Animal Welfare Perception of Sheep Farmers and Consumers: The Case of Samsun Animal Welfare Perception

Main Article Content

Selime CANAN
Hüseyin Mert YÜKSEL


Animal welfare perception of farmers and consumers have been evaluated both by farmers and consumers level in Samsun province, Turkey. Face to face surveys with 151 sheep farmers and 150 consumers were carried out to collect information on welfare concerns and perceptions to determine how they viewed the effect of management, handling and control on production practices.  Factor analysis was conducted with 54 propositions to in order to determine the animal welfare perception for both focus groups. Finally, 5 factors with an eigenvalue greater than one were determined; (a) perception of shelter conditions, (b) perception of transportation and physical health, (c) perception of mental health, (d) perception of nutritional conditions, and (e) perception of animal handling in animal welfare. Animal welfare, shelter conditions, transportation, and physical and mental health perception levels significantly drop as the scale of sheep farms increase.75,5% of the farmers and 76,0% of consumers have heard of the concept of animal welfare before. Both groups had a positive attitude toward animal welfare.  There is no statistically significant difference in opinions of animal transportation and physical health between both groups. However, it has been determined that the breeders' perceptions of shelter conditions, mental health, nutritional conditions and animal handling are at a higher level. It is vital to provide animal welfare training as well as capacity development activities for farmers in order to enhance awareness on animal welfare and its relevance. Authors conclude that awareness on animal welfare should be provided for all type of citizens dynamics.

Article Details

How to Cite
CANAN, S., OCAK YETİŞGİN, S., & YÜKSEL, H. M. (2022). Animal Welfare Perception of Sheep Farmers and Consumers: The Case of Samsun: Animal Welfare Perception. Journal of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Animal Sciences, 3(1), 27-47. Retrieved from (Original work published June 1, 2022)