Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:19:26.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attitudes of students from south-east and east Asian countries to slaughter and transport of livestock

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

RZ Ling ,
I Zulkifli ,
PN Lampang ,
DV Nhiem ,
Y Wang  and
CJC Phillips
RZ Ling
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton 4343, Queensland, Australia
I Zulkifli
Affiliation:
Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
PN Lampang
Affiliation:
Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Avenue, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
DV Nhiem
Affiliation:
Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Gialam, Hanoi, Vietnam
Y Wang
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science, National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China
CJC Phillips*
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton 4343, Queensland, Australia
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints/copy of the questionnaire: c.phillips@uq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Attitudes to animals have been extensively studied for people in developed countries, but not for those in developing countries. The attitudes of prospective stakeholders in the livestock sectors in south-east and east Asia toward transport and slaughter were examined by surveying university students studying veterinary medicine and animal science in Malaysia, Thailand, China and Vietnam, with a total of 739 students taking part. Students had greater acceptability of transport than slaughter issues for livestock, and female students found most transport and slaughter issues of greater concern than male students. Veterinary students were more accepting of several issues than animal science students, in particular killing animals that were injured or ill. Religion had a major effect on attitudes. Muslim students found using animals that died naturally for products least acceptable. Compared to them, Hindu students were less accepting of killing injured or ill animals and Buddhist students less accepting of euthanasing healthy pets. Students with more experience of pets were less accepting of both transport and slaughter issues. It is concluded that concern was exhibited by future stakeholders in the SE and E Asian livestock industries for slaughter and, to a lesser extent, transport issues, although attitudes were influenced by their religion, gender and experience of pet-keeping.

Keywords

animal welfareAsiaattitudeslivestockslaughtertransport
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , August 2016 , pp. 377 - 387
Copyright
© 2016 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amiot, CE and Bastian, B 2015 Toward a psychology of human-animal relations. Psychological Bulletin 141: 6–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boissy, A, Terlouw, C and Le Neindre, P 1998 Presence of cues from stressed conspecifics increases reactivity to aversive events in cattle: evidence for the existence of alarm substances in urine. Physiology and Behaviour 63: 489–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00466-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228Google Scholar
Braavig, J 2009 The Buddhist hell: an early instance of the idea. Numen – International Review for the History of Religions 56: 254–281Google Scholar
Broom, DM 2005 Animal welfare education: development and prospects. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 32: 438–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.32.4.438CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, S 2002 Can pets function as family members? Western Journal of Nursing Research 24: 621–638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019394502320555386CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crabtree, S 2010 Religiosity highest in world's poorest nations. Gallup report. http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspxGoogle Scholar
Davey, G 2006 Chinese university students’ attitudes toward the ethi-cal treatment and welfare of animals. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 9: 289–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532 7604jaws0904_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deiss, V, Temple, D, Ligout, S, Racine, C, Bouix, J, Terlouw, C and Boissy, A 2009 Can emotional reactivity predict stress responses at slaughter in sheep? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 193–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.03.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurobarometer 2007 Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission Food (ECF) 2015 Animal Welfare – EU Action Plan, Evaluation and the Second Strategy on Animal Welfare. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/actionplan_en.htmGoogle Scholar
Framarin, CG 2014 Karma, rebirth and the value of nature. Environmental Ethics 36: 215–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/envi-roethics201436220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M 1992 The cultural ecology of India's sacred cattle. Current Anthropology 33: 261–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/204026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazel, SJ, Signal, TD and Taylor, N 2011 Can teaching veteri-nary and animal-science students about animal welfare affect their attitude toward animals and human-related empathy? Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 38: 74–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.38.1.74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heleski, CR, Mertig, AG, Zanella, AJ and Adroaldo, J 2006 Stakeholder attitudes toward farm animal welfare. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals 19: 290–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, HA 2007 Gender differences in human–animal interactions: A review. Anthrozoös 20: 7–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livecorp 2015 Industry statistics. http://www.livecorp.com.au/indus-try-information/industry-statistics/Google Scholar
Martinsen, S and Jukes, N 2005 Towards a humane veterinary education. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 32: 454–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.32.4.454CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masri, AHBA 2007 Animal Welfare in Islam. The Islamic Foundation: Markfield, UKGoogle Scholar
Paul, E and Podberscek, A 2000 Veterinary education and stu-dents’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record 146:269–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.10.269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew 2002 Among Wealthy Nations. Pew Research Centre Report, December 19th 2002. http://www.pewglobal.org/2002/12/19/among-wealthy-nations/Google Scholar
Pew 2012 Religiously unaffiliated. Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. 18 December 2012. http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-unaffiliated/Google Scholar
Phillips, CJC 2014 Effects of field of study on university students’ attitudes towards animal issues. Animal Welfare 23: 459–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.4.459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC, Izmirli, S, Aldavood, SJ, Alonso, M, Choe, BI, Hanlon, A, Handziska, A, Illmann, G, Keeling, L, Kennedy, M, Lee, GH, Lund, V, Mejdell, C, Pelagic, VR and Rehn, T 2010 An international comparison of female and male students’ attitudes to the use of animals. Animals 1: 7–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani1010007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC, Izmirli, S, Aldavood, SJ, Alonso, M, Choe, BI, Hanlon, A, Handziska, A, Illmann, G, Keeling, L, Kennedy, M, Lee, GH, Lund, V, Mejdell, C, Pelagic, VR and Rehn, T 2012 Students’ attitudes to animal welfare and rights in Europe and Asia. Animal Welfare 21: 87–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812799129466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC, Wojciechowska, J, Meng, J and Cross, N 2009 Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in live-stock production in Australia. Animal 3: 1152–1166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109004479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pifer, L, Shimizu, K and Pifer, R 1994 Public attitudes toward animal research: some international comparisons. Society & Animals 2: 95–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853094X00126CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollard-Williams, S, Doyle, RE and Freire, R 2014 The influ-ence of workplace learning on attitudes toward animal welfare in veterinary students. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 41: 253–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0114-006R1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rest, JR, Narvaez, D, Bebeau, MJ and Thoma, SJ 1999 Postconventional moral thinking: a Neo-Kohlbergian approach. Educational Psychology Review 11: 291–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022053215271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Boissy, A, Terlouw, EMC and de Passille, AMB 1999 Opiod peptides and behavioral and physiological responses of dairy cows to social isolation in unfamiliar surroundings. Journal of Animal Science 77: 2918–2924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiplady, CM, Walsh, DAB and Phillips, CJC 2013 Public response to media coverage of animal cruelty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26: 869–885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9412-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verrinder, JM and Phillips, CJC 2014 Identifying veterinary stu-dents’ capacity for moral behavior concerning animal ethics issues. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 41(4): 358–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.1113-153RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Animal Protection 2014 Animal Protection Index. http://api.worldanimalprotection.org/Google Scholar
Zu, SX, Li, PJ and Su, PF 2005 Animal welfare consciousness of Chinese college students. China Information 19: 67–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0920203X05051020Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ling et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 362.1 KB