What Is The Difference Between Companion And Production Animals
Animals (Basel). 2020 Feb; 10(2): 199.
Opinions towards Companion Animals and Their Welfare: A Survey of Croation Veterinarian Students
Tomislav Mikuš
1Department of Hygiene, Technology and Food Prophylactic, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Heinzelova 55, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; rh.fev@sukimt
Mario Ostović
2Department of Animate being Hygiene, Behaviour and Welfare, Faculty of Veterinarian Medicine, Academy of Zagreb, Heinzelova 55, 10000 Zagreb, Republic of croatia; rh.fev@kelobasi (I.S.); rh.fev@voktamk (G.Chiliad.); rh.fev@cicivapz (Ž.P.)
Ivana Sabolek
2Section of Animal Hygiene, Behaviour and Welfare, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Heinzelova 55, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; rh.fev@kelobasi (I.S.); rh.fev@voktamk (K.M.); rh.fev@cicivapz (Ž.P.)
Kristina Matković
twoSection of Creature Hygiene, Behaviour and Welfare, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Heinzelova 55, 10000 Zagreb, Republic of croatia; rh.fev@kelobasi (I.S.); rh.fev@voktamk (K.M.); rh.fev@cicivapz (Ž.P.)
Željko Pavičić
2Department of Animal Hygiene, Behaviour and Welfare, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Academy of Zagreb, Heinzelova 55, 10000 Zagreb, Republic of croatia; rh.fev@kelobasi (I.S.); rh.fev@voktamk (Grand.K.); rh.fev@cicivapz (Ž.P.)
Ornella Mikuš
threeDepartment of Agricultural Economic science and Rural Development, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska cesta 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; rh.rga@sukimo
Željka Mesić
4Department of Marketing in Agriculture, Kinesthesia of Agriculture, Academy of Zagreb, Svetošimunska cesta 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; rh.rga@cisemz
Received 2019 Dec 19; Accustomed 2020 January 22.
Abstract
Uncomplicated Summary
Although veterinarians are expected to have the main role in ensuring the welfare of all animals, it has been established that their perception of animal welfare may vary regarding animate being species observed. To the best of our noesis, there is no literature report on a comprehensive study focusing solely on veterinary attitudes and opinions towards companion animal welfare. The present study included students of veterinarian medicine in Croatia and revealed them to take strongly positive opinions, with small-scale oscillations, towards companion animals and their welfare throughout the written report years. Written report results tin contribute to the knowledge of veterinary perception of animal welfare and their opinions and attitudes towards welfare of different animal species, including companion animals and welfare challenges present encountered in these species.
Abstract
This survey was the beginning one investigating opinions of veterinary students in Croatia towards companion animals and their welfare, with special reference to dogs and cats as the most popular companion animals in the European Wedlock. The study included students of all six years of the integrated undergraduate and graduate veterinary medicine written report programme in Republic of croatia. First-year students were surveyed twice, before and after having attended the course on creature welfare. Pupil opinions were assessed on the basis of their mean responses to v-bespeak Likert scale questions and frequency of responses to Yes/No/I practice not know questions and ratio calibration questions. Written report results revealed students to accept strongly positive opinions towards companion animals and their welfare. The majority of pupil statements did not differ significantly between the first and sixth written report years or earlier and after having attended the animal welfare course in the commencement written report year, mostly yielding a direct, non-fluctuating line. Students were not sure whether welfare of companion dogs and cats was compromised. Study results pointed to reliable and reasonable opinions of veterinarian medicine students in Croatia towards companion animals and their welfare, besides equally to the welfare issues these species may be facing present.
Keywords: animal welfare, survey, companion animals, cats, dogs, veterinary students
1. Introduction
Companion animals (CA) have been playing an increasingly important role in modern homo life. By definition, CA include all species that humans choose to share their lives and homes with [1]. CA are considered to have a primarily social role in the household or community, thus being distinguished from working or product animals. The term CA is based on human perception of the role and value of a particular animal rather than on the intrinsic quality of the animal itself [2].
The number of CA in the Western world has abruptly increased in the past few decades, with more 50% of households owning ane or more animals [3]. In the European union (European union), the nearly common CA species is cat with a population of approximately 75.three million (Chiliad), followed by dog (65.5 G), ornamental birds (35.6 M), pocket-size mammals (19.4 Chiliad), aquaria (ten.6 K) and reptiles (6.iii M) [4].
The ever-greater number and diverseness of CA certainly pose new challenges and crave additional efforts from veterinary profession. According to the latest Eurobarometer survey on the attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare [5], the majority of EU citizens (74%) including Croatian ones (79%) believe that CA welfare should exist meliorate protected.
Veterinarians are expected to have a crucial function in ensuring and promoting high animate being welfare standards [6,7]. However, the perception of fauna welfare among veterinarians may vary depending on the level of education and professional practice [8]. As animate being welfare is a relatively young field of science [ix], the education following this science is still being actively developed. Veterinary curricula are known to differ all over the world [10,11], provoking differences in the noesis and skills, equally well as attitudes and opinions of students, veterinarians-to-be, towards animal welfare.
Therefore, studies assessing attitudes and opinions of veterinary students and veterinarians towards beast welfare have been gaining importance, as confirmed by numerous papers published in recent years. Our previous study [12] showed generally concerned attitudes of veterinary students in Croatia towards farm animal welfare. Nevertheless, upon detailed assay of their attitudes, it appeared that they did not think rationally about the issue of subcontract animal welfare, as they might perceive these animals just equally food production animals, implying their practical value; this in particular held true for final-year students [13]. Lower attitudes towards animals and their welfare in veterinarian students at higher report years were also recorded in other studies [6,14,15,16]. In addition, previous studies showed veterinary students to express more positive attitudes and opinions towards CA welfare than towards farm animate being welfare [17,eighteen,19,20]. We wondered whether it also held true for Croatian veterinary students. The more so, searching the literature, we plant no comprehensive study on the attitudes and opinions of veterinarian students focused solely on different CA welfare issues.
Therefore, we embarked upon this study to investigate the opinions of veterinary students in Croatia towards CA and their welfare, and to see whether and how their opinions were modified over written report years.
ii. Materials and Methods
ii.1. Participants/Sample
The survey was conducted at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Academy of Zagreb, which is the only veterinary faculty in Croatia. Students of all six years of the integrated undergraduate and graduate veterinarian medicine written report programme were surveyed. Get-go-year students were surveyed twice, before and later having attended the compulsory twoscore-h Surround, Beast Behaviour, and Welfare course. This yielded full response rates of 93% (n = 513 students) and 91% (n = 505 students), respectively. Students of all half dozen report years had the aforementioned curriculum on animal welfare. The survey was voluntary, anonymous and canonical by the institutional Lath for Quality Management (for details, see Ostović et al. [12]).
2.ii. Questionnaire
The written questionnaire was composed of two parts (as presented in the Supplementary Materials). The first part included pupil demographics, i.e., age, sex, secondary schoolhouse completed, early on environment, owning or keeping companion animals, and preferred/chosen study track. The second part referred to 32 statements used to examine their opinions towards CA and their welfare, with special reference to dogs and cats every bit the predominant CA in EU. These statements were in the forms of five-point Likert calibration questions (i = fully disagree, 2 = disagree, iii = neutral/unsure, 4 = agree, and v = fully concord), Yes/No/I practice non know questions, and ratio scale questions. The questionnaire was pre-tested [12], with reliability (α) of 0.683.
2.3. Statistical Assay
Statistical data analysis was performed by use of SPSS v. 21.0 software. The frequencies of student responses were calculated by apply of univariate assay. Assessment of educatee opinions was based on the frequency of their responses to the Yes/No/I do not know questions and ratio calibration questions, and their mean responses to the Likert scale questions. Commencement-twelvemonth pupil responses recorded after having attended the course on animal welfare were taken into consideration on calculating full mean scores (the mean values across all study years). Wilcoxon signed-rank exam was used on testing differences between first-twelvemonth pupil responses to Likert scale questions before and afterward having attended the course on brute welfare, whereas differences in responses amidst all study years were tested by Kruskal–Wallis test and Isle of man–Whitney U-test. The value of p < 0.05 was considered significant in all tests.
3. Results
Study results are presented descriptively, graphically and in tables. Data analysis revealed that student responses to the majority of Likert scale questions varied among report years; all the same, summarizing the results obtained pointed to a detail pattern in student responses. Therefore, in order to nowadays student responses to Likert scale questions across study years as conspicuously as possible, we decided to report merely commencement- and sixth-yr student responses, and outset-yr educatee responses before and after having attended the course on animal welfare. The full hateful score still included responses of students of all half dozen study years but without responses of first-year students before attending the course on fauna welfare. The responses to the Likert calibration questions given by students of all study years are presented in the Supplementary Materials.
Demographic pupil profile co-ordinate to study years was shown in our previous study [12]. Briefly, 75.2% were females; 59.5% were aged 18–21 years; 82.iii% had completed high school; 74.nine% had urban background; 95.3% endemic or kept CA; and more than than half of the subjects (54%) preferred/chose CA study track. More than 60% of students treated their CA in a parental manner (Effigy 1), while 62.six% of student families allocated up to 50 € per month for CA feed.
Student human relationship (north = 505) with their own pet.
Students agreed that owning CA had a favourable bear upon on human being health and taught children to be responsible; therefore, according to their opinion, education on CA should exist included in kindergarten schedule. Students also considered that pet owners sometimes acted confronting CA welfare and compromised their welfare due to the lack of knowledge while meaning well. They were not sure whether each family unit should keep CA and whether their owners were well informed on CA and its needs before taking it. Students had neutral opinions towards the owners keeping more ane CA species and their ability to take due care of all their CA, equally well every bit on the issue of achieving the same level of emotional bonding with dissimilar CA species. In addition, students believed that CA and subcontract animals should be equally treated.
Upon having attended the form on creature welfare, offset-twelvemonth students were significantly less likely (W = 652, Z = -2.371, p = 0.02) to indicate that children should be educated on CA in kindergartens, but significantly more likely (West = 3551, Z = -2.309, p = 0.02) to state that the owners of more than one CA species could take due care of all their CA species. Last-year students also expressed significantly less positive opinions (U = 3518, Z = -2.458, p = 0.02) concerning the effect of children instruction on CA, just higher opinions (U = 3357, Z = -2.578, p = 0.01) on the pet owners occasionally interim against CA welfare deliberately, equally compared with first-year students before the grade on brute welfare. Moreover, last-year students showed a significantly lower rate of understanding on the issue of pet owners acquiring adequate information on CA and its housing, feeding, and care, every bit compared with offset-year students before (U = 2895, Z = -iii.776, p = 0.00) and afterward the course on brute welfare (U = 2866, Z = -3.355, p = 0.00). Because other statements listed in Tabular array 1, there were no significant differences in opinions betwixt starting time-year students before and/or afterwards the class on animal welfare and 6th-twelvemonth students.
Table 1
Student opinions towards full general statements on companion animals.
| Statement | Report Year | Total Score TS (n = 505) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First A (n = 143) | First B (north = 135) | Sixth (n = 60) | ||
| Mean * (SD) | ||||
| Keeping CA is benign for human being wellness | three.92 (1.26) | 4.04 (ane.12) | four.25 (1.x) | iv.32 (1.02) |
| Each family unit should have a CA | 3.35 (ane.47) | 3.28 (1.33) | 2.95 (1.49) | iii.42 (1.38) |
| Keeping CA teaches children to be responsible | 4.39 (0.86) | iv.32 (0.94) | four.03 (1.16) | iv.35 (0.93) |
| Children should be educated on CA in kindergartens | iv.65 a (0.61) | 4.44 b (0.89) | four.22 b (1.12) | iv.41 (0.91) |
| Before taking a CA, owners are thoroughly informed on CA and its needs | 3.18 a (one.twoscore) | three.14 a (1.46) | 2.xl b (ane.38) | 3.01 (1.46) |
| Owners sometimes deed against the CA welfare | 3.92 a (0.94) | four.04 (1.04) | 4.25 b (0.99) | iv.12 (0.97) |
| Owners sometimes compromise CA welfare, meaning well simply due to the lack of noesis | 4.12 (0.76) | 4.11 (i.02) | 4.fifteen (0.92) | 4.12 (0.94) |
| Owners of more than 1 CA species can take due care of all their CA | two.53 a (1.xviii) | two.81 b (1.32) | two.45 (1.35) | ii.82 (i.26) |
| The same level of emotional bonding can be achieved with all CA species | 2.87 (1.37) | 2.81 (one.28) | 2.90 (1.39) | two.95 (one.34) |
| CA deserve improve treatment than farm animals | 2.25 (ane.27) | 2.28 (1.forty) | 2.13 (1.26) | two.36 (1.36) |
Students believed that CA should not exist given to children younger than v years but at an older age, betwixt 6 and fifteen years (Effigy ii).
Historic period at which students (n = 505) believe children should be given a pet to have intendance of.
One-half of the study students (50.5%) considered that pet owners kept pedigree dogs or cats for profit, whereas 81% of them were ready to take a dog or cat from beast shelter, in which they would also like to work (62.four%); 64.2% of students were against the creature shelter kill policy; 64.6% of students considered CA exhibitions stressful for animals; and 58.half-dozen% of students were concerned about welfare of dogs and cats in commercial breeding establishments.
Students of all written report years believed that both dogs and cats were animals with loftier cerebral abilities; yet, students were not certain whether their welfare was compromised when kept as CA. Final-yr students were significantly less likely to believe that dogs were capable to think (U = 3785, Z = -ii.040, p = 0.04) and accept emotions (U = 3908, Z = -2.033, p = 0.04) merely were significantly more probable (U = 3611, Z = -two.099, p = 0.04) to believe that cats could accept emotions, as compared with start-year students earlier the grade on brute welfare. At that place were no meaning differences between first-yr educatee opinions towards the level of cognitive abilities in either dogs or cats before and after the course on animal welfare. Also, because their welfare compromise, no significant differences in commencement-yr student opinions before and after the course on animal welfare, or betwixt first- and 6th-year students were recorded (Table 2).
Table 2
Student opinions towards the level of cognitive abilities in dogs and cats and their welfare compromise.
| Argument | Report Year | Total Score TS (n = 505) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First A (north = 143) | First B (n = 135) | Sixth (n = 60) | |||
| Hateful * (SD) | |||||
| Idea procedure | Dogs | 4.83 a (0.46) | four.83 (0.45) | 4.67 b (0.66) | four.76 (0.56) |
| Cats | 4.42 (0.84) | 4.53 (0.81) | four.62 (0.59) | 4.54 (0.77) | |
| Emotions | Dogs | 4.93 a (0.28) | 4.85 (0.43) | 4.80 b (0.51) | 4.lxxx (0.54) |
| Cats | four.48 a (0.70) | four.53 (0.77) | 4.65 b (0.76) | iv.53 (0.82) | |
| Welfare compromise | Dogs | 2.99 (ane.12) | iii.24 (1.23) | iii.xx (1.23) | iii.09 (ane.23) |
| Cats | 2.90 (1.09) | 3.11 (1.11) | 3.00 (1.15) | 2.xc (i.16) | |
Students considered routine castration of dogs and cats justifiable but canis familiaris ear cropping and tail docking, cat declawing and dog tethering as savage practices. In that location were no significant differences in educatee responses to these statements in offset-twelvemonth students before and after the course on animal welfare, or betwixt start-year and sixth-twelvemonth students, with a note that the latter evaluated castration as a significantly more than justified exercise when compared with first-yr students either before (U = 3082, Z = -3.350, p = 0.00) or after the course on beast welfare (U = 2477, Z = -four.540, p = 0.00). Eating dogs and cats was unacceptable to Croatian veterinary students, all the same significantly less unacceptable (U = 3458, Z = -2.409, p = 0.02) to last-yr students every bit compared with commencement-year students before the course on animal welfare (Table three).
Table 3
Pupil opinions towards justifiability/cruelty of item practices because dog and cat welfare.
| Argument | Study Year | Total Score TS (n = 505) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outset A (n = 143) | Outset B (n = 135) | 6th (n = 60) | ||
| Hateful * (SD) | ||||
| Routine castration of dogs and cats is justifiable | 3.90 a (1.00) | 3.69 a (ane.05) | iv.38 b (0.83) | 4.01 (0.99) |
| Dog ear cropping and tail docking are savage | 4.06 (ane.04) | four.13 (0.99) | 3.90 (1.31) | four.07 (i.12) |
| Cat declawing is fell | 4.47 (0.81) | four.38 (0.85) | 4.17 (1.26) | 4.33 (0.99) |
| Dog tethering is cruel | iv.51 (i.00) | four.fifty (1.01) | 4.38 (1.20) | 4.42 (i.06) |
| Domestic dog and true cat consumption is cruel | four.xviiia (1.20) | 3.90 (1.34) | 3.77 b (one.29) | 3.93 (one.36) |
4. Discussion
Teaching veterinarian students is not merely an educational exercise just has a substantial role in the germination and learning of these professionals how to cope with the emotionally difficult aspects of veterinary work, as well every bit in the evolution of their attitudes and opinions towards animal welfare as the near important task of each veterinary practitioner [13,21,22]. To our knowledge, the present report is the starting time one addressing the opinions of Croation veterinary students towards CA and their welfare.
Written report results indicated that the greatest proportion of students preferred/chose the CA study track, which could be explained by their mostly urban background and previous experience with these animals, as almost all study subjects endemic or kept CA. The majority of students reported cooing and kissing their pets, having their photos in mobile phones, and spending up to l € monthly for pet feed. Serpell [23] reports on identical findings, suggesting that interactions with animals have strong influence on the development of values in veterinarian students. Izmirli et al. [24] also found keeping CA to be strongly associated with moral values in veterinary students, their determination to study veterinary medicine and their satisfaction with veterinary curriculum. Like results on owning CA by veterinarian students have been reported by Magnani et al. [19] as well. Another reason for veterinary students aspiring at having their career focused on CA could be that the written report is predominated by female students who are mainly familiar with CA and strive to piece of work with species other than farm animals [20]. The more so, considering the livestock reduction in Republic of croatia [25], veterinary students can be expected to choose the CA segment of veterinarian medicine, which has a stable foundation and is developing at a fast rate. Accordingly, more than than 60% of our students recognized shelter medicine as their potential career. It is no surprise considering it is a rapidly growing discipline of veterinary medicine [26,27]. The readiness of students to work in animal shelter points to their high level of empathy for homeless animals (more than lxxx% of students were willing to take a shelter animal) and the challenges encountered in this activity, while suggesting that students have been properly prepared for labour market considering shelter work is very demanding, both emotionally and professionally. A shelter veterinarian is expected to be very practiced in many fields of veterinary medicine, such as emergency care, internal medicine, surgery, infectious diseases, behavioural health and epidemiology [27,28].
Owning a pet is known to teach children to exist responsible and affects their zipper, resulting in children'due south positive attitudes towards animals later in life [29,30,31]. As the bulk of negative attitudes towards animals initially develop in early on periods of life, educational programmes should foster the knowledge and positive attitudes towards animals already in kindergarten children [32]. Our students concur with this opinion but considering that pets and care for them should be delegated to children only at the historic period of vi or fifty-fifty later, which is in line with other contempo studies. Almeida et al. [33] suggest that children anile 8–10 years tend to misinterpret the meaning of item animal behaviours. Muldoon et al. [34] besides found younger children in the vii–13 age group to be focused generally on facial expressions of CA while beingness capable of recognizing only if their animal is hungry, whereas older children emphasized emotional distress associated with experiences such equally loneliness or homesickness.
Our students support the statement that keeping CA has many benefits for mental and physical health of their owners, as confirmed by numerous reports (due east.thousand., [35,36,37,38]). They neither agree nor disagree whether each family should accept CA, which is consistent with their neutral opinion on the issue whether CA owners acquire adequate information on the respective CA and its needs and whether the owners of more than i CA species tin can have intendance of all their CA properly. Indeed, information technology may eventually pb to the CA failing to meet the owner's expectations, impaired pet welfare and irresponsible pet ownership, breaking the owner-animal human relationship, and at the worst animal relinquishment. Previous studies have pointed to the need for targeted didactics of the potential pet owners to ensure their expectations exist aligned with the reality of pet ownership [39] and to reduce relinquishments [forty]. For example, Plitman et al. [41] found that owners of brachycephalic cats were less inclined to get due information prior to buying the cat and that, one time owning information technology, they did not consider their cats healthy (in particular due to their skin and centre status), as compared with the owners of other pedigree cats. These owners also recommended their breed to other people less frequently, probably considering of the poor health experiences and/or high maintenance requirements.
Our students believe that pet owners sometimes act confronting animal welfare out of ignorance, or occasionally even deliberately compromise their welfare; however, the line between these two categories may frequently be hardly perceivable. Pet feeding is a typical case referring to both these problems. Many owners feed their pets with inappropriate food and/or excessive amounts of nutrient, thus predisposing obesity as the most common nutritional disorder in dogs and cats [42,43,44], major welfare upshot and Ane Health problem [45,46]. In their report, Kipperman and German [47] argue that it is veterinarian duty and responsibleness to address CA obesity.
The reason to have a pedigree CA can as well be profit for their owners [48], and half of our veterinary students agree with this statement. In improver, they believe that current pedigree dog and true cat breeding practices heighten many welfare concerns, which has been extensively discussed lately all over the world [49,50,51]. Pedigree animals may announced in breed shows, which can exist stressful for animals [52], as justifiably stated past the students besides. Information technology has been reported that dissonance, novelty, ship, grooming, immobilization or restricted housing atmospheric condition can act as stressors on animals, eliciting responses in behavioural, cardiovascular, endocrine, renal, gastrointestinal and haematological parameters [53].
Students expressed neutral opinions on whether the same level of emotional zipper could exist established with dissimilar CA species. The report by Mueller [54] showed the homo to brute relationship to vary depending on animal species, and the brute species endemic by the person to influence his/her attitudes concerning emotional attachment with different animate being species. As reported by Borgi and Cirulli [55], the ability of CA to bail with humans is considered as meeting the homo demand for attention and emotional attachment, thus sharing similar psychological and adaptive functions as human-human being friendship. Sevillano and Fiske [56] investigated how humans perceived different animal species regarding warmth and competence. Dogs were rated every bit the warmest and most competent species. In the report by Phillips et al. [57], domestic dog was likewise perceived as a species of high sentience, beingness ranked just after man babe and chimpanzee. Moreover, the study by Smolkovic et al. [58] revealed canis familiaris owners to be more than attached to their pets as compared to cat owners. The reason for such a specific human-domestic dog bond might be found in the social cognitive abilities that humans and dogs may share, in item, visual cues in communication [59,60,61].
In the report by Magnani et al. [xix], veterinary students ranked the level of domestic dog and cat welfare highest among all brute species investigated; yet, along with ruminants, these species raised most animal welfare concerns in students. The authors explained it by the previously reported veterinary student perception of the high cognitive abilities in dogs and cats [17]. Our students besides firmly believe that dogs and cats are animals with high cognitive abilities but are indecisive when asked almost their welfare compromise in full general. This finding may suggest the arising welfare challenges in companion dogs and cats, faced past veterinarian students in Croatia.
Levine et al. [17] found veterinarian students to consider various procedures including surgical procedures performed on animals more humane for farm mammals than for dogs and cats. Comparison of the results obtained in the current study with those recorded in our previous report on farm animals [12] reveals like opinions in Croatian veterinary students; in improver, our students consider the procedures performed on poultry to be more humane equally compared with dogs and cats. Withal, our students consider routine castration of dogs and cats a justifiable surgical procedure, which is consistent with the results of the written report conducted by Hedge et al. [62].
Our veterinarian students consider ear cropping and tail docking in dogs cruel procedures. Cropping and docking are prohibited in many countries as these practices are found unnecessary, painful and brutal [63,64], although illegal cases all the same exist [65]. As reported past Sinmez et al. [63], it volition take time to modify mentality of a subgroup of veterinarians about the issue, to get the truthful and caring professionals and defenders of beast welfare and veterinarian societies. Declawing in cats is another controversial animal welfare outcome [66,67], also considered barbarous procedure past our students. Moreover, students besides consider canis familiaris tethering a cruel practice. In terms of welfare, penning provides no improvement either [68]. According to the Brute Protection Act in the Commonwealth of Croatia [69], dog ear cropping and tail docking, and cat declawing are prohibited procedures, except for medical reasons and in hunting dogs, in line with cynology standards. Besides this, continuous dog tethering and penning without ensuring free motion are prohibited. Furthermore, with the higher up-mentioned Human action, no impale policy in animal shelters has been adopted, except for justifiable cases, every bit also supported by the majority of our veterinary students.
In Croatia, killing dogs and cats for food and other products is prohibited [69], and their consumption in some parts of the globe is not acceptable to our students. Differences in consuming various animal species in detail parts of the world can be attributed to cultural variations that are known to affect human perception [57,70], including veterinarian students [24] of animals and their welfare.
Pregnant differences in opinions towards CA and their welfare found in this study were recorded more frequently between start-twelvemonth and last-twelvemonth students than in first-year students before and after having attended the course on beast welfare, mostly with lower response values in final-year students. Notwithstanding, for example, last-year students ranked the statement that pet owners sometimes acted confronting CA welfare significantly college, suggesting that students gathered experience and knowledge most CA throughout their study in spite of the potential empathy decline occurring in veterinary students at college written report years, known every bit emotional hardening [6,14,fifteen,16]. Withal, in that location were no significant differences in opinions on the majority of statements including opinions towards general welfare compromise in dogs and cats in first-year students before and subsequently the form on beast welfare or betwixt first-year and terminal-year students. This finding shows that veterinary student opinions towards CA and their welfare were constant throughout the study.
Students hold with the public opinion [5] that CA and farm animals, in general, deserve equal treatment concerning beast welfare. A similar finding has been reported past Serpell [23]. Nonetheless, comparing current results with those obtained in a previous study [12], it appears that now they have more positive opinions towards CA.
5. Conclusions
The results of this survey advise that veterinary students in Republic of croatia have strongly positive opinions towards CA and their welfare. They actually maintained such opinions from the very outset to the cease of their study, with some pocket-sized oscillations, indicating stability of their opinions irrespective of education and related experiences, forth with their great involvement to work in this field of veterinary medicine. Information technology is supported past the finding that students were not sure whether welfare of companion dogs and cats was compromised, suggesting that they identified and thought about welfare issues that nowadays can as well involve these species. The results obtained can contribute to the knowledge of veterinary opinions and attitudes towards creature welfare and their perception of welfare issues in unlike beast species, including companion animals. The investigation was conducted every bit a descriptive, cross-exclusive study. To obtain more authentic results, a longitudinal report including the same students from the beginning to the cease of their study should be performed. In improver, farther studies should include gauging behaviours and values (i.east., affective abilities) such as empathy to measure out their attitudes and investigate the association between variables and their effect on student attitudes and behaviours.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the students having participated in the survey.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, T.Yard. and Thousand.O.; methodology and investigation, T.G., M.O., G.M. and Ž.P.; information entry and curation, T.1000. and K.O.; statistical analysis, Ž.M.; writing—original draft preparation, T.1000., M.O. and I.South.; writing—review and editing, K.Yard., Ž.P. and O.Grand. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of involvement.
References
3. Enders-Slegers M.-J., Hediger K. Pet buying and human-animal interaction in an aging population: Rewards and challenges. Anthrozoös. 2019;32:255–265. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2019.1569907. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
v. EC . Special Eurobarometer 442 Written report. European Commission; Brussels, Kingdom of belgium: 2016. Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare. [Google Scholar]
6. Menor-Campos D.J., Diverio S., Sánchez-Muñoz C., López-Rodríguez R., Gazzano A., Palandri L., Mariti C. Attitudes toward animals of students at 3 European veterinarian medicine schools in Italy and Spain. Anthrozoös. 2019;32:375–385. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2019.1598658. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
seven. Menor-Campos D.J., Knight S., Sánchez-Muñoz C., López-Rodríguez R. Human-directed empathy and attitudes toward creature use: A survey of Castilian veterinary students. Anthrozoös. 2019;32:471–487. doi: x.1080/08927936.2019.1621518. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Luño I., Palacio J., García-Belenguer S., González-Martínez Á., Rosado B. Perception of canine welfare concerns amid veterinary students, practitioners, and behavior specialists in Kingdom of spain. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2017;44:217–222. doi: 10.3138/jvme.0516-097R1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Mikuš T., Radeski M., Cziszter Fifty.T., Dimitrov I., Jurkovich V., Nenadović K., Ostović M., Zupan M., Kirchner Thousand.Thousand. The Danube region–On stream with brute welfare assessment in the last 35 years: A review of inquiry on animate being welfare assessment in a multi-lingual area in Europe. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2018;31:511–526. doi: 10.1007/s10806-018-9737-iv. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
x. Hewson C.J., Baranyiová E., Broom D.1000., Cockram M.Southward., Galindo F., Hanlon A.J., Hänninen L., Lexer D., Mellor D.J., Molento C.F.K., et al. Approaches to education animal welfare at 13 veterinary schools worldwide. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2005;32:422–437. doi: 10.3138/jvme.32.iv.422. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Illmann Yard., Keeling L., Melišová M., Šimečková Yard., Ilieski V., Winckler C., Košt'ál 50., Meunier-Salaün Chiliad.-C., Mihina Š., Spoolder H., et al. Mapping farm fauna welfare education at university level in Europe. Anim. Welf. 2014;23:401–410. doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.4.401. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Ostović M., Mesić Ž., Mikuš T., Matković K., Pavičić Ž. Attitudes of veterinary students in Croatia toward farm animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2016;25:21–28. doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.i.021. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Ostovic M., Mikus T., Pavicic Z., Matkovic K., Mesic Z. Influence of socio-demographic and experiential factors on the attitudes of Croatian veterinarian students towards subcontract animal welfare. Vet. Med.-Czech. 2017;62:417–428. doi: x.17221/172/2016-VETMED. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Paul E.Due south., Podberscek A.50. Veterinary education and students' attitudes towards animal welfare. Vet. Rec. 2000;146:269–272. doi: 10.1136/vr.146.ten.269. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
fifteen. Pollard-Williams S., Doyle R.East., Freire R. The influence of workplace learning on attitudes toward brute welfare in veterinary students. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2014;41:253–257. doi: x.3138/jvme.0114-006R1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Colombo E.S., Pelosi A., Prato-Previde Eastward. Empathy towards animals and belief in animal-homo-continuity in Italian veterinary students. Anim. Welf. 2016;25:275–286. doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.2.275. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Levine E.D., Mills D.S., Houpt K.A. Attitudes of veterinary students at one Us college toward factors relating to farm animal welfare. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2005;32:481–490. doi: 10.3138/jvme.32.four.481. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xviii. Hazel S.J., Signal T.D., Taylor N. Can teaching veterinarian and animal-scientific discipline students most creature welfare affect their mental attitude toward animals and human-related empathy? J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2011;38:74–83. doi: 10.3138/jvme.38.1.74. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Magnani D., Ferri North., Dalmau A., Messori South. Cognition and opinions of veterinary students in Italy toward animal welfare science and police. Vet. Rec. 2017;180:225. doi: ten.1136/vr.103938. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xx. Mariti C., Pirrone F., Albertini M., Gazzano A., Diverio South. Familiarity and interest in working with livestock decreases the odds of having positive attitudes towards non-homo animals and their welfare amid veterinary students in Italy. Animals. 2018;8:150. doi: 10.3390/ani8090150. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Tannenbaum J. Veterinary medical ethics: A focus of conflicting interests. J. Soc. Issues. 1993;49:143–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00914.10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Main D.C.J., Appleby M.C., Wilkins D.B., Paul E.S. Essential veterinarian education in the welfare of food product animals. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2009;28:611–616. doi: x.20506/rst.28.2.1900. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Serpell J. Factors influencing veterinary students' career choices and attitudes to animals. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2005;32:491–496. doi: 10.3138/jvme.32.four.491. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Izmirli S., Yigit A., Phillips C.J.C. Attitudes of Australian and Turkish students of veterinary medicine toward nonhuman animals and their careers. Soc. Anim. 2014;22:580–601. doi: ten.1163/15685306-12341352. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Foley J.East. The educational discipline of shelter medicine. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2003;xxx:379–382. doi: ten.3138/jvme.30.4.379. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Stevens B.J., Gruen Grand.E. Training veterinary students in shelter medicine: A service-learning customs-classroom technique. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2014;41:83–89. doi: x.3138/jvme.0813-105R. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Shivley J.Yard., Brookshire Westward.C., Bushby P.A., Woodruff K.A. Clinically prepared veterinary students: Enhancing veterinary pupil hands-on experiences and supporting hospital caseload using shelter medicine programme. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018;v:95. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00095. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Paul E.Due south., Serpell J.A. Childhood pet keeping and humane attitudes in immature adulthood. Anim. Welf. 1993;two:321–337. [Google Scholar]
thirty. Daly B., Morton L.L. An investigation of human being-animal interactions and empathy every bit related to pet preference, ownership, attachment, and attitudes in children. Anthrozoös. 2006;19:113–127. doi: x.2752/089279306785593801. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Hawkins R.D., Williams J.M. Scottish Guild for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Scottish SPCA). Childhood attachment to pets: Associations betwixt pet attachment, attitudes to animals, compassion, and humane behaviour. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2017;14:490. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14050490. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Borgi 1000., Cirulli F. Attitudes toward animals among kindergarten children: Species preferences. Anthrozoös. 2015;28:45–59. doi: 10.2752/089279315X14129350721939. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Almeida A., Vasconcelos C., Strecht-Ribeiro O. Attitudes toward animals: A written report of Portuguese children. Anthrozoös. 2014;27:173–190. doi: 10.2752/175303714X13903827487403. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Muldoon J.C., Williams J.M., Lawrence A. Exploring children's perspectives on the welfare needs of pet animals. Anthrozoös. 2016;29:357–375. doi: x.1080/08927936.2016.1181359. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Barker S.B., Wolen A.R. The benefits of human-companion animal interaction: A review. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2008;35:487–495. doi: x.3138/jvme.35.4.487. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. O'Haire M. Companion animals and human health: Benefits, challenges, and the road ahead. J. Vet. Behav. 2010;5:226–234. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.02.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Bao Yard.J., Schreer G. Pets and happiness: Examining the association betwixt pet ownership and wellbeing. Anthrozoös. 2016;29:283–296. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2016.1152721. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Brooks H.L., Rushton K., Lovell Thousand., Bee P., Walker Fifty., Grant L., Rogers A. The power of support from companion animals for people living with mental health issues: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;eighteen:31. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1613-2. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Powell L., Chia D., McGreevy P., Podberscek A.L., Edwards K.Thousand., Neilly B., Guastella A.J., Lee V., Stamatakis E. Expectations for domestic dog ownership: Perceived physical, mental and psychosocial health consequences amongst prospective adopters. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0200276. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200276. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
twoscore. Scarlett J.1000., Salman Chiliad.D., New J.G., Jr., Kass P.H. Reasons for relinquishment of companion animals in U.S. animal shelters: Selected health and personal issues. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1999;2:41–57. doi: ten.1207/s15327604jaws0201_4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Plitman Fifty., Černá P., Farnworth M.J., Packer R.M.A., Gunn-Moore D.A. Motivation of owners to purchase pedigree cats, with specific focus on the acquisition of brachycephalic cats. Animals. 2019;nine:394. doi: 10.3390/ani9070394. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. German A.J. The growing problem of obesity in dogs and cats. J. Nutr. 2006;136:S1940–S1946. doi: 10.1093/jn/136.7.1940S. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Zoran D.L. Obesity in dogs and cats: A metabolic and endocrine disorder. Vet. Clin. North. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2010;40:221–239. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2009.ten.009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Downes M.J., Devitt C., Downes M., Downes M.T., More South.J. Understanding the context for pet cat and domestic dog feeding and exercising behaviour amid pet owners in Ireland: A qualitative report. Ir. Vet. J. 2017;lxx:29. doi: 10.1186/s13620-017-0107-8. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. German language A. Obesity in companion animals. Practise. 2010;32:42–fifty. doi: 10.1136/inp.b5665. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Sandøe P., Palmer C., Corr S., Astrup A., Bjørnvad C.R. Canine and feline obesity: A One Wellness perspective. Vet. Rec. 2014;175:610–616. doi: x.1136/vr.g7521. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Kipperman B.S., German language A.J. The responsibility of veterinarians to address companion fauna obesity. Animals. 2018;viii:143. doi: x.3390/ani8090143. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Slater M.R., Di Nardo A., Pediconi O., Dalla Villa P., Candeloro Fifty., Alessandrini B., Del Papa Southward. Cat and dog buying and management patterns in fundamental Italian republic. Prev. Vet. Med. 2008;85:267–294. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.02.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Rooney N.J., Sargan D.R. Welfare concerns associated with pedigree canis familiaris breeding in the Great britain. Anim. Welf. 2010;19:133–140. [Google Scholar]
50. Sonntag Q., Overall K.L. Key determinants of dog and cat welfare: Behaviour, breeding and household lifestyle. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2014;33:213–220. doi: 10.20506/rst.33.1.2270. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Bovenkerk B., Nijland H.J. The pedigree dog breeding debate in ethics and practise: Beyond welfare arguments. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2017;30:387–412. doi: 10.1007/s10806-017-9673-viii. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Pastore C., Pirrone F., Balzarotti F., Faustini M., Pierantoni L., Albertini M. Evaluation of physiological and behavioral stress-dependent parameters in agility dogs. J. Vet. Behav. 2011;6:188–194. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.01.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Beerda B., Schilder One thousand.B.H., van Hooff J.A.R.A.M., de Vries H.W. Manifestations of chronic and acute stress in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997;52:307–319. doi: x.1016/S0168-1591(96)01131-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. Mueller M.One thousand. The relationship betwixt types of man-animal interaction and attitudes about animals: An exploratory study. Anthrozoös. 2014;27:295–308. doi: x.2752/175303714X13903827487728. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Borgi Grand., Cirulli F. Pet face: Mechanisms underlying human-animal relationships. Front. Psychol. 2016;7:298. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00298. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
56. Sevillano V., Fiske Southward.T. Warmth and competence in animals. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2016;46:276–293. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12361. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. Phillips C.J.C., Izmirli S., Aldavood S.J., Alonso M., Choe B.I., Hanlon A., Handziska A., Illmann G., Keeling Fifty., Kennedy M., et al. Students' attitudes to fauna welfare and rights in Europe and Asia. Anim. Welf. 2012;21:87–100. doi: 10.7120/096272812799129466. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
58. Smolkovic I., Fajfar M., Mlinaric Five. Zipper to pets and interpersonal relationships. J. Eur. Psychol. Stud. 2012;iii:15–23. doi: ten.5334/jeps.ao. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
59. Hare B., Tomasello Thou. Human-like social skills in dogs. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005;ix:439–444. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
sixty. Nagasawa M., Mogi 1000., Kikusui T. Attachment between humans and dogs. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 2009;51:209–221. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5884.2009.00402.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
61. Kujala M.Five. Canine emotions equally seen through human being social knowledge. Anim. Sentience. 2017;14:1–35. [Google Scholar]
62. Hedge Z.Due north., Bossong F., Gordon-Ross P.N., Kovacs South.J. Exploring the effects of participation in a shelter medicine externship on student knowledge and self-confidence. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2019;46:4–xiii. doi: 10.3138/jvme.0417-056r. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
63. Sinmez C.C., Yigit A., Aslim G. Tail docking and ear cropping in dogs: A short review of laws and welfare aspects in the Europe and Turkey. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2017;16:431–437. doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2017.1291284. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
64. Mellor D.J. Tail docking of canine puppies: Reassessment of the tail's office in communication, the acute pain acquired by docking and interpretation of behavioural responses. Animals. 2018;8:82. doi: x.3390/ani8060082. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
65. Gaines Southward. Reporting illegal ear cropping in dogs. Vet. Rec. 2018;182:577. doi: 10.1136/vr.k2135. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
66. Swiderski J. Onychectomy and its alternatives in the feline patient. Clin. Tech. Small Anim. Pract. 2002;17:158–161. doi: 10.1053/svms.2002.36604. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
67. Ruch-Gallie R., Hellyer P.W., Schoenfeld-Tacher R., Kogan L.R. Survey of practices and perceptions regarding feline onychectomy among private practitioners. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2016;249:291–298. doi: 10.2460/javma.249.three.291. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
68. Yeon S.C., Golden G., Sung W., Erb H.N., Reynolds A.J., Houpt M.A. A comparison of tethering and pen solitude of dogs. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2001;4:257–270. doi: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0404_03. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
lxx. Phillips C.J.C., McCulloch S. Student attitudes on animal sentience and utilise of animals in club. J. Biol. Educ. 2005;forty:17–24. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2005.9656004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7070996/
Posted by: mcelroywitaysen.blogspot.com
0 Response to "What Is The Difference Between Companion And Production Animals"
Post a Comment