Paper

Knowledge and opinions of veterinary studentsin Italy toward animal welfare science and lawD. Magnani, N. Ferri, A. Dalmau, S. Messori

Animal welfare (AW) is a growing concern worldwide and veterinary students are expectedto demonstrate a high degree of professional interest in the welfare of animals. However,previous studies have highlighted gaps in the teaching of AW teaching in different countries,possibly impairing veterinary competency in the area. This survey aimed to assess theopinions of Italian veterinary students towards AW, as well as their knowledge on the issue.Questions were divided into different sections, investigating the definition of, andinformation on, AW, knowledge about AW legislation, and the level of tolerance towards AWin regard to the use of animals for different purposes. Results showed that behaviour wasthe most frequently used word to define AW. Italian students considered their own level ofknowledge on AW as good, relying on their university training, websites and television. Theyrequested more AW legislation, but when questioned on specifics of the current legislation,there was a general lack of knowledge. Although poultry, pigs and rabbits were consideredthe species experiencing the worst management conditions, the species that raised the mostAW concerns were companion animals and cattle. Results from this investigation may allowthe development of tailored actions aimed at appropriately implementing educationalstrategies, at national and international levels, to improve the role of future veterinarians asleaders in AW.

IntroductionAnimal welfare (AW) is an issue of growing importance inEurope, despite there being conflicting opinions on the subject(Mazas and others 2013, Dalla Villa and others 2014). The mostwidely accepted definition of AW comprises the state of theanimal’s body (e.g. concerning its fitness and health), mind (e.g.concerning its feelings and preferences), and the extent to whichthe animal’s nature can be expressed (e.g. in relation to itsnatural behaviour) (Duncan and Fraser 1997). The attitude ofanimal users in society largely depends on the education receivedat an early age. Other aspects, such as the training received, per-sonal experiences, general beliefs and philosophical ideas alsoinfluence attitudes (Broom 2005). The process by which societiesadapt to increasing knowledge about the mental and physicalcapacities of animals and the ways in which they are affected byhuman activities has been described as a journey. While differentcountries and regions are at various stages of this journey, allsocieties are unified by an increasing awareness of, and concernfor, AW (Mellor and Webster 2014). Pressure from the globalcommunity to make AWa fundamental part of veterinary educa-tion started more than 10 years ago (Estol 2004). During thatperiod, the veterinary definition of AW stood in contrast to the

holistic one developed by AW scientists (among whom veterinar-ians were only a minority); hence, questions emerged concerningthe level of information of veterinary students on non-physicalaspects of AW, and the possible negative consequences that thismight have had on the animals themselves (Hewson 2005). Asglobal understanding and concern for AW continues to change,the role of the veterinary community should evolve accordinglyin this regard. The World Veterinary Association (WVA) takesthe position that the veterinary community generally, and veter-inarians individually, must maintain their commitment to AWand fulfil their duties as animal advocates and leaders in the fieldof welfare. In fact, the WVA supports the integration of AWandAW science into veterinary undergraduate education, elevatingAWas one of the ‘day 1’ competencies for all graduate veterinar-ians (World Veterinary Association 2014).

The understanding of veterinary students’ attitudes towardfarm AW, as well as their knowledge of the welfare impact ofcertain husbandry and clinical practices, is fundamental (Heleskiand others 2005). In the last decade, many researchers haveinvestigated what should be taught about AW and how (Lordand Walker 2009, Molento and Calderon 2009, Main 2010,Abood and Siegford 2012, Morton and others 2013). As indicatedby Špinka (2012), there are many differences in farm AW univer-sity education and research across Europe, and this goeshand-in-hand with gaps in farm AWawareness and implementa-tion. These differences can lead to variations in the levels ofknowledge and skills and, thus, in competence for future profes-sionals such as veterinarians. The EU-funded project AWAREdrew a clear picture of AW education at the university level inEurope, providing multiple pieces of evidence that more inten-sive education on the welfare of farm animals is provided innorth-west Europe than in any other region (Illman and others2014). There is little information on veterinary students’

Veterinary Record (2017) doi: 10.1136/vr.103938

D. Magnani, PhD,N. Ferri,S. Messori, PhD,Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentaledell’Abruzzo e del Molise“G. Caporale”, Campo Boario,64100 Teramo, ItalyA. Dalmau, PhD,

IRTA, Veïnat de Sies s/n E-17121,Monells, Girona, Spain

E-mail for correspondence:diegomag18@yahoo.it

Provenance: Not commissioned;externally peer reviewed

Accepted November 21, 2016

March 4, 2017 | Veterinary Record

Paper on S

eptember 24, 2020 by guest. P

rotected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bm

j.com/

Veterinary R

ecord: first published as 10.1136/vr.103938 on 7 February 2017. D

ownloaded from

awareness and their sensitivity to AW. Relatively few articles areavailable in the scientific literature regarding veterinarians’ atti-tudes towards certain welfare issues, e.g. the use of animals inresearch and animal pain (Sabuncuoglu and Coban 2008). To thebest of the authors’ knowledge, no published articles exist inves-tigating the attitudes of Italian veterinary students toward farmAW.

The attitude and sensitivity of veterinarians towards welfareissues is fundamental in whichever capacity they work, be it asresearchers or practitioners or in reference centres, since they setan example for the layperson and have an opportunity toimprove the welfare status of animals throughout the country(Sabuncuoglu and Coban 2008). Assessing the attitudes andinterest of veterinarians on AW will enable educational and train-ing strategies to be adapted towards developing positive andrespectful practices to the treatment of animals, in line withmodern AW concepts.

Given the anticipated differences in the farm AW curriculabetween European countries, and the lack of information on AWeducation in southern European countries, this study aims toinvestigate the knowledge and interest in AW issues of Italianveterinary students. A survey was carried out in 12 veterinaryschools in Italy to gather quantitative and qualitative informa-tion, assessing how students regard AW and how much they areinterested and aware about AW issues. In addition, the knowl-edge of Italian veterinary students on EU AW legislation wasinvestigated.

Materials and methodsData collectionFrom October 2014 to January 2015, all the 13 Italian Schools ofVeterinary Medicine were contacted by email and telephone byresearchers of the Istituto Zooprofilattico di Abruzzo e Molise‘G. Caporale’ (IZS), who made an appointment to distribute thequestionnaire among students. This methodology was preferredto use of an online questionnaire or email distribution toimprove the data collection, since a low response rate was foundin previous research of this nature (see Sheehan 2004 for areview). The presence of one of the researchers in the classroomensured that the students answered autonomously and that anyissues regarding interpretation could be clarified immediately.

Twelve of the 13 faculties agreed to participate in the study.The questionnaire was administered to fourth year students.Before the survey, students were introduced to the objectives andpurpose of the study and informed that the results obtainedwould be used for scientific and educational purposes. Studentparticipation was voluntary and anonymous.

In Italy, veterinary academic education lasts five years, andduring their last year students specialise in different areas.Fourth year students were chosen because normally, at thatstage, Italian veterinary students have already approached AWtopics and thus have a comparable level of knowledge.

Survey descriptionThe questionnaire was based upon the ‘EDUCAWEL-Study oneducation and information activities on AW’ (DG SANTE 2016).Questions were both closed-ended and open-ended, and weredivided into four sections (see online supplementary annex 1).

Section 1 consisted of five questions. The first question (Q1)was open, and asked students to provide a definition of ‘animalwelfare’. For questions in the first section, students had toanswer using a five-point scale, rating from null (1) to very high(5) the level of different adjectives (e.g. informed, interested).The remaining questions included self-evaluation of personalknowledge about AW (Q2), personal opinion on AW conditionsfor different species (Q3) and the level of concern about eachone of the different species in the previous question (Q4). Inaddition, they were asked to indicate which information sourceswere available to students in relation to AW and to score theirreliability on a 1 to 5 scale (Q5).

The second section concerned the EU AW legislative frame-work (Directives 98/58EC, 2007/43EC, 2008/119EC, 2008/120EC, and Regulations 1/2005EC and 1099/2009EC).Twenty-two closed questions (Yes/No/I don’t know) aimed atinvestigating the students’ level of knowledge about some of thespecific contents of the different pieces of legislation: the respon-dents were asked if a named topic was covered under one of thementioned norms. The percentage of correct answers was usedin the analysis as new variables (Q6). In addition, a questionasking an opinion about the adequacy of the existing legislationon AW was included in this section; thus students were asked ifthey believed that these norms should be more restrictive,answering either ‘surely yes’, ‘probably yes’, ‘probably not’,‘surely not’, or ‘I don’t know’ (Q7).

The statements in the third section were designed to assessthe respondents’ personal beliefs on a variety of welfare topics,such as the use of animals in particular practices. All 10 ques-tions were answered on a 1 to 5 Likert scale, expressing the levelof agreement to the statement provided (from 5 being ‘stronglyagree’ to 1 being ‘strongly disagree’) (Mueller 1986). For eachrespondent, the average of the score provided to all questions ofthis section was calculated and used as a new variable (Q8).

The last section aimed to obtain basic information about thestudents, including their age, sex, city of residence (includingsize, i.e. city vs. town, and geographical area, i.e. south, centre ornorth) and university attended. Lastly, some additional questionsabout the students’ previous experiences with, for example, theownership of pets and any links to farm environments (having afarmer as family member, their area of upbringing [urban, rural])were included. This section allowed for a more detailed profile ofthe students.

Statistical analysisTo facilitate the analysis of the answers to the open question(Q1), the most cited words and their synonymous were collectedand assigned to one or more related concepts, as was done forfree text questions in previous studies (Berg 2001, Heleski andothers 2005). The effect of the student profile on the first andsecond sections (Q1 to Q7) was analysed using a multinomialPROC GENMOD of SAS with the statistical significance set atP<0.05.

Correlations between Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q8 were calculatedusing the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs); the prob-ability of rejecting the null hypothesis was set at 0.001.

Since the datasets were not parametric, the Friedman test(P<0.001) was used to compare the average interest of student(Q3) and AW level (Q4) for different species. Finally, theWilcoxon signed rank test was used for species pair comparison(P<0.05).

ResultsWhen the study was implemented, the average number of stu-dents per class was 56 and more than 60 per cent of the totalwere interviewed. A total of 441 students (out of 685) partici-pated in the survey (Table 1); 68 per cent of the sample werefemale, and the average age was 24 years old (±1.8 sd).Additional profile information is presented in Table 2.

Ninety-six percent (n=416) of the students answered theopen question ‘What do you think animal welfare means?’ (Q1).The word ‘Behaviour ’ was mentioned by 23 per cent of thesample, followed by ‘Psychophysical equilibrium’ (22 per cent),‘Respect’ (19 per cent) and ‘Health’ (17 per cent). Some students(11 per cent) mentioned the concept of ‘Five Freedoms’. AW wasrelated to ‘Husbandry practices’ for 10 per cent of the intervie-wees, whereas few of them referred to legislative (2 per cent) orgenetic manipulation (0.6 per cent) issues (Fig 1). No differencesbased on the students’ personal profile emerged for frequency ofuse of words.

Most students self-evaluated their personal knowledge onAW (Q2) as 3 (47 per cent) and 4 (38 per cent). Lower

Veterinary Record | March 4, 2017

Paper on S

eptember 24, 2020 by guest. P

rotected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bm

j.com/

Veterinary R

ecord: first published as 10.1136/vr.103938 on 7 February 2017. D

ownloaded from

percentages were obtained for other scores (2: 11 per cent; 5: 3.5per cent; 1: 0.5 per cent).

When considering the interest and concern for the welfare ofdifferent species, significant differences were found betweenspecies, with dogs/cats and laying hens as extremes in bothquestions. Considering all species, the welfare conditions of theanimals were perceived as having an average score of 2.72 whilethe students’ concern about them averaged 3.76. The answer dis-tribution to questions Q3 and Q4 and results from the Wilcoxonsigned rank test are reported in Figs 2 and 3.

The most common information sources (Q5) are representedin Fig 4. University is both the first information source for 82per cent of sample and the one having the highest credibilityscore (4.4), followed by the web (35 per cent, credibility score2.9) and television (22 per cent, credibility score 2.4).Information sources such as scientific papers, books and veteri-narians had credibility scores above 3.5, but were mentioned byless than 20 per cent of respondents.

Regarding knowledge about AW legislation (Q6), the rate ofcorrect answers was 51 per cent. The distribution of answersabout the need for stricter legislation on AW (Q7) was 35 percent ‘surely yes’, 50 per cent ‘probably yes’, 10 per cent ‘probablyno’, 0.3 per cent ‘surely no’, and 4.7 per cent ‘I don’t know’.

Respondents’ personal beliefs about the use of animals inparticular practices (Q8) were assessed on an average tolerancescore of 3.15. A list of all practices with relative scores is reportedin Table 3. The less tolerated practices were ‘To test cosmetics orhousehold products on animals’ and ‘To use animals for fur pro-duction’. On the other hand, the use of animals ‘To observe theirbehaviour ’, ‘To improve human health’ and ‘To produce food’ allhad the highest scores and were viewed as more acceptable prac-tices to most of the interviewees.

Results from PROC GENMOD showed that the percentageof correct answers to questions about EU AW legislation (Q6)was influenced by area of provenance (n=441, χ2= 3.83, d.f.=2, P=0.01), with a significant difference between the Centraland Northern areas, the correct answer rate being 51.6 percent and 48.7 per cent, respectively (Southern area 50.8 percent). A significant difference (n=441, χ2= 4.12, d.f.=1,P=0.04) for sex in regard to personal beliefs on AW (Q8) wasfound, with males having an higher tolerance score for the useof animals as compared to females (3.31 v 2.98). No other sig-nificant differences in answering were found in relation to thestudents’ profiles.

Only the Spearman correlation between Q3 and Q8 wasfound to be significant (P=0.0007, rs=0.4), showing that those

TABLE 1: Numbers of attending and interviewed students for each faculty and the academic year of animal welfare teaching

FacultyStudents attendingthe 4th year

Interviewed students(per cent) Courses including animal welfare topics

Academicyear

Università degli studi di Bari-Aldo Moro – Dipartimento diMedicina Veterinaria.

45 71 Bioethics 2nd

Alma Mater Studiorum – Scuola di Agraria e MedicinaVeterinaria.

105 44 Legal Medicine, Animal Protection,Veterinarian Legislation

3th

Università di Camerino – Scuola di Bioscienze e MedicinaVeterinaria.

25 72 Physiology and Ethology 2nd

Università degli Studi di Messina-Facoltà di MedicinaVeterinaria.

40 63 Ethology and Animal Welfare 2nd

Università degli Studi di Milano-Medicina Veterinaria. 74 90 Physiology and Ethology 2ndUniversità Degli Studi Di Napoli Federico II – Facoltà diMedicina Veterinaria.

74 71 Ethology and Animal Welfare 2nd

Università degli Studi di Padova – Scuola di Agraria e MedicinaVeterinaria.

74 47 Animal Welfare and Product Quality 3th

Università degli Studi di Parma – Dipartimento di ScienzeMedico-Veterinarie.

51 69 Physiology and Ethology 2nd

Università degli Studi di Perugia – Dipartimento di MedicinaVeterinaria

35 60 Ethology and Animal Welfare 4th

Università di Pisa – Dipartimento Scienze Veterinarie 42 59 Physiology, Ethology and Animal Welfare 2ndUniversità degli Studi di Teramo – Facoltà di MedicinaVeterinaria

46 87 Ethology 1st

Università degli Studi di Torino – Scuola di Agraria e MedicinaVeterinaria

74 64 Physiology and Ethology 2nd

Total 685 64

TABLE 2: Students’ profile per each faculty. Information concerning gender, geographical provenance, ownership of pets, presenceof a farmer among the relatives and past living experience in a rural area

GenderGeographicalprovenance

Do you havea pet?

Do you havea farmer inyour family?

Have youever lived ina rural area?

Universities Female Male Centre North South No Yes No Yes No Yes

Università degli studi di Bari-Aldo Moro - Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria. 18 14 0 0 32 6 26 28 4 13 19Alma Mater Studiorum – Scuola di Agraria e Medicina Veterinaria. 37 9 10 32 4 3 43 40 6 20 26Università di Camerino – Scuola di Bioscienze e Medicina Veterinaria. 15 3 13 2 3 0 18 17 1 3 15Università degli Studi di Messina-Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria. 15 10 0 0 25 2 23 23 2 20 5Università degli Studi di Milano-Medicina Veterinaria. 44 23 2 65 0 2 65 61 6 23 44Università Degli Studi Di Napoli Federico II – Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria. 28 22 1 1 48 6 44 43 7 17 33Università degli Studi di Padova – Scuola di Agraria e Medicina Veterinaria. 26 9 1 31 3 1 34 32 3 13 22Università degli Studi di Parma – Dipartimento di Scienze Medico-Veterinarie. 28 7 0 34 1 3 32 31 4 9 26Università degli Studi di Perugia – Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria 12 9 19 0 2 3 18 17 4 9 12Università di Pisa – Dipartimento Scienze Veterinarie 20 5 22 2 1 1 24 23 2 11 14Università degli Studi di Teramo – Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria 26 14 35 3 2 3 37 34 6 15 24Università degli Studi di Torino – Scuola di Agraria e Medicina Veterinaria 32 15 1 45 1 8 39 46 1 14 33Total 301 140 104 215 122 38 403 395 46 167 273

March 4, 2017 | Veterinary Record

Paper on S

eptember 24, 2020 by guest. P

rotected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bm

j.com/

Veterinary R

ecord: first published as 10.1136/vr.103938 on 7 February 2017. D

ownloaded from

students who perceived the level of AW in farms as being higherhad a greater tolerance for ‘animal use’.

DiscussionThe author ’s believe this study represents the first attempt toinvestigate the knowledge and opinions of veterinary studentstoward AW science and law at the national level in Italy. Theresults could prove very useful for adapting educational andtraining strategies towards the development of positive andrespectful practices for the treatment of animals, in line withmodern AW concepts.

The response rate of the students in the present study washigher (64 per cent) than that of previous research studies carriedout in other countries on similar topics and with similar targets(i.e. Heleski and others 2004, 31 per cent; Heleski and others2005, 45 per cent). The dissemination strategy of those studieswas email based. Email surveys tend to have a response rate of 37per cent (see review by Connelly and others 2003) and it hasbeen argued previously that this might not be a good way toreach the student population (Heleski and others 2005).Conversely, our results suggest that the ‘on field’ survey is a moreefficient strategy to reach university students. The higherfemale/male ratio in our study sample is just a reflection of thesituation in the Italian veterinary faculties, where up to 70 per

cent of attending students are female (FNOVI 2014). This is alsoconsistent with a growing trend toward greater female entry intothe veterinary profession worldwide (Irvine and Vermilya 2010).

In a recent report by the European Commission (EC) (DGSANTE 2016) it was highlighted that AW is not generally seenas something intrinsic to the animal but as something related tohow animals are treated. In that study, graduate students (ofages similar to the veterinary students in the current study)from the communication, education, economics and engineeringfaculties of Italian universities answered the question ‘What doyou think animal welfare means?’ using words related mainly tothe concept of ‘feeding’, ‘housing’ and ‘natural condition’,tending to identify welfare with the animals’ natural needs intheir natural environment, as was found in previous studies onconsumers and politicians (Carenzi and Verga 2009). Our studyshowed that Italian veterinary students were more focused onthe concepts of ‘respect’ (some respondents also mentioned theconcept of ‘Five Freedoms’), ‘health’ and ‘absence of stress’ com-pared to their peers in the EC study. However, it is interesting tonote that the word ‘behaviour ’ was the most mentioned in bothstudies. Veterinary students may know that behaviour representsthe first response to environmental stimuli, and that it providesthe first picture of the coping success of an organism towardsstressors (Broom 1986). On the other hand, this might be due to

FIG 1: Wordcloud of the most mentioned words used by students to define animal welfare. The size of the font reflects the frequency of thewords. Image created with Tagul software (https://tagul.com/cloud/1).

Dogs & cats

Goats

Sheep

Beef

Dairy cows

Pigs

Rabbits

Broilers

Laboratory animals

Laying hens

0% 20% 40%

1 2 3 4 5

60% 80% 100%

a

b

b

c

c

d

e

e

e

f

FIG 2: Distribution of answers expressed in percentage for each Likert scale score (1=very low, 5=very high) to the question ‘For each of thefollowing species, what do you think the on-farm welfare level is?’ (Q3). Species were compared with Wilcoxon signed rank test; bars with thesame letter do not differ.

Veterinary Record | March 4, 2017

Paper on S

eptember 24, 2020 by guest. P

rotected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bm

j.com/

Veterinary R

ecord: first published as 10.1136/vr.103938 on 7 February 2017. D

ownloaded from

Dogs & cats

Dairy cows

Beef

Pigs

Laboratory animals

Goats

Rabbits

Sheep

Broilers

Laying hens

0% 20% 40%

1 2 3 4 5

60% 80% 100%

a

b

b

b

c

c

c

c

d

e

FIG 3: Distribution of answers expressed in percentage for each Likert scale score (1=no interest, 5=high interest) to the question ‘How muchare you interested about the welfare of each of the following species?’ (Q4). Species were compared with Wilcoxon signed rank test; bars withthe same letter do not differ.

FIG 4: Wordcloud of the most frequently referred source from which students get/receive information on animal welfare. The size of the fontreflects the frequency of the words. Image created with Tagul software (https://tagul.com/cloud/1).

TABLE 3: Mean values of five-point (±sd) scale for questions regarding students’ personal beliefs on the use of animals inparticular practices (see question 8 in online supplementary annex 1)

Do you agree about: Male students Female students Total

Using animals for work? 3.51±0.09 3.41±0.03 3.46±0.06Using animals for entertainment or sport? 2.82±0.23 2.51±0.24 2.66±0.23Keeping animals for the production of food? 4.42±0.85 3.82±0.17 4.12±0.11Keeping animals for the production of fur? 2.01±0.15 1.71±0.99 1.86±0.6Killing animals when they are seriously ill or injured? 4.08±0.10 4.03±0.14 4.05±0.11Observing animal behaviour? 4.17±0.93 3.86±0.99 4.01±0.98Using animals in medical experiments to improve human health? 4.12±0.21 3.39±0.21 3.75±0.25Testing cosmetics or household products on animals? 1.74±0.01 1.45±0.85 1.59±0.91Increasing animals’ health or disease resistance by genetic modifications? 3.41±0.20 3.12±0.24 3.26±0.21Inflicting pain or injury on animals as a part of cultural traditions? 2.89±0.20 2.53±0.13 2.71±0.17

March 4, 2017 | Veterinary Record

Paper on S

eptember 24, 2020 by guest. P

rotected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bm

j.com/

Veterinary R

ecord: first published as 10.1136/vr.103938 on 7 February 2017. D

ownloaded from

the students linking AW to behaviour since welfare was mainlytaught in the framework of ethology courses (Table 1). A studyon ethics teaching in European veterinary schools explored therelationship between the concept of welfare and ethics(Magalhães-Sant’Ana, 2014). From a sample of 17 educatorsinvolved in the teaching of veterinary ethics in three Europeanveterinary schools, AW related topics that were mentioned aspart of the teaching of ethics included: the five freedoms, qualityof life, animal suffering, and animal pain. These topics resemblethe concept used by Italian veterinary students to define AWitself. We agree with Magalhães-Sant’Ana in underlining theimportance of defining AW before having ethical discussionsabout the involvement of animals. Some authors stronglysuggest that veterinary ethics should be taught as part of theAW curriculum (Main 2010, Morton and others 2013); however,the link between the concept of welfare and ethics seems to beessential. For example, ‘ethical awareness’ can be achieved byintroducing topics such as animal suffering and quality of life(Magalhães-Sant’Ana and others 2014) as belonging to the defin-ition of AW, but an ethical approach could help in decidingwhether euthanasing an animal is not only an AW issue (Yeatesand Main 2011). From our results, Italian veterinary studentsappear quite confident with their personal knowledge about AW,especially in the north of the country. They answered that theuniversity itself represents the most used and reliable source ofinformation about AW. However, veterinary students get moreinformation on this issue from the web and television than fromscientific papers, books or veterinary professionals. Comparingthese results with those from EDUCAWEL (DG SANTE 2016),which showed that respondents felt poorly informed on AWandthat the quality of the information from television and internetwas considered extremely poor, the preference of Italian veterin-ary students for web and television as sources of information onAW seems to be contradictory. However, veterinary studentsprobably feel that AW information on the web falls into theirfield of expertise, so they feel confident in managing this type ofinformation that is faster and easier to navigate than those pro-vided by books, papers or established professionals. An interest-ing question for further studies could be to know which kind ofwebsites veterinary and non-veterinary students are visiting toobtain information on AW. Taking into account the importancegiven to the university as a source of information, it is clear thatwelfare science, ethics, and law should be an integral part of theveterinary curriculum, providing students with the best informa-tion channel.

Our results about the opinions on animal productionsystems suggest an interesting pattern regarding the perceptionthat Italian veterinary students have concerning the welfarestatus of the various livestock species. Respondents consideredlaying hens and broilers as having the lowest standard ofwelfare, followed by pigs and rabbits. Interestingly, this sameopinion was obtained in an earlier study carried out in animalscience faculties in the USA (Heleski and others 2004) and in arecent survey of Italian consumers (Di Pasquale and others2014). Similar results were also found in Croatia, where a studyon the attitudes of veterinary students toward farm AW reportedthat students believed that the welfare of cattle and pigs wasless compromised than that of poultry (Ostović and others2016). One plausible explanation for this pattern is that publicperception of livestock well-being is inversely related to the levelof intensification of husbandry practices (Marìa 2006).

Interestingly, even though poultry, pigs and rabbits were con-sidered as the species having lower levels of AW, the concerns ofItalian veterinary students appear to focus mostly on companionanimals (dogs and cats) and ruminants. The major concernabout dogs and cats is in accordance with the results from a pre-vious survey, which reported that veterinary students were morelikely to believe that dogs and cats have higher cognitive abilitiescompared to farm animals (Levine and others 2005). Thisopinion may justify the main interest about pet welfare.However, as suggested by the authors, differences in students’

perception of companion-animal and farm-animal emotionaland cognitive abilities could also depend on a lack of awarenessof the current state of scientific knowledge about the cognitiveand emotional abilities of domestic species. In addition, a studyon secondary school and university students’ attitudes towardsAW found that the items related to pets were better rated thanthose related to farm animals (Mazas and others 2013). Ourresults suggest that this may also be true for veterinary students.In addition, the vast majority of our sample (91 per cent) owneda dog or cat while only 11 per cent were related to the farmingenvironment, making the link to pets stronger. The results con-cerning cattle contradicted the findings of the DG SANTE study(2016) where students from other faculties were only moderatelyconcerned by this species. It is possible that the different percep-tion of veterinary students toward cattle welfare is due to thelonger time that the students spend on a cattle farm as com-pared, for example, to a chicken farm, as also suggested byOstović and others (2016). For this reason, cows are probablyperceived as being more sentient than other species (Paul andPodberscek 2000, Levine and others 2005). Also, different moralstandards exist for different animal species (Te Velde and others2002), and that the interest toward the different species increaseswith phylogenetic proximity to the human species (Franco andOlsson 2014).

One report indicated that, in general, education specificallyrelating to AW within North American universities is limited(Siegford and others 2005). Results from a US survey on atti-tudes toward farm AW revealed that even veterinary schools arenot fully aware of modern production practices that may beassociated with welfare concerns (Heleski and others 2005). TheEDUCAWEL study (DG SANTE 2016) highlighted that theknowledge of Italian university students about existingEuropean and national legislation on AW was very scarce (<40per cent of answers were correct). Results from our study showthat, although the average knowledge of veterinary students ishigher on the issue, there is much room for improvement. Inaddition, this relatively low level of familiarity could have biasedthe students’ opinion regarding the improvement of AW rules inItaly (Q7), where 60 per cent of the sample asked for morerestrictive rules, without knowing in detail the requirements ofthe legislation in place. The study of the EU legislative frame-work should be promoted in veterinary faculties, taking intoconsideration both the principal EU legislation directly related toAW, and other laws that relate to animal use and reflect society’sview of animals (e.g. pets as property, protected species, andwild animals) (Main and others 2005).

In agreement with other relevant studies (Zelezny andSchultz 2000, Mazas and others 2013), our results showed thatfemale students were less tolerant to the use of animals for dif-ferent purposes, and more sensitive toward AW issues. The pres-ence of sex differences is consistent with the psychologicalliterature, which demonstrates that, in general, females tend tobe more empathetic than males towards both humans and otheranimals (Signal and Taylor 2007, Ellingsen and others 2010), andshow greater concern for their welfare and suffering than males(Serpell 2004). Considering the whole sample in this study, thehighest level of agreement was encountered for the use ofanimals for food production (score of 4 out of 5). Interestingly, asimilar result was found for the general public in theEDUCAWEL study (mean value of 7 in a scale from 1 to 10) (DGSANTE 2016). The influence of education received in adult age isstill debated. A recent study suggested that regular contact withanimals inures agricultural students to animal issues, whereasstudents in the humanities and arts, who have less contact withfarm animals, have greater concern (Phillips 2014). On the otherhand, another study found no differences in principled reasoningon issues of animal ethics when comparing students in non-animal related disciplines (human medicine and art) with stu-dents in most animal-related programmes (veterinary medicine,veterinary technology, and production animal science) (Verrinderand others 2016).

Veterinary Record | March 4, 2017

Paper on S

eptember 24, 2020 by guest. P

rotected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bm

j.com/

Veterinary R

ecord: first published as 10.1136/vr.103938 on 7 February 2017. D

ownloaded from

In a study conducted in 2004, Serpell concluded that peoplefrom urban settings, as well as people who were exposed toanimals at an early age, have a more positive attitude towardsanimals. Another study found a correlation between keepingcompanion animals and the moral values of veterinary studentsin two culturally contrasting countries (Australia and Turkey)(Izmirli and others 2014). In our study, no differences emergedbetween students from different social backgrounds with orwithout companion animals.

ConclusionsOur results showed that Italian veterinary students considertheir own level of knowledge on AW to be good, relying on theiruniversity training, websites and television. Therefore, thesesources should be considered for delivering messages on AW tothis target audience. A general lack of knowledge emerged con-cerning the existing AW legislation in the EU. This gap was alsohighlighted in other surveys and should be addressed by veterin-ary schools across the EU. Further investigations into this issuein other EU countries would allow for the benchmarking of thissituation and for the implementation of corrective actions.

Despite the veterinarians’ duties to respect the principle ofequality (i.e. to approach equally all the treatments and proce-dures performed on vertebrates) (Vučinić 2006), the students’concern for AW varies in relation to the species. The animals con-sidered to be in the worst AW conditions were not considered tobe the species raising the most concerns in regards to AW. Hence,it would be useful to educate veterinary students specifically onanimal cognition, in order to guarantee the application and main-tenance of high standards of AW in practice for all species.

The knowledge and opinions expressed by veterinary stu-dents in Italy towards AW has highlighted gaps that need to beaddressed. Using the results of this study, tailored actions fornew educational strategies for veterinary students should bedeveloped, at national and international levels, to allow them tobecome future leaders on AW matters.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank all the department heads of thefaculties that agreed to participate in the study (Universities ofBari, Bologna, Camerino, Messina, Milan, Naples, Padua, Parma,Perugia, Pisa, Teramo and Turin), as well as all the students whocompleted the questionnaires. In addition, the authors wouldlike to thank Dr Shanis Barnard for language revision and thetwo anonymous referees for their very helpful comments.

▸ Additional material is published online only. To view please visit the journal online(http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.103938).

Open Access This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with theterms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits othersto distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided theoriginal work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

ReferencesABOOD, S. K. & SIEGFORD, J. M. (2012) Student perceptions of an animal-welfare and ethics course taught early in the veterinary curriculum. Journal ofVeterinary Medical Education 39, 136–141

BERG, B. L. (2001) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 4th edn.Needham Heights, MA, USA: Allyn & Bacon

BROOM, D. M. (1986) Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 42,524–526

BROOM, D. M. (2005) Animal welfare education: development and prospects.Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 32, 438–441

CARENZI, C. & VERGA, M. (2009) Animal welfare: review of the scientificconcept and definition. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, 21–30

CONNELLY, N. A., BROWN, T. L. & DECKER, D. J. (2003) Factors affectingresponse rates to natural resource-focused mail surveys: empirical evidence ofdeclining rates over time. Society & Natural Resources 16, 541–549

DALLA VILLA, P., MATTHEWS, L. R., ALESSANDRINI, B., MESSORI, S. &MIGLIORATI, G. (2014) Drivers for animal welfare policies: Europe. AnimalWelfare: focusing on the future. OIE Scientific and Technical Review 33, 39–46

DG SANTE (2016) Study on education and information activities on animalwelfare (project SANCO/2013/G3/SI2.649393) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/docs/aw_eu-strategy_study_edu-info-activ.pdf

DI PASQUALE, J., NANNONI, E., DEL DUCA, I., ADINOLFI, F., CAPITANIO, F.,SARDI, L., VITALI, M. & MARTELLI, G. (2014) What foods are identified asanimal friendly by Italian consumers? Italian Journal of Animal Science 13,782–789

DUNCAN, I. J. H. & FRASER, D. (1997) Understanding animal welfare. In AnimalWelfare. Eds APPLEBY M. A. & HUGHES B. O. Wellingford, UK: CABIPublishing. pp 19–31.

ELLINGSEN, K., ZANELLA, A. J., BJERKÅS, E. & INDREBØ, A. (2010) The rela-tionship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes toward pets amongNorwegian dog owners. Anthrozoös 23, 231–243

ESTOL, L. R. (2004) Animal welfare in the veterinary curriculum. In: Proceedings ofthe Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OIE Initiative, 23–25 February, Paris,France Luxembourg Office for Official Publication of the European Communities,Luxembourg, pp 37–49

FNOVI (2014) La professione medico veterinaria: prospettive future. RapportoNomisma. http://www.fnovi.it/sites/default/files/La20professionemedicoveterinariaFNOVIAprile2014.pdf

FRANCO, N. & OLSSON, I. A. S. (2014). Scientists and the 3Rs: attitudes toanimal use in biomedical research and the effect of mandatory training in labora-tory animal science. Laboratory Animals 48, 50–60

HELESKI, C. R., MERTIG, A. G. & ZANELLA, A. J. (2004) Assessing attitudestoward farm animal welfare: a national survey of animal science faculty. Journalof Animal Science 82, 2806–2814

HELESKI, C. R., MERTIG, A. G. & ZANELLA, A. J. (2005) Results of a nationalsurvey of US veterinary college faculty regarding attitudes toward farmanimal welfare. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 226,1538–1546

HEWSON, C. J. (2005). Why the theme animal welfare? Journal of VeterinaryMedical Education 32, 416–418.

ILLMAN, G., KEELING, L., MELIŠOVÁ, M., ŠIMEČKOVÁ, M., ILIESKI, V.,WINCKLER, C., KOŠT’ÁL, L., MEUNIER-SALAÜN, M.-C., MIHINA, S.,SPOOLDER, H., FTHENAKIS, G., ŠÁROVÁ, R. & ŠPINKA, M. (2014) Mappingfarm animal welfare education at university level in Europe. Animal Welfare 23,401–410

IRVINE, L. & VERMILYA, J. R. (2010) Gender work in a feminized profession: thecase of veterinary medicine. Gender & Society 24, 56–82

IZMIRLI, S., YIGIT, A. & PHILLIPS, C. (2014) Attitudes of Australian and Turkishstudents of veterinary medicine toward nonhuman animals and their careers.Society & Animals 22, 580–601

LEVINE, E. D., MILLS, D. S. & HOUPT, K. A. (2005) Attitudes of veterinary stu-dents at one US college toward factors relating to farm animal welfare. Journal ofVeterinary Medical Education 32, 481–490

LORD, L. K. & WALKER, J. B. (2009) An approach to teaching animal welfareissues at the Ohio State University. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 36,276–279

MAGALHÃES-SANT’ANA, M. (2014) Ethics teaching in European veterinaryschools: a qualitative case study. The Veterinary Record 175, 592

MAGALHÃES-SANT’ANA, M., LASSEN, J., MILLAR, K., SANDØE, P. &OLSSON, I. A. S. (2014) Examining why ethics is taught to veterinary students:a qualitative study of veterinary educators’ perspectives. Journal of VeterinaryMedical Education 41, 350–357

MAIN, D. C., THORNTON, P. & KERR, K. (2005) Teaching animal welfarescience, ethics, and law to veterinary students in the United Kingdom. Journal ofVeterinary Medical Education 32, 505–508

MAIN, D. C. J. (2010) Evolution of animal-welfare education for veterinary stu-dents. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 37, 30–35

MARÌA, G. A. (2006) Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. LivestockScience 103, 250–256

MAZAS, B., MANZANAL, M. R. F., ZARZA, F. J. & MARÌA, G. A. (2013)Development and validation of a scale to assess students’ attitude towardsanimal welfare. International Journal of Science Education 35, 1775–1799

MELLOR, D. J. & WEBSTER, J. R. (2014) Development of animal welfare under-standing drives change in minimum welfare standards. OIE Scientific and TechnicalReview 33(1), 121–130

MOLENTO, C. F. M. & CALDERON, N. (2009) Essential directions for teachinganimal welfare in South America. Revue Scientifique et Technique: OfficeInternational des Epizooties 28, 617–625

MORTON, D. B., SANT’ANA, M. M., OHL, F., ILIESKI, V., SIMONIN, V.,KEELING, L., WÖHR, A. C., ZEMLJIC, B., NEUHAUS, D., PESIE, S. & DEBRIYNE, N. (2013) FVE and EAVE Report on European Veterinary Education inAnimal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law. Joint publication of the Federation ofVeterinarians of Europe and the European Association of Establishment ofVeterinary Education. http://www.fve.org/uploads/publications/docs/full_report_aw_curriculum_adopted.pdf

MUELLER, D. J. (1986) Measuring Social Attitudes: A Handbook for Researchers andPractitioners. New York, USA: Teachers College Press

OSTOVIĆ, M., MESIĆ, Ž., MIKUŠ, T., MATKOVIĆ, K. & PAVIČIĆ, Ž. (2016)Attitudes of veterinary students in Croatia toward farm animal welfare. AnimalWelfare 25, 21–28

PAUL, E. S. & PODBERSCEK, A. L. (2000) Veterinary education and students’ atti-tudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record 146, 269–272

PHILLIPS, C. J. C. (2014) Effects of field of study on university students’ attitudestowards animal issues. Animal Welfare 23, 459–466.

March 4, 2017 | Veterinary Record

Paper on S

eptember 24, 2020 by guest. P

rotected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bm

j.com/

Veterinary R

ecord: first published as 10.1136/vr.103938 on 7 February 2017. D

ownloaded from

SABUNCUOGLU, N. & COBAN, O. (2008) Attitudes of Turkish veterinarianstowards animal welfare. Animal Welfare 17, 27–33

SERPELL, J. A. (2004) Factors influencing human attitudes towards animals andtheir welfare. Animal Welfare 13, 145–151

SHEEHAN, K. (2004) E-mail survey response rates: a review. J Computer-MediatedCommun [electronic refereed journal] 2001;6. www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html

SIEGFORD, J. M., BERNARDO, T. M., MALINOWSKI, R. P., LAUGHLIN, K. &ZANELLA, A. J. (2005) Integrating animal welfare into veterinary education: usingan online, interactive course. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 32, 497–504

SIGNAL, T. & TAYLOR, N. (2007) Attitude to animals and empathy: comparinganimal protection and general community samples. Anthrozoös 20, 125–130.

ŠPINKA, M. (2012) AWARE project: background, objectives and expectedoutcomes. EAAP Scientific Committee Book of Abstracts of the 63rd Annual Meeting ofthe European Federation of Animal Science p 205. 27–31 August 2012, Bratislava,Slovakia: Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands

TE VELDE, H., AARTS, N. & VAN WOERKUM, C. (2002) Dealing with ambiva-lence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breed-ing. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15, 203–219

VERRINDER, J., OSTINI, R. & PHILLIPS, C. (2016) Differences in moral judgmenton animal and human ethics issues between university students in animal-related, human medical and arts programs. PLoS ONE, 113

VUČINIĆ, M. (2006) Ponašanje, dobrobit i zaštita životinja. Fakultet VeterinarskeMedicine. Belgrade, Serbia: Univerzitet u Beogradu. [Title translation: Animalbehaviour, welfare and protection]

World Veterinary Association (2014) Position on the Role of the Veterinarian in AnimalWelfare. Brussels, Belgium: World Veterinary Association: http://worldvet.org/uploads/docs/wva_position_paper_on_animal_welfare.pdf

YEATES, J. W. & MAIN, D. C. J. (2011) Veterinary opinions on refusing euthanasia:justifications and philosophical frameworks. Veterinary Record 168, 263

ZELEZNY, L. C. & SCHULTZ, P. W. (2000) Promoting environmentalism. Journal ofSocial Issues 56, 365–578

Veterinary Record | March 4, 2017

Paper on S

eptember 24, 2020 by guest. P

rotected by copyright.http://veterinaryrecord.bm

j.com/

Veterinary R

ecord: first published as 10.1136/vr.103938 on 7 February 2017. D

ownloaded from