Dilemmas experienced by government veterinarians when responding professionally to farm animal welfare incidents in Ireland

An analysis of substantiated complaints made about incidents of poor livestock welfare, in Victoria, Australia

Incidents of poor welfare on farm in Victoria, Australia, are generally identified during an investigation that follows receipt of a complaint. Using deidentified records of complaints received by the Victoria State Government between 2011 and 2020, this study aimed to describe the source, number and the relationship between rainfall/stock prices and substantiated welfare complaints (SWC). Only incidents involving non-dairy cattle, sheep and goats in extensive farming systems will be considered. The main source of complaints received by the Victorian Government is the general public. Almost half of all complaints were made for cattle (48%), 39% for sheep, 11% for mixed species, and 2% for goats. The number of SWC varied between months, each year and across the different regions of Victoria. The ratio of the actual mean rainfall of the last three seasons to the long-term mean of the last three seasons of rainfall (RL3SR) and livestock prices together were the best predictors of the total number of SWC (adjusted R square value for heavy lamb-RL3SR was highest (0.590), followed by merino lamb-RL3SR (0.588), goat-RL3SR (0.545) and steer-RL3SR (0.478) all were significant (p ≤ 0.05)). The rainfall by region and town were not good predictors of the number of SWC. There was a correlation between rainfall and the number of SWC, possibly due to changes in pasture availability. Favorable seasonal conditions however, were not protective of livestock welfare and it is likely a number of factors may be implicated.

Sustainability policies and practices at veterinary centres in the UK and Republic of Ireland

BACKGROUND

Veterinary professionals operate at the human-animal-environment interface and are concerned about sustainability issues. This study examined the extent to which sustainability is represented in policy and enacted in veterinary practice settings, as reported by practice representatives.

METHODS

An online survey was completed by 392 veterinary centre representatives in the UK and Republic of Ireland to identify existing policies and practices around the environmental impacts of veterinary services and animal husbandry, responsible medicine use, animal welfare and social wellbeing.

RESULTS

A minority of respondents were aware of an environmental policy at their practice (17%, 68/392). Many others were undertaking waste reduction initiatives, but wider environmental interventions were infrequently reported. The majority were aware of medicine stewardship and animal welfare policies or guidelines, but a minority reported social wellbeing policies (40%, 117/289) and the provision of advice to clients on the environmental impacts of animal husbandry (31%, 92/300).

LIMITATIONS

The bias arising from the small convenience sample of practice representatives and potential discrepancies between the claims of survey respondents and their practices' policies and activities are acknowledged.

CONCLUSION

Results depict a value-action gap between the concern of veterinary professionals towards sustainability and the policies and practices at their workplaces. Building on progress in the sector, wider adoption of comprehensive policies and practices, with guidance, could enhance veterinary contributions to the sustainability agenda, in particular to mitigate the environmental externalities of veterinary services and animal care and ensure safe, fair and inclusive workplaces.

Veterinarians Experience Animal Welfare Control Work as Stressful

The aim of the study was to evaluate the job satisfaction of official veterinarians working in the field of animal welfare control and identify both positive features and challenges of their work. An electronic questionnaire was designed to evaluate job satisfaction. The questionnaire was responded to by 73 of the 98 Finnish official veterinarians working in the field of animal welfare control. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relation between stress and different work-related factors. More than half of the respondents reported work-related stress or fatigue. Threatening situations, disturbed work–private life balance and a high amount of overtime work were found to be frequent underlying causes of stress. Fieldwork, especially when working alone, was perceived as the most challenging part of the work. Of the respondents, three out of four performed animal welfare inspections mainly alone. Although the respondents reported getting additional help to perform an inspection most of the times they needed it, a wish to work in a pair was highlighted. The results of the present study indicate that official veterinarians often experience work-related stress and fatigue. By testing interventions shown to be beneficial, such as providing adequate support within the work community, decreasing the workload and enabling inspections to be done in pairs, job satisfaction could be improved.

Pig producer perspectives on the use of meat inspection as an animal health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is growing interest in developing ante and post mortem meat inspection (MI) to incorporate measures of pig health and welfare for use as a diagnostic tool on pig farms. However, the success of the development of the MI process requires stakeholder engagement with the process. Knowledge gaps and issues of trust can undermine the effective exchange and utilisation of information across the supply chain. A social science research methodology was employed to establish stakeholder perspectives towards the development of MI to include measures of pig health and welfare. In this paper the findings of semi-structured telephone interviews with 18 pig producers from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are presented.

RESULTS

Producers recognised the benefit of the utilisation of MI data as a health and welfare diagnostic tool. This acknowledgment, however, was undermined for some by dissatisfaction with the current system of MI information feedback, by trust and fairness concerns, and by concerns regarding the extent to which data would be used in the producers' interests. Tolerance of certain animal welfare issues may also have a negative impact on how producers viewed the potential of MI data. The private veterinary practitioner was viewed as playing a vital role in assisting them with the interpretation of MI data for herd health planning.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of positive relationships based on trust, commitment and satisfaction across the supply chain may help build a positive environment for the effective utilisation of MI data in improving pig health and welfare. The utilisation of MI as a diagnostic tool would benefit from the development of a communication strategy aimed at building positive relationships between stakeholders in the pig industry.