 (1) 9 (4) 5 (2)

Level of industry understanding

Expert 2 (2) 56 (15) 1 (1) 2 (0.7)

Good knowledge 24 (20) 121 (32) 56 (26) 51 (18)

Some knowledge 55 (44) 151 (39) 106 (49) 136 (47)

Little knowledge 36 (29) 30 (8) 32 (15) 80 (28)

No knowledge 3 (2) 21 (5) 6 (2) 14 (5)

No answer 4 (3) 5 (1) 15 (7) 7 (2)

Knowledge acquisition

Formal qualifications 43 (35) 206 (54) 104 (48) 111 (38)

Farm Employment 35 (28) 63 (16) 1 (1) 43 (15)

Personal interest 13 (10) 37 (10) 7 (3) 35 (12)

Friends 5 (4) 9 (2) 2 (1) 54 (19)

All of the above 22 (18) 60 (16) 83 (38) 35 (12)

No answer 6 (5) 9 (2) 19 (9) 12 (4)

Type of livestock involvement

Beef/buffalo production 27 (22) 22 (6) 15 (7) 66 (7)

Dairy industry 8 (6) 12 (3) 2 (1) 30 (10)

186 Abattoirs/meatworks 26 (21) 151 (39) 87 (40) 27 (9)

Sheep/goat meat 13 (11) 10 (3) 0 (0) 29 (10) production

Wool/hair production 0 (0) 4 (1) 0 (0) 2 (1)

Poultry industry 25 (20) 59 (15) 15 (7) 62 (22)

Meat processing 2 (2) 14 (4) 6 (3) 10 (3)

Pig production 9 (7) 108 (28) 24 (11) 52 (18)

No answer 14 (11) 4 (1) 67 (31) 12 (4)

Years of industry involvement

Up to 1 year 9 (7) 62 (16) 6 (3) 74 (26)

2-3 years 20 (16) 59 (15) 28 (13) 51 (18)

3-5 years 20 (16) 76 (20) 29 (13) 44 (15)

5-9 years 28 (23) 71 (19) 57 (26) 28 (10)

10-15 years 11 (9) 59 (15) 41 (19) 40 (14)

Over 15 years 27 (22) 53 (14) 39 (18) 30 (10)

No answer 9 (7) 4 (1) 16 (8) 23 (8)

187 Appendix Table 7 Significant (P < 0.05) effects of attitudes to the welfare of animals during transport and slaughter on Knowledge Scores (SED = 0.221)

Attitude question Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree

disagree nor disagree

I intend to make improvements to welfare of animals 4.62ab 2.89ab 2.54b 3.17a

in my care

The laws on animal slaughter and transport influence 4.02a 2.99ab 2.63b 3.33a

my assessment of their AW at this time

My knowledge about animal slaughter and transport 3.46ab 2.56b 2.84b 3.14b

limits my ability to improve AW during transport

Vehicle design makes improvement to AW during 2.34c 3.34bc 4.07a 3.74ab

transport hard

Changes prescribed by my company encourage me to 5.52a 3.20b 2.27c 2.56bc

change practices

Changes prescribed by my supervisor encourage me 2.43b 3.56ab 3.90a 3.95a

to change practices

AW = Animal Welfare

Appendix Table 8 Significant (P < 0.05) effects of attitudes to the welfare of animals during transport and slaughter on improvement in Knowledge scores after training

(SED = 0.300).

Attitude question Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree

disagree nor disagree

Welfare of transported animals is satisfactory 5.90ab 5.07b 6.04a 5.30b

Importance to my peers of factors influencing welfare 5.52abc 4.88bc 6.53a 5.78b

of animals

188 Company approval towards improving the welfare of 5.94ab 5.74a 4.50b 5.28a animals

Vehicles design influences ability for improvement 7.03a 5.75a 4.34b 4.65b

Encouraged to change if prescribed by government 3.95b 5.62b 6.74a 5.66b

Encouraged to change if prescribed by law 7.31a 4.59bc 4.90c 4.87c

Monetary gain influences my personal assessment of 6.61a 5.27bc 4.79c 5.48ab welfare

Importance of welfare to peers influences ability to 1.04c 7.39a 6.49ab 6.69ab make improvement during slaughter

My personal beliefs influence my ability to make 5.41ab 6.07a 5.87a 5.86a improvement during transport

189 Appendix Table 9:

190 Appendix Table 10:

191