Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Caretaker attitudes toward swine euthanasia

Caretaker attitudes toward swine euthanasia † †,2 ‡ || Magnus R. Campler, Monique D. Pairis-Garcia, Jean-Loup Rault, Grahame Coleman and Andreia G. Arruda Department of Animal Sciences, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, Ohio State University, OH 43210; Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, Institute of Animal || Husbandry and Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna A1210, Austria; University of Melbourne, Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, Victoria 3551, Australia; Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, OH 43210 ABSTRACT: Timely euthanasia is a fundamen- (confidence in performing euthanasia, training, tal part of safeguarding swine welfare by reduc- and perceived level of knowledge). Using cluster ing suffering when compromised pigs are unable analysis to analyze survey answers, three distinct to recover. The quality and appropriateness of groups of caretakers were identified: 1) confident timely euthanasia rely mainly on the knowledge and empathetic; 2) Confident, knowledgeable, and and experience of the individual caretaker but detached; and 3) unconfident and lacking knowl - may also be affected by caretaker attitudes toward edge. The survey results showed that empathy euthanasia. However, literature on caretaker atti- attribution was strongly correlated with empathy tudes toward swine euthanasia is lacking. This affect (r = 0.571, P < 0.01) and that empathy study investigated caretaker attitudes, perceived affect and empathy attribution were higher in knowledge, and confidence in performing on-farm female caretakers compared with male caretakers timely euthanasia. A total of 84 caretakers from (P < 0.05). A risk analysis that included previ- eight swine farms (ranging in size from 1,300 to ously identified clusters showed that females were 7,000 sows) participated in a survey designed more likely to be grouped among caretakers that to investigate attitudes toward swine and swine were confident and empathetic ( P = 0.04), and euthanasia. Caretaker’s ages ranged from 18 to caretakers with more than 2 yr of swine experi- 59 yr with an average work experience of 8.5 yr. ence were more likely to be grouped as confident The majority of participants worked in either and skilled (P = 0.01), while the unconfident and farrowing or breeding units. Survey questions empathetic were more likely to have had less than were designed to assess caretakers’ attitudes and 2 yr of experience (P = 0.04). This study provides attributes (empathy affect, empathy attribution, important information about variability in care- attitudes toward pigs, feeling bad about euthaniz- taker experience as well as their attitudes toward ing pigs, and assumptions about pigs’ emotional pigs and timely euthanasia. Increased knowledge capabilities), decision-making skills (confidence in about swine caretaker attitudes may be used to identifying compromised pigs or relying on cow- implement training and euthanasia protocols to orkers to make decisions), and euthanasia skillset increase both human and pig welfare on farm. Key words: attitudes, caretaker, swine, timely euthanasia, welfare The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the swine farm managers and caretakers in graciously allow- Corresponding author: pairis-garcia.1@osu.edu ing us access to their facilities and participating in the study. Received April 5, 2018. Funding was provided by the National Pork Checkoff. Accepted April 11, 2018. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 Caretaker attitudes toward swine euthanasia 255 © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non- Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com Transl. Anim. Sci. 2018.2:254–262 doi: 10.1093/tas/txy015 Survey INTRODUCTION Timely euthanasia is of great concern to the gen- A total of 84 caretakers (100% response rate) eral public and within the U.S.  swine industry. The from eight different farms with mixed produc- American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) tion stages/classes of pigs participated in the study. states that swine that are sick or injured and fail to This was part of a larger training study in which par- recover should be euthanized in a humane and reliable ticipants completed a multimedia euthanasia training manner (AVMA, 2013). Although national guidelines program (Mullins et  al., 2018). Prior to participating and training materials for timely euthanasia have been in the training program, participants signed a consent developed (e.g., On-Farm Euthanasia of Swine—Pork form authorizing the use of their anonymous answers Checkoff (NPB, 2008), Common Swine Industry and demographic information and completed a Audit (CSIA; NPB, 2017), On-Farm Swine Euthanasia 45-question survey validated in a previous study (Rault Training Program—The Ohio State University et  al., 2017) and divided into three different sections (Mullins et al., 2018)), a recent survey by McGee et al. (Supplementary Appendix 1). The first section con - (2016) reported that only half of caretakers had any sisted of 10 questions including demographic informa- euthanasia training at all. Unsurprisingly, the quality tion such as age, sex, number of years working with pigs, and appropriateness of performing euthanasia often and prior experience working with livestock other than depend upon personal experience and decision-making pigs. For the remaining section of the survey, responses skills of the individual caretaker (Turner and Doonan, were given on a 5-point scale, from 1) strongly disagree, 2010; Gemus-Benjamin et al., 2015). Moreover, care- 2)  disagree, 3)  neither agree or disagree, 4)  agree to takers’ attitude toward animals (Coleman et al., 1998; 5) strongly agree. The second section consisted of seven Coleman and Hemsworth, 2014) may influence their statements related to personal knowledge and skillsets willingness to perform euthanasia and impact the regarding identification, evaluation, and decision-mak - quality, consistency, and reliability on how euthanasia ing of compromised pigs and included statements such is performed (Ajzen, 1991; Hemsworth et  al., 1994). as “I have enough time during my shift to identify sick Matthis (2004) found that 87.0% of the survey par- and compromised pigs.” The third part of the survey ticipants understood the important welfare aspects of and main focus of this paper had 28 statements related performing swine euthanasia, but 46.4% of the same to attitudes, management, and general confidence when participants would be happy not to have to perform working with pigs and included statements such as “I euthanasia again. A more recent study conducted by feel confident that I know when a pig needs to be euth - Rault et al. (2017) reported that the euthanasia process anized.” The last set of questions within the third part itself could adversely affect caretakers and that lack of the survey assessed the caretaker empathy in state- of training or knowledge regarding euthanasia was ments such as “If I see a pig injure itself I know how moderately correlated with poor decision-making and it feels.” These statements were previously identified to euthanasia avoidance. be strongly linked to empathy toward pigs (Rault et al., With limited additional caretaker attitude studies 2017). To assure that statements were read properly, 10 conducted in the United States since Matthis (2004), statements were reworded to contain a negation, so the this study aims to assess how swine caretaker charac- response scale was reversed. The scale for these particu- teristics and attitudes toward timely euthanasia are lar questions was later reversed for analyses with the related to caretaker training and experience. higher score corresponding to a higher agreement. MATERIALS AND METHODS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS This study was reviewed and approved by The Spearman rank correlation analyses were con- Ohio State University Institutional Review Board ducted in SPSS 25.0 (IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics (IRB:2017E0106) for Human Subjects Research. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 256 Campler et al. for Windows, Version 25.0. IBM Corp., Armonk, <1,500 [n  =  3], medium: 1,501–3,000 [n  =  3], and NY); cluster-, univariate-, and multivariable analyses large: >3,000 [n  =  2]). Secondly, univariate mixed were conducted using STATA/IC 14.1 (StataCorp models were built and a conservative P value of <0.2 LP, College Station, TX). Data were initially checked was used for screening variables that moved into the for identification of recording errors and missing full final model. Finally, multivariable mixed mod - data. Questions that were left blank by the partic- els were built using a backward stepwise approach, ipants were considered missing and excluded from and final statistical significance was declared at analyses on corresponding parameters. P < 0.05. Lastly, BLUP were estimated and checked Basic descriptive analyses were conducted for normality (Dohoo et al., 2010). including correlation analysis, descriptive plots, and basic statistics (mean, SD, range), followed by mul- RESULTS tivariate analysis in the form of cluster analysis and risk factor analysis. After assessing data normal- ity (QQ-plots and Shapiro–Wilk test), the survey Descriptive Analysis data were determined as not normally distributed (P > 0.05), and therefore, the Spearman’s rank The average age of participants was 33 yr correlations coefficient was used. For the correl - (18–59 yr old), with 55% being younger than 30 yr ation analysis, the responses from seven questions of age and 45% being older than 30 yr of age; 86.4% related to empathy toward pigs were averaged into participants identified as male and 13.6% as female. one variable called “empathy attribution,” while the Only 2.4% of the participants grew up in a capital responses from five questions related to the evoked city (defined as a densely populated urban area in feelings in the caretaker were averaged into one var- the region), while 52.4% grew up in country towns (defined as a small town in a predominately rural iable called “empathy affect” for further analysis. Cluster analysis was used as an exploratory tool area), and 45.2% grew up on farms (defined as grow - for grouping study participants into groups that were ing up on a family farm with no adjacent urban or similar in regards to their responses in section 3 of suburban areas). About half (46.3%) of the partici- the survey. The complete-linkage cluster method was pants reported having had previous experience work- used with a continuous dissimilarity measure and ing with livestock species other than pigs and half based on L2 or Euclidean distance. The set of ques- (52.4%) did not. The average work experience with tions offered to cluster analysis included the 28 ques- pigs was 8.5 yr (median = 2.25; range = 2 wk–52 yr) tions from section 3 of the survey, which included with 50% having less than 2 yr of work experience and all attitude-related questions. Cluster analyses iden- 50% having more than 2 yr of work experience. The tified four clusters; however, one of the clusters was average farm size which survey participants worked composed of one participant; therefore, this cluster on was 3,100 pigs with a range between 1,300- and was not used for further risk factor analysis. 7,000-head barns. In regards to role on farm, a minor- Three separate multivariable mixed-effects logis- ity of the participants identified themselves as farm tic regression models were created using each one owners that worked with pigs often (8.5%), a manager of the identified clusters as the outcome in order who worked with pigs occasionally (3.7%) or as a care- to investigate the effect of the predictors’ farm size, taker that worked with pigs occasionally (3.7%), while pig experience, sex, production stage, and age, on the majority of participants identified themselves the odds of participants to be part of each clus- as caretakers that worked with pigs often (59.7%) ter separately. Due to the clustering of participants or managers that worked with pigs often (24.4%). within swine farms, farm was included as a random Seventy-five percent of the participants worked either effect for all models. Model-building steps included in farrowing (41.5%) or breeding units (32.9%), while first checking for linearity between continuous var - 14.6% worked with a combination of different pro- iables and the log odds of the outcome. Since this duction stages (farrow to finish; farrow to nursery). assumption was not met, variables were catego- A  minority of the participants worked in either rized as follows: age was divided into two catego- weaner/nursery (4.9%) or grower/finisher (4.9%), and ries (1: <30 yr of age [n = 48] and 2: >30 yr of age one participant did not answer the question (1.2%). [n  =  34]); pig experience was divided into two cat- The number of participants that cared for less than egories (1: <2 yr of experience [n  =  34] and 2: >2 100 pigs on a daily basis were few (8.5%), while 23.2% yr of experience [n  =  46]); and farm size (pigs per of participants cared for 100–500 pigs, 6.1% cared for farm) was divided up into three categories; (small: 500–1,000 pigs, 22.0% cared for 1,000–2,500 pigs, and Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 Caretaker attitudes toward swine euthanasia 257 37.8% cared for over 2,500 pigs, and two participants a weak negative correlation between previous live- did not answer (2.4%). Approximately one-third of stock experience and the number of pigs the care- the participants (33.3%) had previous experience with taker cared for was observed (r = −0.247, P < 0.05). euthanasia before starting to work with pigs, while 50% of the participants had their first euthanasia Cluster Analysis experience when they started working with pigs, and 16.7% of the participants had not euthanized any ani- Cluster 1 (confident and empathetic). Cluster mal to date. Among the caretakers that did not have 1 consisted of 24 participants (34.8% of total) who any euthanasia experience, three caretakers had 3, mainly worked in the farrowing units on small farms. 5, and 10 yr of experience working with pigs respec- In brief, participants were grouped into this cluster tively, while the remaining caretakers were new hires if they were considered as having high confidence in averaging 5 wk on the job. knowing what was wrong with pigs on an initial inspec- tion and how likely it was for a sick pig to improve and if they reported feeling confident enough to know if Correlation Analysis and when a pig needed to be euthanized based on its The Spearman rank correlation analysis between condition. Moreover, participants grouped within the survey questions and demographics revealed six this cluster felt knowledgeable enough to be able to distinct correlations (Table  1). Questions related diagnose a sick pig, make decisions regarding sick or to empathy affect were weakly correlated with sex compromised pigs and were likely to try to save all (r = 0.228, P < 0.05), with females tending to score pigs if possible. These participants were also the least higher on empathy affect questions compared with likely to disagree with coworkers regarding making males (F  = 2.86, P = 0.095). Empathy attribution a euthanasia decision. They also reported feeling 1,79 questions were strongly correlated with empathy comfortable performing euthanasia and tried not to affect (r  =  0.571, P  <  0.01) and weakly correlated think about pigs’ feelings at the time of euthanasia. with sex (r  =  0.235, P  <  0.05) with females tend- However, cluster 1 participants agreed with the state- ing to score higher on empathy attribution ques- ment that “euthanasia is the right thing to do to stop tions compared with males (F  = 3.02, P = 0.086). suffering but I feel bad about doing it.” Additionally, 1,79 Additionally, a strong positive correlation between these participants were likely to agree with statements swine experience and caretaker age was observed regarding the pigs’ ability to have similar feelings as (r  =  0.548, P  <  0.01). A  moderately strong posi- humans and in trying to understand how pigs feel by tive correlation between previous livestock experi- imagining how things look from pigs’ point of view. ence and prior euthanasia experience was observed Moreover, they were the most likely to agree to being (r = 0.397, P < 0.01) where caretakers who had pre- better than most people at imagining how a pig feels viously worked with other types of livestock were and to be more upset than most people when seeing more likely of having previous euthanasia experience an “unhappy” pig. Finally, cluster 1 participants were compared with caretakers who did not have other the most likely to feel good about seeing a “happy” livestock experience (F  = 8.06, P < 0.001). Finally, and ‘contented’ pig (Table 2). 1,78 Table 1. Nonparametric Pearson correlations between variables extracted from the survey Swine ex- Pig care (re- perience Previous First eu- sponsibility, Empathy (years on livestock thanasia #pigs cared Empathy affect Farm size Staff age Sex farm) experience experience for) attribution Empathy affect 1 −0.104 −0.032 0.228* 0.084 −0.068 −0.055 0.111 0.571** Farm size −0.104 1 −0.092 −0.076 −0.013 0.058 0.133 0.007 0.018 Staff age −0.032 −0.092 1 0.037 0.548** −0.154 −0.121 −0.033 −0.163 Sex 0.228* −0.076 0.037 1 0.134 −0.129 −0.046 −0.142 0.235* Swine experience (years) 0.084 −0.013 0.548** 0.134 1 −0.074 −0.199 0.127 −0.123 Previous livestock experience −0.068 0.058 −0.154 −0.129 −0.074 1 0.397** −0.247* 0.073 Prior euthanasia experience −0.055 0.133 −0.121 −0.046 −0.199 0.397** 1 −0.157 0.1 Pig care (responsibility, # pigs) 0.111 0.007 −0.033 −0.142 0.127 −0.247* −0.157 1 0.038 Empathy attribution 0.571** 0.018 −0.163 0.235* −0.123 0.073 0.1 0.038 1 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two tailed). Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 258 Campler et al. Table  2. Cluster agreement to survey statement (mean + SD) on a 5-point scale (1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree) enhanced by a light (disagree- ment) to dark (agreement) greyscale gradient Survey question Cluster1 Cluster 2 Cluster3 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD When I see a sick pig I usually know what is wrong with it 3.58 0.78 3.58 0.62 2.43 0.85 When I see a sick pig I usually know if it will get better 3.79 0.72 3.52 0.77 2.57 0.85 I feel confident that I know when a pig needs to be euthanized 4.42 0.50 4.39 0.56 3.21 1.05 I don´t have enough knowledge and/or experience to diagnose what is wrong with 2.29 0.91 1.94 0.89 3.57 1.09 sick pigs I don’t have enough knowledge and/or experience to know if a pig needs to be 2.08 0.88 1.58 0.56 3.07 0.92 euthanized I don´t have enough knowledge and/or experience to know what to do with sick or 1.83 0.76 1.55 0.57 3.14 0.95 compromised pigs It is difficult to decide when a diseased pig should be euthanized 2.13 0.85 1.97 0.66 3.14 0.77 I tend to wait longer than I should before euthanizing a pig 1.67 0.82 2.06 0.73 2.50 0.76 I often disagree when a co-worker says a pig needs to be euthanized 1.88 0.74 2.32 0.79 2.14 0.95 I often feel that there are good reasons for not euthanizing a pig 2.67 1.01 2.71 0.78 3.21 0.97 I am less likely to euthanize a sow that is close to farrowing than other sows 3.08 1.10 3.10 0.79 3.00 0.68 I try to save all pigs 4.42 0.65 3.65 1.25 3.86 1.17 If I had the choice, I would prefer someone else to euthanize pigs rather than myself 2.29 0.95 2.52 1.06 3.07 1.21 I am more likely to euthanize a pig now than 5 years ago 3.54 1.35 3.35 1.31 3.00 1.18 I feel comfortable doing euthanasia 4.08 1.06 4.48 0.72 2.71 1.20 I dislike euthanizing pigs 2.88 1.12 3.00 1.06 3.43 1.09 I try not to think about the pig´s feelings when I euthanize it 3.42 1.28 3.13 0.85 2.86 1.10 I know that euthanasia is the right thing to do to stop suffering but I feel bad about 4.13 0.90 3.10 1.33 3.57 1.02 doing it Pigs are generally able to feel sadness 3.79 0.88 3.32 0.65 3.57 0.65 Pigs have feelings like people have feelings 3.88 0.80 2.87 0.99 3.57 0.76 I think of pigs as generally able to feel happiness 4.17 0.64 3.45 0.62 3.29 0.73 Seeing a neglected animal doesn´t affect me as much as it would affect some people 2.13 1.23 2.45 1.18 2.50 0.94 When I see pigs having fun I feel really happy 4.38 0.58 3.74 0.73 3.71 0.73 If I see a pig injure itself I know how it feels 3.88 0.90 3.26 0.68 3.21 0.80 I try to understand pigs by imagining how things look from their point of view 4.13 0.74 3.23 0.88 2.86 1.10 Imagining how a pig feels is something I do often 3.92 0.78 2.77 0.80 2.71 0.73 When I see an unhappy pig it upsets me more than it would upset most people 3.75 0.94 2.65 0.75 2.79 0.80 I am better at telling if a pig s happy than most other people 3.33 0.76 2.90 0.79 2.64 0.74 Seeing a contented pig makes me feel really good 4.33 0.48 3.42 0.96 3.29 0.47 Empathy attribution questions (compounded) 3.96 0.97 3.14 0.86 3.03 0.83 Empathy affect questions (compounded) 3.81 0.80 3.19 0.74 3.32 0.77 Cluster 2 (confident, knowledgeable, and grouped into cluster 2 also disagreed to the state- detached). Cluster 2 consisted of 31 participants ment regarding the attempt to save all pigs and (45.0% of total) who mainly worked in breed- agreed to the statement regarding feeling bad ing or weaner/finisher units on medium-sized about performing euthanasia. Cluster 2 partic- farms. These participants agreed to a high extent ipants agreed on statements regarding the pigs’ with statements about having sufficient knowl - abilities to feel “sadness” and “happiness” but edge and experience regarding identifying what disagreed on the statement that pigs were able to is wrong with a sick or injured pig, how likely it have feelings similar to humans (Table 2). was for a pig to improve, and if a pig needed to be Cluster 3 (unconfident and lacking knowledge). euthanized. Cluster 2 participants were likely to Cluster 3 consisted of 14 participants (20.0% of agree with a coworker regarding euthanasia deci- total) that predominantly worked in one or more sions and felt knowledgeable and comfortable in production stages on medium- or large-sized farms. regards to when to euthanize a pig compared with Cluster 3 participants appeared to be moderately the less knowledgeable cluster 3.  Participants confident in identifying sick or injured pigs and Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 Caretaker attitudes toward swine euthanasia 259 knowing the chances of improvement for a pig or had more than 2 yr of swine experience were likely need for euthanasia. They also were characterized to be grouped in the confident, knowledgeable, and by reporting the least experience with sick or injured detached cluster (OR = 3.76, P = 0.011; Cluster 2; pigs, not feeling confident in how to handle sick or Table 3) and less likely to be grouped into the clus- injured pigs and agreed that they lacked knowl- ter that was unconfident and lacking knowledge edge in how to diagnose sick pigs. Participants (OR = 0.22, P = 0.042; Cluster 3; Table 3). from cluster 3 also identified themselves as having DISCUSSION a hard time making decisions on when to euthan- ize a pig, waited longer to euthanize compromised pigs, felt the least confident performing euthanasia, Correlation and were more likely to prefer that someone else euthanized the pigs compared with clusters 1 and Empathy attribute–related questions positively 2.  Additionally, cluster 3 participants agreed on correlated with sex, in that female caretakers were feeling good when they see “happy” pigs; however, more likely to empathize with pigs compared with they were uncertain on whether they could iden- male caretakers, which is in agreement with Matthis tify different affective states in pigs. Finally, cluster (2004) who demonstrated that female caretakers 3 participants disagreed on feeling content when were more sensitive to the perceived pain experience seeing a “contented” pig but were the intermediate of pigs and a previous study in veal that reported cluster in agreeing to the statement that pigs have that female caretakers showed more positive behav- the ability to have feelings comparable with humans ior toward veal calves compared with male care- (Table 2). takers (Lensink et  al., 2000). Moreover, female caretakers in the present survey had a more neg- ative attitude toward euthanasia overall compared Risk Factor Analysis with male caretakers, which is in agreement with findings by Matthis (2004) and Rault et al. (2017). The final model for cluster 1 included produc - Animal-directed empathy has been suggested to be tion type, sex, and age; the final model for cluster linked to human-directed empathy (Ascione, 2001), 2 included work experience; and the final model which potentially could explain the female response for cluster 3 included farm size and work experi- seen in all three surveys given that females demon- ence (Table 3). Female survey participants tended strate an enhanced ability to recognize nonverbal to be more likely to be grouped in the confident emotional displays in humans (Thompson and and empathetic cluster (odds ratio [OR]  =  4.44, Voyer, 2014). P  =  0.079; Cluster 1; Table  3). Participants who Table 3. Final risk analysis models including age, sex, farm size, work experience, and production type for Cluster 1–3 Variable Category OR SE 95% CI P Cluster 1 Production type Farrowing Ref Breeding 0.56 0.36 (0.16, 1.98) 0.365 Weaner/finisher 0.38 0.31 (0.08, 1.88) 0.237 Sex M Ref F 4.44 3.76 (0.84, 23.4) 0.079 Age <30 Ref >30 0.39 0.26 (0.11, 1.41) 0.152 Cluster 2 Work experience (years) <2 Ref >2 3.76 1.95 (1.36, 10.4) 0.011 Cluster 3 Farm size Small Ref Medium 3.26 3.84 (0.32, 32.8) 0.315 Large 5.32 6.08 (0.56, 50.0) 0.144 Work experience (years) <2 Ref >2 0.22 0.16 (0.02, 1.04) 0.042 Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 260 Campler et al. Empathy affect was also positively correlated euthanizing compromised pigs. Adequate training with empathy attribute, indicating that caretakers and exposure to compromised pigs are important who were more likely to show empathy toward pigs to be able to appropriately make a sound deci- also perceived the euthanasia procedure more nega- sion regarding treatment or euthanasia. Another tively compared with other caretakers. Euthanizing important aspect about caretaker training is that animals that have been under the direct care of those not only does the caretaker need to be able to make performing euthanasia can influence the caretakers’ an appropriate assessment of the situation but also willingness to euthanize and is known more com- be able to perform timely euthanasia. Compared monly across species as the “caring–killing paradox” with the confident and empathetic or the confident, (Arluke, 1994; Scotney et al., 2015). The caring–kill- knowledgeable, and detached cluster, caretakers ing paradox stems from the conflict a caretaker expe - in the unconfident and knowledge-lacking cluster riences when frequently having to shift between caring did not only feel inexperienced and untrained but for animals and euthanizing animals, something often was also more likely to have someone else perform seen in shelters where unwanted but healthy animals euthanasia if given the choice. often have to be euthanized. Rollin (1987) argued that Another similarity between the confident and caretakers are subjected to a “moral stressor” caused empathetic and the confident, knowledgeable, and by the innate will of helping and protecting the ani- detached clusters is that caretakers in both groups mals they have to euthanize. Therefore, the stress asso- worked on either small- or medium-sized farms. The ciated with performing euthanasia and the perception cluster analysis for this survey suggests that caretak- that euthanasia is considered a “failure” can also ers from small- or medium-sized farms may have result in “compassion fatigue” (defined by Joinson, better knowledge and experience overall on what to 1992; as “a unique form of burnout that affects peo- do regarding sick or injured sows compared with ple in caregiving professions”). Compassion fatigue is the caretakers who were working on larger farms. most documented in shelter (Frommer and Arluke, It is possible that working on a smaller farm creates 1999) or research settings (Herzog, 2002) and results a smaller workload or that a lower number of ani- in it becoming more difficult for a caretaker to make mals to care for per caretaker may help to create a proper euthanasia decisions. Although this line of working situation where caretakers are enabled to questioning was not asked directly in this survey, receive more training by more experienced caretakers attitudes may reflect the quality of individual swine (English, 1991; Lensink et al., 2000; Seabrook, 2001). care (Coleman et al., 1998). It has been suggested that However, with a limited sample size of eight farms, precautionary actions such as job rotation, time off, this finding has to be interpreted cautiously. Finally and additional employees may help to mitigate com- and importantly, we did not find any evidence that passion fatigue, which could help caretakers to make caretakers who worked on larger farms held more proper euthanasia decisions and therefore reduce negative attitudes toward pigs compared with small animal welfare issues regarding timely euthanasia farms indicating that any work-related frustration (Rogelberg et al., 2007; Baran et al., 2009). based on workload was not directed toward the pigs. Risk factor analyses showed that time spent working on a swine farm was significantly associ - Cluster and Risk Factor Analysis ated with cluster membership. Caretakers with less Cluster analyses showed that survey partic- than 2 yr of swine experience were significantly ipants grouped in the confident and empathetic more likely to be grouped in the unconfident and cluster or in the confident, knowledgeable, and knowledge-lacking cluster, whereas caretakers with detached cluster felt more confident and knowl - more than 2 yr of swine experience were signifi - edgeable regarding identifying sick or compro- cantly more likely to be grouped in the confident, mised pigs compared with the unconfident and knowledgeable, and detached cluster, while the con- knowledge-lacking cluster. In addition, caretak- fident and empathetic cluster contained a mix of ers in the confident and empathetic or in the con - experienced and inexperienced caretakers. fident, knowledgeable, and detached cluster also Interestingly, the risk analysis also showed that felt more comfortable in their ability to perform females had four times the odds for being grouped in euthanasia as compared with the unconfident and the confident and empathetic cluster compared with knowledge-lacking cluster. These observations are males. Overall, females tended to be more negative reasonable as increased time working with pigs will toward euthanasia and agreed to a higher extent to expose the caretaker to a multitude of scenarios, empathy affect and attribution-related questions, which will yield more experience in identifying and agreeing more to statements regarding pigs’ ability Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 Caretaker attitudes toward swine euthanasia 261 Ascione, F. R. 2001. Animal abuse and youth violence. OJJDP: to express emotions such as happiness, sadness, and Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1–15. pain. The cluster that was most neutral regarding AVMA, American veterinary medical association (AVMA). empathy-related questions was the unconfident and 2013. AVMA guidelines for the euthanasia of animals: knowledge-lacking cluster, which contained no female 2013 edition. [accessed January 25, 2018]. https://avma. caretakers. It is possible that, as previously discussed, org/KB/policies/documents/euthanasia.pdf. Baran, B. E., J. A.  Allen, S. G.  Rogelberg, C.  Spitzmüller, N. female caretakers in our study were more prone to A.  Digiacomo, J. B.  Webb, N. T.  Carter, O. L.  Clark, L. empathize with pigs compared with male caretakers. A. Teeter, and A. G. Walker. 2009. Euthanasia-related strain However, it is important to note that female caretak- and coping strategies in animal shelter employees. J. Am. ers in our study only accounted for 13.6% of the sur- Vet. Med. Assoc. 235:83–88. doi:10.2460/javma.235.1.83 vey participants and that all female caretakers were Coleman, G. J., and P. H.  Hemsworth. 2014. Training to working on either small or medium farms. improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards live- stock enhances welfare and productivity. Rev. Sci. Tech. 33:131–137. doi:10.20506/rst.33.1.2257 LIMITATIONS Coleman, G. J., P. H. Hemsworth, M. Hay, and M. Cox. 1998. We acknowledge that the 84 participants in this Predicting stockperson behavior towards pigs from attitu- dinal and job-related variables and empathy. Appl. Anim. survey represent a very small fraction of the indus- Behav. Sci. 58:63–75. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01168-9 try workforce, but our intent with this study was not Dohoo, I., W.  Martin, and H.  Stryhn. 2010. Veterinary epi- to map out all differences between caretakers within demiologic research. 2nd ed. Charlottetown (Canada): the swine industry but rather to create an updated VER Inc. snapshot of swine caretaker attitudes toward euthan- English, P. R. 1991. Stockmanship, empathy and pig behavior. Pig Vet. J. 26:56–66. asia based on standard demographic information. Frommer, S. S., and A.  Arluke. 1999. Loving them to death: This survey confirms the wide range of experience blame-displacing strategies of animal shelter workers. levels, ages, and confidence levels regarding euthan - Soc. Anim. 7:1–16. doi:10.1163/156853099X00121 asia among caretakers across eight swine-producing Gemus-Benjamin, M., S. Kramer, A. Bratton, and T. Conklin. facilities. 2015. A perspective of stockpersons and the humane euthanasia of swine. Michigan State University Quarterly Report 20:1–6. [accessed March 15, 2018]. http://msue.anr. CONCLUSION msu.edu/uploads/236/50914/Vol20_1_March_2015.pdf. These survey results reveal important information Hemsworth, P. H., G. J.  Coleman, and J. L.  Barnett. 1994. Improving the attitude and behaviour of stock- about caretaker experience, training, knowledge, and persons towards pigs and the consequences on the skill-level based on self-assessments in regards to attitudes behaviour and reproductive performance of com- toward swine euthanasia. Experienced appears to play a mercial pigs. Appl. Anim. Beh. Sci. 39:349–362. crucial role influencing caretakers’ attitudes toward swine doi:10.1016/0168-1591(94)90168-6 euthanasia, but empathy and confidence were also impor - Herzog, H. 2002. Ethical aspects of relationships between humans and research animals. ILAR J. 43:27–32. tant. Information about swine caretakers’ attitudes toward doi:10.1093/ilar.43.1.27 euthanasia is valuable to the swine industry stakeholders Joinson, C. 1992. Coping with compassion fatigue: burned out as it provides a starting platform from where to investigate and burned up—has caring for others made you too tired the relationship between caretaker attitudes and possible to care for yourself ? Nursing 22:116–121. https://journals. quantification of euthanasia quality and appropriate tim - lww.com/nursing/Citation/1992/04000/COPING_WITH_ ing based on a swine welfare perspective. COMPASSION_FATIGUE.35.aspx. Lensink, J., A.  Boissy, and I.  Veissier. 2000. The relationship between farmer’s attitude and behaviour towards calves, SUPPLEMENTARY DATA and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49:313–327. doi:10.1051/animres:2000122 Supplementary data are available at Animal Matthis, J. S. 2004. Selected employee attributes and perceptions Frontiers online. regarding methods and animal welfare concerns associated Conflict of interest statement : None declared. with swine euthanasia [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Raleigh (NC): North Carolina State University; p. 1–234. McGee, M., R. L. Parsons, A. M. O’Connor, A. K. Johnson, LITERATURE CITED R. Anthony, A. Ramirez, and S. T. Millman. 2016. A pre- Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. liminary examination of swine caretakers’ perspectives for Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50:179–211. euthanasia technology and training. J. Anim. Sci. 94 :32. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T doi:10.2527/jam2016-0069 Arluke, A. 1994. Managing emotions in an animal shelter. In: Mullins, C. R., M. D.  Pairis-Garcia, M. R.  Campler, Manning, A., and J. Serpell, editors. Animals and human R.  Anthony, A. K.  Johnson, G. J.  Coleman, and J.- society: changing perspective. New York (NY): Routledge; L. Rault. 2018. The development of an interactive com- p. 145–165. puter-based training program for timely and humane Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 262 Campler et al. On-farm pig euthanasia. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 5:1–8. Scotney, R. L., D. McLaughlin, and H. L. Keates. 2015. A systematic doi:10.3138/jvme.1216-191r review of the effects of euthanasia and occupational stress in National Pork Board (NPB) and American Association of personnel working with animals in animal shelters, veterinary Swine Veterinarians (AASV). 2008. On-farm euthanasia clinics, and biomedical research facilities. J. Am. Vet. Med. of swine: recommendations for the producer. Des Moines Assoc. 247:1121–1130. doi:10.2460/javma.247.10.1121 (IA): National Pork Board. Seabrook, M. F. 2001. The effect of the operational envir- National Pork Board (NPB). 2017. Common swine industry onment and operating protocols on the attitudes and audit: instructions, standards and audit tool. Des Moines behaviour of employed stockpersons. In: Hovi, M., (IA): National Pork Board. and M. Bouilhol, editors. Proceedings of the 3rd Rault, J. L., T. Holyoake, and G. Coleman. 2017. Stockperson NAHWOA Workshop, Human–Animal Relationship: attitudes toward pig euthanasia. J. Anim. Sci. 95:949–957. Stockmanship and Housing in Organic Livestock doi:10.2527/jas.2016.0922 Systems; October 21 to 24, 2000; Clermont-Ferrand, Rogelberg, S. G., N. DiGiacomo, C. L. Reeve, C. Spitzmuller, France. Reading (UK): University of Reading. p. 21–30. O. L.  Clark, L.  Teeter, A. G.  Walker, N. T.  Carter, and Thompson, A. E., and D.  Voyer. 2014. Sex differences in the P. G.  Starling. 2007. What shelters can do about eutha- ability to recognise non-verbal displays of emotion: a nasia-related stress: an examination of recommendations meta-analysis. Cogn. Emot. 28:1164–1195. doi:10.1080/0 from those on the front line. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2699931.2013.875889 10:331–347. doi:10.1080/10888700701353865 Turner, P. V., and G.  Doonan. 2010. Developing on-farm Rollin B. 1987. Euthanasia and moral stress. Loss, Grief and euthanasia plans. Can. Vet. J. 51:1031–1034. PMCID: Care 1:115–126. PMC2920162; PMID: 21119874. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Translational Animal Science Oxford University Press

Caretaker attitudes toward swine euthanasia

Translational Animal Science , Volume 2 (3) – Sep 1, 2018
Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/caretaker-attitudes-toward-swine-euthanasia-ESkirnwp1q
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
eISSN
2573-2102
DOI
10.1093/tas/txy015
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

† †,2 ‡ || Magnus R. Campler, Monique D. Pairis-Garcia, Jean-Loup Rault, Grahame Coleman and Andreia G. Arruda Department of Animal Sciences, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, Ohio State University, OH 43210; Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, Institute of Animal || Husbandry and Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna A1210, Austria; University of Melbourne, Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, Victoria 3551, Australia; Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, OH 43210 ABSTRACT: Timely euthanasia is a fundamen- (confidence in performing euthanasia, training, tal part of safeguarding swine welfare by reduc- and perceived level of knowledge). Using cluster ing suffering when compromised pigs are unable analysis to analyze survey answers, three distinct to recover. The quality and appropriateness of groups of caretakers were identified: 1) confident timely euthanasia rely mainly on the knowledge and empathetic; 2) Confident, knowledgeable, and and experience of the individual caretaker but detached; and 3) unconfident and lacking knowl - may also be affected by caretaker attitudes toward edge. The survey results showed that empathy euthanasia. However, literature on caretaker atti- attribution was strongly correlated with empathy tudes toward swine euthanasia is lacking. This affect (r = 0.571, P < 0.01) and that empathy study investigated caretaker attitudes, perceived affect and empathy attribution were higher in knowledge, and confidence in performing on-farm female caretakers compared with male caretakers timely euthanasia. A total of 84 caretakers from (P < 0.05). A risk analysis that included previ- eight swine farms (ranging in size from 1,300 to ously identified clusters showed that females were 7,000 sows) participated in a survey designed more likely to be grouped among caretakers that to investigate attitudes toward swine and swine were confident and empathetic ( P = 0.04), and euthanasia. Caretaker’s ages ranged from 18 to caretakers with more than 2 yr of swine experi- 59 yr with an average work experience of 8.5 yr. ence were more likely to be grouped as confident The majority of participants worked in either and skilled (P = 0.01), while the unconfident and farrowing or breeding units. Survey questions empathetic were more likely to have had less than were designed to assess caretakers’ attitudes and 2 yr of experience (P = 0.04). This study provides attributes (empathy affect, empathy attribution, important information about variability in care- attitudes toward pigs, feeling bad about euthaniz- taker experience as well as their attitudes toward ing pigs, and assumptions about pigs’ emotional pigs and timely euthanasia. Increased knowledge capabilities), decision-making skills (confidence in about swine caretaker attitudes may be used to identifying compromised pigs or relying on cow- implement training and euthanasia protocols to orkers to make decisions), and euthanasia skillset increase both human and pig welfare on farm. Key words: attitudes, caretaker, swine, timely euthanasia, welfare The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the swine farm managers and caretakers in graciously allow- Corresponding author: pairis-garcia.1@osu.edu ing us access to their facilities and participating in the study. Received April 5, 2018. Funding was provided by the National Pork Checkoff. Accepted April 11, 2018. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 Caretaker attitudes toward swine euthanasia 255 © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non- Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com Transl. Anim. Sci. 2018.2:254–262 doi: 10.1093/tas/txy015 Survey INTRODUCTION Timely euthanasia is of great concern to the gen- A total of 84 caretakers (100% response rate) eral public and within the U.S.  swine industry. The from eight different farms with mixed produc- American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) tion stages/classes of pigs participated in the study. states that swine that are sick or injured and fail to This was part of a larger training study in which par- recover should be euthanized in a humane and reliable ticipants completed a multimedia euthanasia training manner (AVMA, 2013). Although national guidelines program (Mullins et  al., 2018). Prior to participating and training materials for timely euthanasia have been in the training program, participants signed a consent developed (e.g., On-Farm Euthanasia of Swine—Pork form authorizing the use of their anonymous answers Checkoff (NPB, 2008), Common Swine Industry and demographic information and completed a Audit (CSIA; NPB, 2017), On-Farm Swine Euthanasia 45-question survey validated in a previous study (Rault Training Program—The Ohio State University et  al., 2017) and divided into three different sections (Mullins et al., 2018)), a recent survey by McGee et al. (Supplementary Appendix 1). The first section con - (2016) reported that only half of caretakers had any sisted of 10 questions including demographic informa- euthanasia training at all. Unsurprisingly, the quality tion such as age, sex, number of years working with pigs, and appropriateness of performing euthanasia often and prior experience working with livestock other than depend upon personal experience and decision-making pigs. For the remaining section of the survey, responses skills of the individual caretaker (Turner and Doonan, were given on a 5-point scale, from 1) strongly disagree, 2010; Gemus-Benjamin et al., 2015). Moreover, care- 2)  disagree, 3)  neither agree or disagree, 4)  agree to takers’ attitude toward animals (Coleman et al., 1998; 5) strongly agree. The second section consisted of seven Coleman and Hemsworth, 2014) may influence their statements related to personal knowledge and skillsets willingness to perform euthanasia and impact the regarding identification, evaluation, and decision-mak - quality, consistency, and reliability on how euthanasia ing of compromised pigs and included statements such is performed (Ajzen, 1991; Hemsworth et  al., 1994). as “I have enough time during my shift to identify sick Matthis (2004) found that 87.0% of the survey par- and compromised pigs.” The third part of the survey ticipants understood the important welfare aspects of and main focus of this paper had 28 statements related performing swine euthanasia, but 46.4% of the same to attitudes, management, and general confidence when participants would be happy not to have to perform working with pigs and included statements such as “I euthanasia again. A more recent study conducted by feel confident that I know when a pig needs to be euth - Rault et al. (2017) reported that the euthanasia process anized.” The last set of questions within the third part itself could adversely affect caretakers and that lack of the survey assessed the caretaker empathy in state- of training or knowledge regarding euthanasia was ments such as “If I see a pig injure itself I know how moderately correlated with poor decision-making and it feels.” These statements were previously identified to euthanasia avoidance. be strongly linked to empathy toward pigs (Rault et al., With limited additional caretaker attitude studies 2017). To assure that statements were read properly, 10 conducted in the United States since Matthis (2004), statements were reworded to contain a negation, so the this study aims to assess how swine caretaker charac- response scale was reversed. The scale for these particu- teristics and attitudes toward timely euthanasia are lar questions was later reversed for analyses with the related to caretaker training and experience. higher score corresponding to a higher agreement. MATERIALS AND METHODS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS This study was reviewed and approved by The Spearman rank correlation analyses were con- Ohio State University Institutional Review Board ducted in SPSS 25.0 (IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics (IRB:2017E0106) for Human Subjects Research. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 256 Campler et al. for Windows, Version 25.0. IBM Corp., Armonk, <1,500 [n  =  3], medium: 1,501–3,000 [n  =  3], and NY); cluster-, univariate-, and multivariable analyses large: >3,000 [n  =  2]). Secondly, univariate mixed were conducted using STATA/IC 14.1 (StataCorp models were built and a conservative P value of <0.2 LP, College Station, TX). Data were initially checked was used for screening variables that moved into the for identification of recording errors and missing full final model. Finally, multivariable mixed mod - data. Questions that were left blank by the partic- els were built using a backward stepwise approach, ipants were considered missing and excluded from and final statistical significance was declared at analyses on corresponding parameters. P < 0.05. Lastly, BLUP were estimated and checked Basic descriptive analyses were conducted for normality (Dohoo et al., 2010). including correlation analysis, descriptive plots, and basic statistics (mean, SD, range), followed by mul- RESULTS tivariate analysis in the form of cluster analysis and risk factor analysis. After assessing data normal- ity (QQ-plots and Shapiro–Wilk test), the survey Descriptive Analysis data were determined as not normally distributed (P > 0.05), and therefore, the Spearman’s rank The average age of participants was 33 yr correlations coefficient was used. For the correl - (18–59 yr old), with 55% being younger than 30 yr ation analysis, the responses from seven questions of age and 45% being older than 30 yr of age; 86.4% related to empathy toward pigs were averaged into participants identified as male and 13.6% as female. one variable called “empathy attribution,” while the Only 2.4% of the participants grew up in a capital responses from five questions related to the evoked city (defined as a densely populated urban area in feelings in the caretaker were averaged into one var- the region), while 52.4% grew up in country towns (defined as a small town in a predominately rural iable called “empathy affect” for further analysis. Cluster analysis was used as an exploratory tool area), and 45.2% grew up on farms (defined as grow - for grouping study participants into groups that were ing up on a family farm with no adjacent urban or similar in regards to their responses in section 3 of suburban areas). About half (46.3%) of the partici- the survey. The complete-linkage cluster method was pants reported having had previous experience work- used with a continuous dissimilarity measure and ing with livestock species other than pigs and half based on L2 or Euclidean distance. The set of ques- (52.4%) did not. The average work experience with tions offered to cluster analysis included the 28 ques- pigs was 8.5 yr (median = 2.25; range = 2 wk–52 yr) tions from section 3 of the survey, which included with 50% having less than 2 yr of work experience and all attitude-related questions. Cluster analyses iden- 50% having more than 2 yr of work experience. The tified four clusters; however, one of the clusters was average farm size which survey participants worked composed of one participant; therefore, this cluster on was 3,100 pigs with a range between 1,300- and was not used for further risk factor analysis. 7,000-head barns. In regards to role on farm, a minor- Three separate multivariable mixed-effects logis- ity of the participants identified themselves as farm tic regression models were created using each one owners that worked with pigs often (8.5%), a manager of the identified clusters as the outcome in order who worked with pigs occasionally (3.7%) or as a care- to investigate the effect of the predictors’ farm size, taker that worked with pigs occasionally (3.7%), while pig experience, sex, production stage, and age, on the majority of participants identified themselves the odds of participants to be part of each clus- as caretakers that worked with pigs often (59.7%) ter separately. Due to the clustering of participants or managers that worked with pigs often (24.4%). within swine farms, farm was included as a random Seventy-five percent of the participants worked either effect for all models. Model-building steps included in farrowing (41.5%) or breeding units (32.9%), while first checking for linearity between continuous var - 14.6% worked with a combination of different pro- iables and the log odds of the outcome. Since this duction stages (farrow to finish; farrow to nursery). assumption was not met, variables were catego- A  minority of the participants worked in either rized as follows: age was divided into two catego- weaner/nursery (4.9%) or grower/finisher (4.9%), and ries (1: <30 yr of age [n = 48] and 2: >30 yr of age one participant did not answer the question (1.2%). [n  =  34]); pig experience was divided into two cat- The number of participants that cared for less than egories (1: <2 yr of experience [n  =  34] and 2: >2 100 pigs on a daily basis were few (8.5%), while 23.2% yr of experience [n  =  46]); and farm size (pigs per of participants cared for 100–500 pigs, 6.1% cared for farm) was divided up into three categories; (small: 500–1,000 pigs, 22.0% cared for 1,000–2,500 pigs, and Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 Caretaker attitudes toward swine euthanasia 257 37.8% cared for over 2,500 pigs, and two participants a weak negative correlation between previous live- did not answer (2.4%). Approximately one-third of stock experience and the number of pigs the care- the participants (33.3%) had previous experience with taker cared for was observed (r = −0.247, P < 0.05). euthanasia before starting to work with pigs, while 50% of the participants had their first euthanasia Cluster Analysis experience when they started working with pigs, and 16.7% of the participants had not euthanized any ani- Cluster 1 (confident and empathetic). Cluster mal to date. Among the caretakers that did not have 1 consisted of 24 participants (34.8% of total) who any euthanasia experience, three caretakers had 3, mainly worked in the farrowing units on small farms. 5, and 10 yr of experience working with pigs respec- In brief, participants were grouped into this cluster tively, while the remaining caretakers were new hires if they were considered as having high confidence in averaging 5 wk on the job. knowing what was wrong with pigs on an initial inspec- tion and how likely it was for a sick pig to improve and if they reported feeling confident enough to know if Correlation Analysis and when a pig needed to be euthanized based on its The Spearman rank correlation analysis between condition. Moreover, participants grouped within the survey questions and demographics revealed six this cluster felt knowledgeable enough to be able to distinct correlations (Table  1). Questions related diagnose a sick pig, make decisions regarding sick or to empathy affect were weakly correlated with sex compromised pigs and were likely to try to save all (r = 0.228, P < 0.05), with females tending to score pigs if possible. These participants were also the least higher on empathy affect questions compared with likely to disagree with coworkers regarding making males (F  = 2.86, P = 0.095). Empathy attribution a euthanasia decision. They also reported feeling 1,79 questions were strongly correlated with empathy comfortable performing euthanasia and tried not to affect (r  =  0.571, P  <  0.01) and weakly correlated think about pigs’ feelings at the time of euthanasia. with sex (r  =  0.235, P  <  0.05) with females tend- However, cluster 1 participants agreed with the state- ing to score higher on empathy attribution ques- ment that “euthanasia is the right thing to do to stop tions compared with males (F  = 3.02, P = 0.086). suffering but I feel bad about doing it.” Additionally, 1,79 Additionally, a strong positive correlation between these participants were likely to agree with statements swine experience and caretaker age was observed regarding the pigs’ ability to have similar feelings as (r  =  0.548, P  <  0.01). A  moderately strong posi- humans and in trying to understand how pigs feel by tive correlation between previous livestock experi- imagining how things look from pigs’ point of view. ence and prior euthanasia experience was observed Moreover, they were the most likely to agree to being (r = 0.397, P < 0.01) where caretakers who had pre- better than most people at imagining how a pig feels viously worked with other types of livestock were and to be more upset than most people when seeing more likely of having previous euthanasia experience an “unhappy” pig. Finally, cluster 1 participants were compared with caretakers who did not have other the most likely to feel good about seeing a “happy” livestock experience (F  = 8.06, P < 0.001). Finally, and ‘contented’ pig (Table 2). 1,78 Table 1. Nonparametric Pearson correlations between variables extracted from the survey Swine ex- Pig care (re- perience Previous First eu- sponsibility, Empathy (years on livestock thanasia #pigs cared Empathy affect Farm size Staff age Sex farm) experience experience for) attribution Empathy affect 1 −0.104 −0.032 0.228* 0.084 −0.068 −0.055 0.111 0.571** Farm size −0.104 1 −0.092 −0.076 −0.013 0.058 0.133 0.007 0.018 Staff age −0.032 −0.092 1 0.037 0.548** −0.154 −0.121 −0.033 −0.163 Sex 0.228* −0.076 0.037 1 0.134 −0.129 −0.046 −0.142 0.235* Swine experience (years) 0.084 −0.013 0.548** 0.134 1 −0.074 −0.199 0.127 −0.123 Previous livestock experience −0.068 0.058 −0.154 −0.129 −0.074 1 0.397** −0.247* 0.073 Prior euthanasia experience −0.055 0.133 −0.121 −0.046 −0.199 0.397** 1 −0.157 0.1 Pig care (responsibility, # pigs) 0.111 0.007 −0.033 −0.142 0.127 −0.247* −0.157 1 0.038 Empathy attribution 0.571** 0.018 −0.163 0.235* −0.123 0.073 0.1 0.038 1 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two tailed). Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 258 Campler et al. Table  2. Cluster agreement to survey statement (mean + SD) on a 5-point scale (1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree) enhanced by a light (disagree- ment) to dark (agreement) greyscale gradient Survey question Cluster1 Cluster 2 Cluster3 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD When I see a sick pig I usually know what is wrong with it 3.58 0.78 3.58 0.62 2.43 0.85 When I see a sick pig I usually know if it will get better 3.79 0.72 3.52 0.77 2.57 0.85 I feel confident that I know when a pig needs to be euthanized 4.42 0.50 4.39 0.56 3.21 1.05 I don´t have enough knowledge and/or experience to diagnose what is wrong with 2.29 0.91 1.94 0.89 3.57 1.09 sick pigs I don’t have enough knowledge and/or experience to know if a pig needs to be 2.08 0.88 1.58 0.56 3.07 0.92 euthanized I don´t have enough knowledge and/or experience to know what to do with sick or 1.83 0.76 1.55 0.57 3.14 0.95 compromised pigs It is difficult to decide when a diseased pig should be euthanized 2.13 0.85 1.97 0.66 3.14 0.77 I tend to wait longer than I should before euthanizing a pig 1.67 0.82 2.06 0.73 2.50 0.76 I often disagree when a co-worker says a pig needs to be euthanized 1.88 0.74 2.32 0.79 2.14 0.95 I often feel that there are good reasons for not euthanizing a pig 2.67 1.01 2.71 0.78 3.21 0.97 I am less likely to euthanize a sow that is close to farrowing than other sows 3.08 1.10 3.10 0.79 3.00 0.68 I try to save all pigs 4.42 0.65 3.65 1.25 3.86 1.17 If I had the choice, I would prefer someone else to euthanize pigs rather than myself 2.29 0.95 2.52 1.06 3.07 1.21 I am more likely to euthanize a pig now than 5 years ago 3.54 1.35 3.35 1.31 3.00 1.18 I feel comfortable doing euthanasia 4.08 1.06 4.48 0.72 2.71 1.20 I dislike euthanizing pigs 2.88 1.12 3.00 1.06 3.43 1.09 I try not to think about the pig´s feelings when I euthanize it 3.42 1.28 3.13 0.85 2.86 1.10 I know that euthanasia is the right thing to do to stop suffering but I feel bad about 4.13 0.90 3.10 1.33 3.57 1.02 doing it Pigs are generally able to feel sadness 3.79 0.88 3.32 0.65 3.57 0.65 Pigs have feelings like people have feelings 3.88 0.80 2.87 0.99 3.57 0.76 I think of pigs as generally able to feel happiness 4.17 0.64 3.45 0.62 3.29 0.73 Seeing a neglected animal doesn´t affect me as much as it would affect some people 2.13 1.23 2.45 1.18 2.50 0.94 When I see pigs having fun I feel really happy 4.38 0.58 3.74 0.73 3.71 0.73 If I see a pig injure itself I know how it feels 3.88 0.90 3.26 0.68 3.21 0.80 I try to understand pigs by imagining how things look from their point of view 4.13 0.74 3.23 0.88 2.86 1.10 Imagining how a pig feels is something I do often 3.92 0.78 2.77 0.80 2.71 0.73 When I see an unhappy pig it upsets me more than it would upset most people 3.75 0.94 2.65 0.75 2.79 0.80 I am better at telling if a pig s happy than most other people 3.33 0.76 2.90 0.79 2.64 0.74 Seeing a contented pig makes me feel really good 4.33 0.48 3.42 0.96 3.29 0.47 Empathy attribution questions (compounded) 3.96 0.97 3.14 0.86 3.03 0.83 Empathy affect questions (compounded) 3.81 0.80 3.19 0.74 3.32 0.77 Cluster 2 (confident, knowledgeable, and grouped into cluster 2 also disagreed to the state- detached). Cluster 2 consisted of 31 participants ment regarding the attempt to save all pigs and (45.0% of total) who mainly worked in breed- agreed to the statement regarding feeling bad ing or weaner/finisher units on medium-sized about performing euthanasia. Cluster 2 partic- farms. These participants agreed to a high extent ipants agreed on statements regarding the pigs’ with statements about having sufficient knowl - abilities to feel “sadness” and “happiness” but edge and experience regarding identifying what disagreed on the statement that pigs were able to is wrong with a sick or injured pig, how likely it have feelings similar to humans (Table 2). was for a pig to improve, and if a pig needed to be Cluster 3 (unconfident and lacking knowledge). euthanized. Cluster 2 participants were likely to Cluster 3 consisted of 14 participants (20.0% of agree with a coworker regarding euthanasia deci- total) that predominantly worked in one or more sions and felt knowledgeable and comfortable in production stages on medium- or large-sized farms. regards to when to euthanize a pig compared with Cluster 3 participants appeared to be moderately the less knowledgeable cluster 3.  Participants confident in identifying sick or injured pigs and Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 Caretaker attitudes toward swine euthanasia 259 knowing the chances of improvement for a pig or had more than 2 yr of swine experience were likely need for euthanasia. They also were characterized to be grouped in the confident, knowledgeable, and by reporting the least experience with sick or injured detached cluster (OR = 3.76, P = 0.011; Cluster 2; pigs, not feeling confident in how to handle sick or Table 3) and less likely to be grouped into the clus- injured pigs and agreed that they lacked knowl- ter that was unconfident and lacking knowledge edge in how to diagnose sick pigs. Participants (OR = 0.22, P = 0.042; Cluster 3; Table 3). from cluster 3 also identified themselves as having DISCUSSION a hard time making decisions on when to euthan- ize a pig, waited longer to euthanize compromised pigs, felt the least confident performing euthanasia, Correlation and were more likely to prefer that someone else euthanized the pigs compared with clusters 1 and Empathy attribute–related questions positively 2.  Additionally, cluster 3 participants agreed on correlated with sex, in that female caretakers were feeling good when they see “happy” pigs; however, more likely to empathize with pigs compared with they were uncertain on whether they could iden- male caretakers, which is in agreement with Matthis tify different affective states in pigs. Finally, cluster (2004) who demonstrated that female caretakers 3 participants disagreed on feeling content when were more sensitive to the perceived pain experience seeing a “contented” pig but were the intermediate of pigs and a previous study in veal that reported cluster in agreeing to the statement that pigs have that female caretakers showed more positive behav- the ability to have feelings comparable with humans ior toward veal calves compared with male care- (Table 2). takers (Lensink et  al., 2000). Moreover, female caretakers in the present survey had a more neg- ative attitude toward euthanasia overall compared Risk Factor Analysis with male caretakers, which is in agreement with findings by Matthis (2004) and Rault et al. (2017). The final model for cluster 1 included produc - Animal-directed empathy has been suggested to be tion type, sex, and age; the final model for cluster linked to human-directed empathy (Ascione, 2001), 2 included work experience; and the final model which potentially could explain the female response for cluster 3 included farm size and work experi- seen in all three surveys given that females demon- ence (Table 3). Female survey participants tended strate an enhanced ability to recognize nonverbal to be more likely to be grouped in the confident emotional displays in humans (Thompson and and empathetic cluster (odds ratio [OR]  =  4.44, Voyer, 2014). P  =  0.079; Cluster 1; Table  3). Participants who Table 3. Final risk analysis models including age, sex, farm size, work experience, and production type for Cluster 1–3 Variable Category OR SE 95% CI P Cluster 1 Production type Farrowing Ref Breeding 0.56 0.36 (0.16, 1.98) 0.365 Weaner/finisher 0.38 0.31 (0.08, 1.88) 0.237 Sex M Ref F 4.44 3.76 (0.84, 23.4) 0.079 Age <30 Ref >30 0.39 0.26 (0.11, 1.41) 0.152 Cluster 2 Work experience (years) <2 Ref >2 3.76 1.95 (1.36, 10.4) 0.011 Cluster 3 Farm size Small Ref Medium 3.26 3.84 (0.32, 32.8) 0.315 Large 5.32 6.08 (0.56, 50.0) 0.144 Work experience (years) <2 Ref >2 0.22 0.16 (0.02, 1.04) 0.042 Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 260 Campler et al. Empathy affect was also positively correlated euthanizing compromised pigs. Adequate training with empathy attribute, indicating that caretakers and exposure to compromised pigs are important who were more likely to show empathy toward pigs to be able to appropriately make a sound deci- also perceived the euthanasia procedure more nega- sion regarding treatment or euthanasia. Another tively compared with other caretakers. Euthanizing important aspect about caretaker training is that animals that have been under the direct care of those not only does the caretaker need to be able to make performing euthanasia can influence the caretakers’ an appropriate assessment of the situation but also willingness to euthanize and is known more com- be able to perform timely euthanasia. Compared monly across species as the “caring–killing paradox” with the confident and empathetic or the confident, (Arluke, 1994; Scotney et al., 2015). The caring–kill- knowledgeable, and detached cluster, caretakers ing paradox stems from the conflict a caretaker expe - in the unconfident and knowledge-lacking cluster riences when frequently having to shift between caring did not only feel inexperienced and untrained but for animals and euthanizing animals, something often was also more likely to have someone else perform seen in shelters where unwanted but healthy animals euthanasia if given the choice. often have to be euthanized. Rollin (1987) argued that Another similarity between the confident and caretakers are subjected to a “moral stressor” caused empathetic and the confident, knowledgeable, and by the innate will of helping and protecting the ani- detached clusters is that caretakers in both groups mals they have to euthanize. Therefore, the stress asso- worked on either small- or medium-sized farms. The ciated with performing euthanasia and the perception cluster analysis for this survey suggests that caretak- that euthanasia is considered a “failure” can also ers from small- or medium-sized farms may have result in “compassion fatigue” (defined by Joinson, better knowledge and experience overall on what to 1992; as “a unique form of burnout that affects peo- do regarding sick or injured sows compared with ple in caregiving professions”). Compassion fatigue is the caretakers who were working on larger farms. most documented in shelter (Frommer and Arluke, It is possible that working on a smaller farm creates 1999) or research settings (Herzog, 2002) and results a smaller workload or that a lower number of ani- in it becoming more difficult for a caretaker to make mals to care for per caretaker may help to create a proper euthanasia decisions. Although this line of working situation where caretakers are enabled to questioning was not asked directly in this survey, receive more training by more experienced caretakers attitudes may reflect the quality of individual swine (English, 1991; Lensink et al., 2000; Seabrook, 2001). care (Coleman et al., 1998). It has been suggested that However, with a limited sample size of eight farms, precautionary actions such as job rotation, time off, this finding has to be interpreted cautiously. Finally and additional employees may help to mitigate com- and importantly, we did not find any evidence that passion fatigue, which could help caretakers to make caretakers who worked on larger farms held more proper euthanasia decisions and therefore reduce negative attitudes toward pigs compared with small animal welfare issues regarding timely euthanasia farms indicating that any work-related frustration (Rogelberg et al., 2007; Baran et al., 2009). based on workload was not directed toward the pigs. Risk factor analyses showed that time spent working on a swine farm was significantly associ - Cluster and Risk Factor Analysis ated with cluster membership. Caretakers with less Cluster analyses showed that survey partic- than 2 yr of swine experience were significantly ipants grouped in the confident and empathetic more likely to be grouped in the unconfident and cluster or in the confident, knowledgeable, and knowledge-lacking cluster, whereas caretakers with detached cluster felt more confident and knowl - more than 2 yr of swine experience were signifi - edgeable regarding identifying sick or compro- cantly more likely to be grouped in the confident, mised pigs compared with the unconfident and knowledgeable, and detached cluster, while the con- knowledge-lacking cluster. In addition, caretak- fident and empathetic cluster contained a mix of ers in the confident and empathetic or in the con - experienced and inexperienced caretakers. fident, knowledgeable, and detached cluster also Interestingly, the risk analysis also showed that felt more comfortable in their ability to perform females had four times the odds for being grouped in euthanasia as compared with the unconfident and the confident and empathetic cluster compared with knowledge-lacking cluster. These observations are males. Overall, females tended to be more negative reasonable as increased time working with pigs will toward euthanasia and agreed to a higher extent to expose the caretaker to a multitude of scenarios, empathy affect and attribution-related questions, which will yield more experience in identifying and agreeing more to statements regarding pigs’ ability Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 Caretaker attitudes toward swine euthanasia 261 Ascione, F. R. 2001. Animal abuse and youth violence. OJJDP: to express emotions such as happiness, sadness, and Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1–15. pain. The cluster that was most neutral regarding AVMA, American veterinary medical association (AVMA). empathy-related questions was the unconfident and 2013. AVMA guidelines for the euthanasia of animals: knowledge-lacking cluster, which contained no female 2013 edition. [accessed January 25, 2018]. https://avma. caretakers. It is possible that, as previously discussed, org/KB/policies/documents/euthanasia.pdf. Baran, B. E., J. A.  Allen, S. G.  Rogelberg, C.  Spitzmüller, N. female caretakers in our study were more prone to A.  Digiacomo, J. B.  Webb, N. T.  Carter, O. L.  Clark, L. empathize with pigs compared with male caretakers. A. Teeter, and A. G. Walker. 2009. Euthanasia-related strain However, it is important to note that female caretak- and coping strategies in animal shelter employees. J. Am. ers in our study only accounted for 13.6% of the sur- Vet. Med. Assoc. 235:83–88. doi:10.2460/javma.235.1.83 vey participants and that all female caretakers were Coleman, G. J., and P. H.  Hemsworth. 2014. Training to working on either small or medium farms. improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards live- stock enhances welfare and productivity. Rev. Sci. Tech. 33:131–137. doi:10.20506/rst.33.1.2257 LIMITATIONS Coleman, G. J., P. H. Hemsworth, M. Hay, and M. Cox. 1998. We acknowledge that the 84 participants in this Predicting stockperson behavior towards pigs from attitu- dinal and job-related variables and empathy. Appl. Anim. survey represent a very small fraction of the indus- Behav. Sci. 58:63–75. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01168-9 try workforce, but our intent with this study was not Dohoo, I., W.  Martin, and H.  Stryhn. 2010. Veterinary epi- to map out all differences between caretakers within demiologic research. 2nd ed. Charlottetown (Canada): the swine industry but rather to create an updated VER Inc. snapshot of swine caretaker attitudes toward euthan- English, P. R. 1991. Stockmanship, empathy and pig behavior. Pig Vet. J. 26:56–66. asia based on standard demographic information. Frommer, S. S., and A.  Arluke. 1999. Loving them to death: This survey confirms the wide range of experience blame-displacing strategies of animal shelter workers. levels, ages, and confidence levels regarding euthan - Soc. Anim. 7:1–16. doi:10.1163/156853099X00121 asia among caretakers across eight swine-producing Gemus-Benjamin, M., S. Kramer, A. Bratton, and T. Conklin. facilities. 2015. A perspective of stockpersons and the humane euthanasia of swine. Michigan State University Quarterly Report 20:1–6. [accessed March 15, 2018]. http://msue.anr. CONCLUSION msu.edu/uploads/236/50914/Vol20_1_March_2015.pdf. These survey results reveal important information Hemsworth, P. H., G. J.  Coleman, and J. L.  Barnett. 1994. Improving the attitude and behaviour of stock- about caretaker experience, training, knowledge, and persons towards pigs and the consequences on the skill-level based on self-assessments in regards to attitudes behaviour and reproductive performance of com- toward swine euthanasia. Experienced appears to play a mercial pigs. Appl. Anim. Beh. Sci. 39:349–362. crucial role influencing caretakers’ attitudes toward swine doi:10.1016/0168-1591(94)90168-6 euthanasia, but empathy and confidence were also impor - Herzog, H. 2002. Ethical aspects of relationships between humans and research animals. ILAR J. 43:27–32. tant. Information about swine caretakers’ attitudes toward doi:10.1093/ilar.43.1.27 euthanasia is valuable to the swine industry stakeholders Joinson, C. 1992. Coping with compassion fatigue: burned out as it provides a starting platform from where to investigate and burned up—has caring for others made you too tired the relationship between caretaker attitudes and possible to care for yourself ? Nursing 22:116–121. https://journals. quantification of euthanasia quality and appropriate tim - lww.com/nursing/Citation/1992/04000/COPING_WITH_ ing based on a swine welfare perspective. COMPASSION_FATIGUE.35.aspx. Lensink, J., A.  Boissy, and I.  Veissier. 2000. The relationship between farmer’s attitude and behaviour towards calves, SUPPLEMENTARY DATA and productivity of veal units. Annales de Zootechnie 49:313–327. doi:10.1051/animres:2000122 Supplementary data are available at Animal Matthis, J. S. 2004. Selected employee attributes and perceptions Frontiers online. regarding methods and animal welfare concerns associated Conflict of interest statement : None declared. with swine euthanasia [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Raleigh (NC): North Carolina State University; p. 1–234. McGee, M., R. L. Parsons, A. M. O’Connor, A. K. Johnson, LITERATURE CITED R. Anthony, A. Ramirez, and S. T. Millman. 2016. A pre- Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. liminary examination of swine caretakers’ perspectives for Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50:179–211. euthanasia technology and training. J. Anim. Sci. 94 :32. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T doi:10.2527/jam2016-0069 Arluke, A. 1994. Managing emotions in an animal shelter. In: Mullins, C. R., M. D.  Pairis-Garcia, M. R.  Campler, Manning, A., and J. Serpell, editors. Animals and human R.  Anthony, A. K.  Johnson, G. J.  Coleman, and J.- society: changing perspective. New York (NY): Routledge; L. Rault. 2018. The development of an interactive com- p. 145–165. puter-based training program for timely and humane Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018 262 Campler et al. On-farm pig euthanasia. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 5:1–8. Scotney, R. L., D. McLaughlin, and H. L. Keates. 2015. A systematic doi:10.3138/jvme.1216-191r review of the effects of euthanasia and occupational stress in National Pork Board (NPB) and American Association of personnel working with animals in animal shelters, veterinary Swine Veterinarians (AASV). 2008. On-farm euthanasia clinics, and biomedical research facilities. J. Am. Vet. Med. of swine: recommendations for the producer. Des Moines Assoc. 247:1121–1130. doi:10.2460/javma.247.10.1121 (IA): National Pork Board. Seabrook, M. F. 2001. The effect of the operational envir- National Pork Board (NPB). 2017. Common swine industry onment and operating protocols on the attitudes and audit: instructions, standards and audit tool. Des Moines behaviour of employed stockpersons. In: Hovi, M., (IA): National Pork Board. and M. Bouilhol, editors. Proceedings of the 3rd Rault, J. L., T. Holyoake, and G. Coleman. 2017. Stockperson NAHWOA Workshop, Human–Animal Relationship: attitudes toward pig euthanasia. J. Anim. Sci. 95:949–957. Stockmanship and Housing in Organic Livestock doi:10.2527/jas.2016.0922 Systems; October 21 to 24, 2000; Clermont-Ferrand, Rogelberg, S. G., N. DiGiacomo, C. L. Reeve, C. Spitzmuller, France. Reading (UK): University of Reading. p. 21–30. O. L.  Clark, L.  Teeter, A. G.  Walker, N. T.  Carter, and Thompson, A. E., and D.  Voyer. 2014. Sex differences in the P. G.  Starling. 2007. What shelters can do about eutha- ability to recognise non-verbal displays of emotion: a nasia-related stress: an examination of recommendations meta-analysis. Cogn. Emot. 28:1164–1195. doi:10.1080/0 from those on the front line. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2699931.2013.875889 10:331–347. doi:10.1080/10888700701353865 Turner, P. V., and G.  Doonan. 2010. Developing on-farm Rollin B. 1987. Euthanasia and moral stress. Loss, Grief and euthanasia plans. Can. Vet. J. 51:1031–1034. PMCID: Care 1:115–126. PMC2920162; PMID: 21119874. Translate basic science to industry innovation Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/tas/article-abstract/2/3/254/5059486 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 31 July 2018

Journal

Translational Animal Science – Oxford University Press

Published: Sep 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.