4-H Animal Welfare Assessment: Does it Work?

Introduction

There is growing interest in animal welfare assessment and growing societal concern about animal welfare. Animal welfare assessment competitions teach youth to present arguments in a persuasive manner (Heleski, Zanella, & Pajor, 2003). Analytical thinking and clear communication can prevent problems related to managing their own farms or even owning animals for pleasure, as communities become increasingly aware of animal husbandry practices. Animal welfare assessment competitions are ways for youth to begin thinking about animal welfare issues. The goal is to expand this concept from equine to other livestock species and companion animals.

Animal welfare assessment is a process by which welfare-type scenarios are examined and, in some cases, recommendations for improvements made. In collegiate competitions held thus far, welfare scenarios were presented via Microsoft Power Point¨ (Heleski, Zanella, & Pajor, 2003). Animal welfare scenarios include information about housing, nutrition, breeding practices, health, behavioral indicators, and husbandry. Collegiate competitors rank the scenarios and go before judges to present oral reasons (Heleski, Zanella, & Pajor, 2003).

In 2005, a 4-H competition took place at a Michigan 4-H Exploration Days' session. Concentration was on equine welfare, due to the large number of Michigan 4-H horse members (about 17,000 in 2003-2004) in attendance. Exploration Days is an annual state youth conference for Michigan youth to participate in various experiential learning activities. Eighteen youth and two adults participated in the animal welfare session. The aim of this program is to teach animal welfare evaluation to youth in an effective way.

 

Literature Review

The welfare of agricultural animals has become increasingly important, as consumer awareness and concern for welfare increases (Millman, Duncan, Stauffacher, & Stookey, 2004). Reliable monitoring systems for assessing welfare status and evaluating risks are necessary in order to accommodate growing societal concerns and market demands (Blokhuis, Jones, Geers, Miele, & Veissier, 2003). There have been studies on assessing animal welfare using behavioral and physiological indicators (Blokhuis et al., & Veissier, 2003). This has put pressure on producers to consider the conditions in which their animals live. Welfare assessment is a rapidly developing discipline.

Welfare assessment teams have increased awareness of available science to address issues and increased people's ability to make ethical decisions related to animal welfare ((Heleski, Zanella, & Pajor, 2003). The judging experience helps young people to be better prepared to enter the agricultural industry. Students are prepared to act as liaisons between university faculty producing scientific information and area farm managers who are implementing the information. The judging competition enables young people to become familiar with animal welfare science. Members of the ISAE (International Society for Applied Ethology) believe that the Society should develop materials to raise awareness of animal welfare science (Millman, Duncan, Stauffacher, & Stookey, 2004). Those who have participated in animal welfare assessment competitions are in good positions to assist in raising awareness of animal welfare.

Benefits can arise from utilizing competitive and cooperative behaviors with individuals and groups (Little, 2003). Canadian students competed in a Case competition where they analyzed an evaluation case concerning a community program and presented their findings to judges. The students described participation as a unique and invaluable learning experience (Nykiforuk et al., 2003), which further validates participation in animal welfare assessment competitions.

The Contest

The equine welfare assessment session spanned 3 days. The first day gave participants an overview of animal welfare. Surveys were distributed and assent forms collected. Participants viewed a presentation outlining basic concepts of animal welfare with particular emphasis on equine.

The 27-question survey gauged participants' views and understanding of equine welfare issues pre- and post-contest. Researchers wanted to measure the increase in participant knowledge due to involvement in the equine welfare assessment competition. The survey consisted of five background questions concerning specie experience and how often participants thought about equine welfare. There were 10 basic knowledge questions concerning equine respiration, heart rate, and feed consumption. Twelve questions concerning common equine welfare issues followed, along with questions assessing participants' prior knowledge of these issues and their feelings about the issues.

Day 2 began at the computer lab, where each student was provided with a computer containing scenarios previously loaded via CD-ROM. Students had two scenarios to judge. Participants and judges viewed each scenario for 30 minutes. Participants then ranked the scenarios according to welfare. Next, facilitators explained the team problem and offered presentation suggestions like analytical thinking and clear communication can prevent problems. Teams had 30 minutes to discuss the problem and prepare for their presentation.

The second half of the day consisted of oral reasons and team presentations. Two judges evaluated content and delivery of the reasons. Participants had 5 minutes allotted to present team problems to the judges.

Participants spent the final day at the MSU Horse Teaching and Research Center. All participants received certificates, and the six highest scoring contestants received awards. Participants were given a posttest to assess any change in knowledge or opinions, concerning equine welfare, since the start of the event. A barn tour completed the experience.

Results

Survey results showed most participants changed their views about equine welfare issues after participation in the contest. Table 1 shows selected responses to the pre- and post-contest surveys. Basic knowledge about certain issues increased. The pretest survey showed 11 of 13 participants did not know the correct concerning the definition of tail blocking, but the posttest survey showed eight of eleven participants correctly identified tail blocking. Twelve participants did not know the definition of blistering on the pretest but nine participants correctly identified the definition on the posttest.

Table 1.
Selected Responses to the Pre- and Post-Contest Surveys

Comment/Question	Pre-Contest	Post-Contest
Tail blocking is...
Correct	2	8
Incorrect	3	3
don't know	8	0
no answer	0	1
Blistering is...
Correct	1	9
Incorrect	3	2
don't know	9	1
no answer	0	0
It is important for horses to have social contact with other horses.
strongly agree	7	9
agree	4	2
neutral	2	1
disagree	0	0
strongly disagree	0	0
How comfortable are you with drugging horses for the show ring?
very comfortable	1	0
somewhat comfortable	1	2
neutral	0	0
somewhat uncomfortable	4	1
very uncomfortable	6	9
no answer	1	0
Forage should be the basis of a horse's diet and concentrate should be used to supplement if needed.
strongly agree	4	3
agree	5	2
neutral	2	3
disagree	2	4
strongly disagree	0	0

When asked how they felt about the statement, "It is important for horses to have social contact with other horses," seven participants strongly agreed, four agreed, and two were neutral on the pretest. On the posttest, nine strongly agreed, two agreed, and one was neutral. Prior to the contest, six participants were very uncomfortable with drugging horses for the show ring. After the contest, nine were very uncomfortable with the practice.

Some issues were unclear. When presented with the statement, "Forage should be the basis of a horse's diet and concentrate should be used to supplement if needed," prior to the contest, two participants were neutral, two participants disagreed, four strongly agreed, and five agreed. After the welfare contest, three participants were neutral, and four disagreed.

For some questions, participants did not know enough prior to the contest to form an opinion. Eight were not familiar enough with tail blocking to form an opinion prior to the contest, but after the contest, nine of 12 were very uncomfortable with the practice. Prior to the contest, eight participants felt they could not form an opinion about blistering, but after the contest, seven disagreed, and three strongly disagreed with the practice. There were 13 participants in the pretest and 12 participants in the posttest (not all returned assent forms).

Discussion

Participants had preconceived ideas/biases about certain aspects of the horse industry, particularly racing, based on comments made during the discussion. We felt compelled to explain why areas of the horse industry such as racing are not necessarily detrimental to equine welfare. Some youth lost interest in the presentation. In the future, perhaps a more interactive review in the form of a game would keep youth engaged throughout the presentation. A number of participants did not understand the nature of the session. In fact, many admitted signing up for all equine-related sessions.

The virtual assessment proved challenging based on contestant comments and facilitator perceptions. Many participants expressed a desire for hands-on activities. The team problem took longer than anticipated. Each team had 5 minutes to present, which proved to be an insufficient allotment of time. Many participants had stronger feelings about equine welfare than we anticipated. It may be helpful to have a live scenario, which would require more time and may present logistical challenges, but would be worthwhile.

On the third day, researchers conducted a barn tour and handed out ribbons and participation certificates. Contestants practiced finding a horse's pulse. For most, the tour was the highlight of the experience, which leads to the assumption that hands-on team problems/scenarios could be helpful for this age group.

Judges noticed the participants speaking of farm management and animal health rather than the opportunity for animals to engage in natural behaviors. Participants used the former criteria as the basis of their decision, as evidenced by the amount of time they spent on those criteria in their reasons. There seemed to be only minimal understanding of the behavioral aspects of welfare. Future sessions should have greater attention paid to behavior as a welfare indicator. Development of curriculum concerning behavioral indicators of welfare will benefit all involved. Participants showed some understanding of normal behavior, but lacked an understanding of the importance of behavior as an indicator of welfare.

Some questions indicated that once participants had knowledge of an issue, they were able to form an opinion. This implies that more effort is needed to educate youth about equine practices and what they mean to animal welfare.

Implications

This was a very small sampling of 4-H youth across the state of Michigan. Based on response surveys completed at the 2004 Michigan 4-H Teen Horse Leaders' Conference, interest in equine welfare evaluation is high. Getting 4-H parents and leaders excited about this program should help the youth show greater interest. Leaders can do much to let 4-H members know about the importance of such a program.

When the oral reasons part of the session began, many participants showed a higher degree of engagement than they had previously. As the reasons went on, students began to enjoy the process, as they became more focused on delivering their reasons and were less distracted. Many contestants were eager to work on the team problem. As we spread information about the animal welfare assessment concept, more 4-H members desired to participate. The inclusion of multiple species would engage participants, as they learn new concepts about other livestock. Once established, an animal welfare assessment for other species should be reasonably straightforward.

Acknowledgements

For funding of awards and mailings, we acknowledge the Michigan 4-H program. For contributing to the success of this contest, we thank the judges: Carissa Wickens, Kelly Hecker, and Megan Nickoloff (a.m.); Exploration Days volunteers; and Michigan State University for hosting this activity.

References

Blokhuis, H. J., Jones, R. B., Geers, R., Miele, M., & Veissier, I. (2003). Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare. 12(4), 445-455.

Heleski, C. R., Zanella, A. J., & Pajor, E. A. (2003). Animal welfare judging teams-a way to interface welfare science with traditional animal science curricula? Applied Anim. Beh. Sci. 81, 279-289.

Little, D. E. (2003). Competition or cooperation: do we get to choose? ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles J. 50(1), 24-31.

Millman, S. T., Duncan, I. J. H., Stauffacher, M., & Stookey, J. M. (2004). The impact of applied ethologists and the International Society for Applied Ethology in improving animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Beh. Sci. 86(3/4), 299-311.

Nykiforuk, C., Gavin, T., Yessis, J., Spencer, A., Lauzon, N., Pearson, N., & Cyarto, L. (2003). Students perspective of the CES Case Competition. Can. J. of Program Eval. 18(1), 101-106.

Rousing, T., Hindhede, J., Klaas, I. C., Bonde, M., & Srensen, J. T. (2004). Assessment of animal welfare in an AMS herd: expert evaluation of a decision support system. Automatic-milking: A better understanding-Conference Proceedings. Lelystad, Netherlands, March, 400-406.