Dairy cattle welfare: knowledge, attitudes and practices of stockpeople from Midlands Province- Zimbabwe’s large-scale dairy farms”

Dairy cattle welfare: knowledge, attitudes and practices of stockpeople from Midlands Province- Zimbabwe’s large-scale dairy farms” | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Dairy cattle welfare: knowledge, attitudes and practices of stockpeople from Midlands Province- Zimbabwe’s large-scale dairy farms” Zivanayi Matore, Pamela SA Woods, Tonderai Mutibvu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850293/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Welfare of dairy animals and consequently their health and productivity is influenced by a number of factors such as the quality and quantity of supplement, health care given to animals, and stockpeoples; knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) on animal welfare. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the influence of most of the above factors on welfare of dairy animals, but very few studies focused on the influence of stockpeoples’ KAP on dairy welfare. A cross sectional study involving 93 stockpeople from the 31 large-scale dairy farms in the Midlands Province, Zimbabwe was conducted to determine their KAP on animal welfare. Results revealed that 67% of the stockpeople could not define animal welfare and this was significantly associated with the stockperson’s level of education (χ2 = 12.54, df = 3, p = 0.006). Only 14% of the stockpeople interviewed always talked to dairy cows when handling them and this was significantly associated with gender of the stockperson (χ2 = 10.7, df = 2, p < 0.001). About 20% of the stockpeople responded positively to touching the dairy animals when handling them and this was associated significantly with the stockperson’s gender (p = 0.005). On responses to whipping of animals when driving them, about 90% of the stockpeople said they never whip animals when handling or driving them. It is recommended that further studies be done to find better and more effective ways of teaching animal welfare concepts and practices. Large-scale stockpeople knowledge attitudes practices Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Dairy animal welfare is an important consideration for optimum production in the dairy industry (Robichaud et al., 2019 ). Additionally, in a number of developed economies animal welfare has received rising attention from consumers of animal products, who are now demanding to know the particular environment and conditions in which animal products are produced, processed and marketed (Cornish et al., 2020 ). Due to an increase in literacy rate and globalisation animal welfare issues are also receiving attention from developing economies (Nicol and Davies, 2013 ). Several studies in the livestock industry have shown that interactions between farmers and their animals can limit the health, welfare and productivity of farm animals (Hansen and Østerås, 2019 ). Farm animals can become highly fearful of their stockpeople because of certain behaviours and attitudes they exhibited towards them (Saraiva et al., 2020 ). Previous studies showed that when dairy cattle are handled roughly, the result is a decrease in milk yield (Bertenshaw and Rowlinson, 2009 ). Stockpeople’s knowledge, attitudes, and practises (KAP) regarding animal welfare determine their stockmanship (Sorge et al., 2014 ). Attitudes of humans towards an object can be used to predict human behaviour towards that particular object as underpinned by the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991 ) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein, 1979 ). Attitudes have three components i.e. cognition which refers to the person’s beliefs about the object; connation which is the person’s behavioural tendency towards the object and affect which is the emotional response towards the object (Ostrom, 1969 ). Even though attitudes cannot be measured directly, a person’s responses to any of these attitude components will help determine their attitudes. Stockpeople KAP surveys are help us understand the status of animal welfare and address the challenges leading to reduced animal welfare (Musallam et al., 2015 ). The aim of this study was to identify the current level of knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) among personnel that look after dairy cattle from large-scale dairy units from the Midlands Province in Zimbabwe. The study sought to identify the level of KAP among personnel that look after dairy animals from Zimbabwe’s large-scale dairy farms. After these aspects are identified, tailored advice and intervention strategies may then be developed for use by agriculture policy makers, development partners supporting the livestock industry and government extension agencies to improve the welfare and productivity of dairy animals in Zimbabwe. Methodology Ethical approval (002/2021) In order to protect the rights and welfare of the participants, ethical approval was sought and obtained from the Department of Veterinary field Services (DVS) in Zimbabwe (002/2021). The Department of Agriculture Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX) authorised this research and provided contacts of all dairy farmers in the Province under study. Study site A cross-sectional study was conducted in 31 out of the 34 large-scale dairy farms in Zimbabwe’s Midlands Province to determine stockpeople’s knowledge, attitudes, and practises towards the welfare of animals. The other 3 farmers were left out because they didn’t give consent to the study. Purposive sampling was done to come up with large-scale dairy farms to include in the study. Small-scale dairy farms were defined as those farms that produced less than 200 L of milk per day, while medium-scale dairy farms referred to farms that produced 200–500 L of milk per day and lastly large-scale dairy farms were farms producing 500 L of milk or more per day and selling to a registered processor. Using this definition of large-scale dairy farms, all the 34 farms in the Midlands Province that met the criteria were then selected for the study. General procedure for data collection The Midlands Province has a total of 34 large-scale dairy farms. Before the study was conducted, all the 34 farm owners/managers were called and consent to conduct the study sought for. Three out of the 34 farmers refused to participate in the study, the study was then conducted with the 31 farmers that consented to participate in the study. Key informant interviews Key informant interviews were held with four district state veterinarians, 27 paraveterinarians, four district livestock officers and one regional dairy officer between 16 March 2022 and 20 April 2022. Information on names and number of key informants was obtained from the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development departments that offer extension services in the Province studied, i.e. Veterinary Services, Agriculture Extension Services and Dairy Services. All government extension agents in selected districts that offer extension services were then requested to take part in the study voluntarily as key informants. It was assumed that key informants interviewed were personnel who offered consultant and extension services to dairy farmers and stockpeople from study sites in light of their roles in extension services. The key informant questionnaire consisted of 10 questions. The first five questions were meant to find out what the key informants understood about the term animal welfare; whether animal welfare was an issue in their work areas and to find out if animal welfare was part of the key informant farmer training curriculum. The other five questions on the key informant questionnaire focussed on how key informants perceived the KAP on dairy animal welfare by stockpeople from large-scale dairy farms in Zimbabwe. All participants for the key informant interviews volunteered to be interviewed, before key informant interviews commenced. The key informant interviews were compliant with the regulations for interviews concerning human participants as provided in the University of Zimbabwe Faculty of humanities guidelines for ethical research. The WHO guidelines for preventing the spread and transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus were strictly adhered to during the interviews. Activity 2: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practises (KAP) questionnaire The KAP questionnaire developed by Higham et al. ( 2018 ) to determine the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of United Kingdom large-scale dairy farmers on antimicrobial use and resistance was modified to develop the KAP questionnaire used for this study (Higham et al., 2018 ). The questionnaire was pilot tested on five large-scale dairy farms. After the pilot test, changes were made to clarify some terms and the final questionnaire was then administered to the 31 large-scale dairy farms in Midlands Province. On arrival at the farm, the primary investigator explained to the farm owner/manager the objectives of the survey and that participation in the study was entirely voluntary and that no identity of the farm would be disclosed in future publications related to the survey. After consent to conduct the interview was freely granted, the KAP questionnaire was administered to any three more senior stockpeople who were reported to have frequent contact with the dairy animals. This was a standardised structured questionnaire with mainly closed ended questions organised in four sections. The first section had questions on the socio-demographic characteristics of the stockpeople such as gender, level of education and experience at work. The second part of the questionnaire had questions to test the general animal welfare knowledge by stockpeople. These questions included the stockpeople’s definition of animal welfare, knowledge on the five freedoms of animal welfare, the animal welfare legislation in Zimbabwe as well as knowledge on pain experienced by animals. The third section of the questionnaire had questions on the stockpeople’s attitudes towards animal welfare. Questions in this section were designed to measure attitudes of stockpeople towards handling of dairy cows in pens and in the milking parlour. Attitude questions were divided into four sections namely ′contact with cows′; ′caring for cows′; ′′ moving animals to and from the milking parlour ′′ and interaction with cows during milking and other routine activities such as milking′. These were closed ended opinion questions assessed on a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 not sure; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). Questions to assess the animal welfare practises by stockpeople were in the fourth section (last section). Responses to questions on animal welfare practises were also on a five point Likert scale (1 = never; 2 = rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = most of the times; 5 = always). Activity 3: Direct observations of stockpeople’s practices towards animal welfare Each farm under study was visited at least once during the study period. After filling in the KAP questionnaire, random observations of stockpeople behaviour related to their attitudes towards animals were conducted. These random observations included observation of the milking procedure, tactile and acoustic behaviour during moving and milking of animals in the parlour. Vocal and acoustic interactions categories included the way stockpeople interacted with dairy animals, i.e. talking softly talking dominantly, talking impatiently, and shouting, whistling, and clapping. Tactile interactions included: patting (touching gently), forceful handling, stick gently and stick forceful. These observations were done each time selected farms were visited and in total 75 stockpeople were interviewed. Statistical analysis Before data analysis commenced all data that could lead to the identification of the respondents were removed. Collected data were then entered and cleaned in Microsoft excel and then later exported to IBM SPSS version 26 for descriptive statistical analysis and testing associations between stockpeople's demographic characteristics and their responses to KAPs questions using the Chi square test for association. Results of key informant interviews were used to explain responses to KAP questions by stockpeople. Results Key informant interviews Results of the interviews with key informants revealed that only 20% (n = 36) of the key informants could give the correct definition of the term ´animal welfare. The majority (80%) of definitions of animal welfare from key informants lacked an appreciation of the fact that for an animal to be in good state of welfare, its physiological and psychological needs must be fulfilled. However, nearly all (90%) of key informants interviewed agreed that indeed dairy animal welfare was compromised in Zimbabwe. The major reason that compromised welfare of dairy animals in Zimbabwe was the harsh climatic conditions in most parts of the country. Key informants also alluded to the fact that heavy rains exposed dairy animals to wet conditions and this often resulted in increased prevalence of foot rot cases, particularly during the rainy season. Key respondents furthermore perceived that the KAP of stockpeople from Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms was low. According to key informants, the major reason for the perceived low KAP is that most stockpeople in Zimbabwe have no professional background in agriculture or animal husbandry. Key informants indicated that there was need for in-service training of stockpeople to improve their KAP on animal welfare. Animal welfare advocacy and farming community sensitisation were also cited by key informants as one of the many ways animal welfare KAP could be improved among stockpeople from large-scale dairy farms. It was clear from key informant interviews that though animal welfare was part of their farmer training curriculum, most veterinarians and livestock officers did not provide any animal welfare training to dairy stockpeople during the year 2021. However, only 10% of the key informants indicated that they carried out animal welfare training occasionally i.e. during farm visits and when carrying out farmer consultations. All key informants interviewed generally agreed that dairy animal welfare was indeed linked to the animal’s productivity and that all stakeholders in Zimbabwe should collaborate to improve dairy animal welfare and consequently dairy productivity in the country. KAP of Zimbabwean large-scale dairy stockpeople towards animal welfare Socio demographic characteristics The majority of stockpeople interviewed (65%) were male, while 35% were females. Direct observations and informal discussions with personnel from most farms visited also revealed that the majority of stockpeople in Zimbabwean large-scale dairy farms were males. Findings from this study also revealed that the biggest proportion (54.7%) of Zimbabwe dairy stockpeople had an age range of 30–39 years. The maximum level of education for the majority of participants (71%) in this study was secondary education, while 24% of the participants were primary school dropouts and the remainder (5%) possessed tertiary qualifications. Zimbabwean large-scale dairy stockpeople’s knowledge towards dairy animal welfare The stockpeople questionnaire had several questions designed to assess the level of animal welfare knowledge possessed by stockpeople from Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms. 68% of the interviewed stockpeople could not define the term animal welfare. However, only 32% of the Zimbabwean large-scale dairy stockpeople attempted to explain the term animal welfare in vernacular. Nevertheless, the explanations by those who made an attempt to define the term lacked a clear appreciation of the fact that for animals to be in good welfare state, their physical, psychological and physiological needs must be met. The ability to define animal welfare was significantly associated with the stockpeople level of education (χ2 = 12.54, df = 3, p = 0.006)). Generally, stockpeople who had secondary and tertiary educational qualifications made an attempt to define the term animal welfare. None of the given animal welfare definitions by stockpeople were classified as best definition. Table 1 Animal welfare knowledge among stockpeople from Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms- Midlands Province Animal welfare knowledge question Yes response No response Animals have freedoms 18 82 Animals suffer from stress 88 12 Stress reduces milk yield 91 9 Animals have pain perception 56 44 Table one shows that, only 18% of the respondents, responded positively to the question that animals have freedoms, but none of those that gave positive responses could list all the five freedoms. On a more positive note, table one shows that a greater proportion of stockpeople interviewed responded positively to questions on suffering of animals, pain in animals and effects of stress on milk yield in dairy animals. Zimbabwean stockpeople’s attitudes towards animal welfare As illustrated in Table 2 , the highest proportion of stockpeople (45.3%) regarded the freedom from disease, pain and injury as the most important freedom, whereas the freedom from hunger and thirst was regarded as the second most important freedom by 36% of the stockpeople. The freedom from fear and distress was regarded as the least important freedom (8%) after the freedom to express normal behaviour (1.3%). Table 2 Animal welfare freedoms ranking by stockpeople from Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms- Midlands Province Animal welfare freedoms Proportion of stockpeople Freedom from fear and distress 8 Freedom from hunger and thirst 36 Freedom to express normal behaviour 1.4 Freedom from discomfort 9.3 Freedom from disease pain and injury 45.3 Figure 1 shows responses by stockpeople to some of the important questions that assess their attitudes on some important animal welfare practices. As illustrated in Fig. 1 , 40% of the respondents never regarded clinical examination of animals before handling them as an important practice. Interestingly, the majority (58%) of interviewees considered regular feeding of dairy animals as very important. When stockpeople were asked to respond to whether humane handling of dairy cattle was an important consideration in their practise, the majority of respondents (69%) responded that they “sometimes’’ considered humane handling of dairy animals as important. The belief that clinical examination of animals is an important consideration was significantly associated (χ 2 = 24, df = 3, p < 0.0001) with dairy training received. However, there was no significant association between short courses in agriculture training received and the perception that clinical examination of animals was important in terms of animal welfare. Stockpeople practices on animal welfare In order to evaluate the practises of stockpeople towards animal welfare, the investigator used the stockpeople questionnaire and an observation tool with parameters to score the practices of stockpeople towards animal welfare. 69.3% of the dairy stockpeople reported that they had at one point in time handled dairy animals with a poor prognosis for recovery. Of those that agreed that they had handled dairy animals with a poor prognosis for recovery, only 38.2% stated that the animals were euthanized, while 61.8% said the animals were left to suffer and die without humane euthanasia. Figure 2 shows the proportion of stockpeople that responded to animal welfare practices such as shouting, whipping, talking, slurry removals and teat dipping. About 14% of the respondents frequently talked to and only 19% touched the dairy animals when handling them. A significant association was reported between gender of stockpeople and responses to touching (χ2 = 10.7, df = 2, p = 0.005) and talking to dairy animals (n nχ2 = 16.5, df = 2, p < 0.001), with a high proportion of female stockpeople responding positively to touching/interacting and talking to dairy animals when handling them. On a more positive note it was interesting to note that the practise of tying hind limbs of dairy cows when milking them was seldom (5.3%) done by stockpeople. Visual observations of the milking procedure together with stockpeople interviews revealed that, teat dipping after milking was not frequently practised by stockpeople from all dairy farms visited. Instead, predipping is a common practise. Discussions with stockpeople revealed that the instruction not to teat dip after milking was a way of cutting the cost of teat dip chemical used during milking. Table 3 displays responses to assess the general farm hygienic practises associated with animal welfare. As shown in Table 3 , 100% of the respondents revealed that slurry removal from milking parlour was done frequently by stockpeople in all visited farms (100%). Table 3 also illustrates that removal of slurry from cattle pens and collection yards is seldom done by most stockpeople (82.7%). Table 3 Zimbabwean large-scale dairy stockpeople’s hygienic practices towards cow welfare- Midlands Province Never Seldom Frequently Teat dip after milking 64 36 0 Slurry removal from yard 2.7 65.3 32 Slurry removal from pen 16 82.7 1.3 Slurry removal from parlor 0 0 100 Discussion Stockpeople knowledge on dairy animal welfare The high proportion of stockpeople who could not define or attempt to explain what they understood by the term animal welfare signifies that animal welfare issues are not well appreciated among stockpeople in Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms. Even when probed in their local language to explain what they understood by the term animal welfare, most of the stockpeople still struggled to explain the term in vernacular. On a different perspective, the findings that stockpeople could not define the term welfare could be due to the fact that the question was wrongly phrased and might not necessarily imply that stockpeople in Zimbabwe have a poor comprehension of the term animal welfare. It is important that future studies try to re-phrase the question on animal welfare definition and make it clearer and understandable to a lay person. Studies conducted in Uganda on farmer perceptions on calf housing indicated that level of education among other factors affected the way dairy farmers housed their dairy calves (Kiggundu et al., 2021 ) and that collaborates with our outcomes. Dairy or agriculture related education, capacitates the farmer to practise good dairy production practises that ensures welfare of animals is well taken care of. These findings tally with responses from key informants who attributed the low level of animal welfare knowledge among stockpeople to their lower level of formal education. Discussions with key informants revealed that the trend in Zimbabwe farms is to employ stockpeople with poor academic background. The knowledge gap on animal welfare by dairy stockpeople in Zimbabwe is further explained by the fact that only 10% of the key informants interviewed provided animal welfare training to stockpeople. Key informants are the people who are supposed to be spearheading animal welfare improvement programs in their areas of operation. The low levels of animal welfare knowledge among dairy personnel may compromise their animal welfare practices. Compromised dairy animal welfare leads to reduced productivity of the animals (Casamassima et al., 2001 ). Stockpeople attitudes towards animal welfare and their implications The attitudes of stockpeople and their willingness to adopt good animal welfare practices are important attributes required for successful implementation of any animal welfare intervention program (Farms, 2014; Vetouli et al., 2012 ). In this study, several attitude questions were posed to determine the attitudes of stockpeople towards welfare of dairy animals. The fact that the freedom from disease, pain and injury was acknowledged as the most important freedom followed by the freedom from hunger and thirst shows that stockpeople are more concerned by the direct benefits they obtain from cows such as high milk yield when cows are in good health and are properly fed. These findings tally with a study which concluded that Kenyan smallholder dairy farmers perceived the freedom from disease, pain and injury as the most important freedom (Aleri et al., 2012 ). Even after a detailed explanation of all the five freedoms by the primary investigator, stockpeople still had a poor conceptualisation of the freedom to express normal behaviour and freedom to be free from discomfort. This was confirmed by the low scores of importance that were allocated to these freedoms by stockpeople. Such poor conceptualisations about some welfare freedoms could in turn affect stockpeople’s attitudes towards these freedoms and in turn affect welfare of dairy animals (Andreasen et al., 2020 ). Work done on 30 family run dairy farms, who had cows housed in cubicle houses revealed that personal characteristics and attitudes are important determinants of dairy cow productivity (Ceballos et al., 2018b ), with milk yield being high on farms where stockpeople had good attitudes towards interactions with dairy animals (Waiblinger et al., 2002 ). Attitudes of stockpeople towards good animal welfare practises can be improved by regular training on animal welfare issues such as low stress handling, performing animal welfare assessments and training on the importance of the five freedoms of animal welfare to stockpeople (Ceballos et al., 2018a ). Interviews with key informants revealed that animal welfare training is not even prioritised in the master farmer training curriculum. The results of this study confirm the bond already established in literature reviews (Pol et al., 2021 ) and previous studies between the fear of animals by humans and human attitudes towards animals (Horback and Parsons, 2016 ; Kauppinen et al., 2012 ). It is, therefore, important that broader studies should be conducted in Zimbabwe to find out the impact of dairy personnel animal welfare knowledge, attitudes and practices on dairy animal indicators such as body condition, lameness e.t.c. Stockpeople practises towards animal welfare and their implications It is essential that a good human-animal relationship should exist for improved animal welfare. In this study, though a greater proportion of stockpeople reiterated that they never whipped their dairy animals, the observation that there were some few stockpeople who sometimes shouted and whipped dairy animals reflects on poor practises by stockpeople towards dairy animal welfare. Unwanted behaviours such as use of whips and shouting at dairy animals reported in this study induce fear of humans by dairy animals and eventually reduced productivity (Ellingsen et al., 2014 ). The finding that only 6.3% of the stockpeople talk to the dairy animals when milking them could be attributable to insufficient training on animal welfare issues, cultural beliefs and upbringing. It is essential that agriculture and veterinary extension staff include animal welfare training in their farmer training curriculum if stockpeople’s KAP on animal welfare are to be improved in Zimbabwe (Melfi and Hosey, 2011 ). The study identified some good practices of dairy cow management in large-scale dairy farms that support good animal welfare. For example, very few stockpeople whipped their animals when milking or driving them. However, it can be concluded that stockpeople from Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms generally have low appreciation KAP on dairy animal welfare. It is essential that the extension personnel, dairy farm owners and farm managers in Zimbabwe should invest their time and resources towards improving the KAP by stockpeople hence improved dairy productivity. It is recommended that further studies should be done to establish better and more effective ways of teaching animal welfare concepts and practises. These approaches of teaching animal welfare to stockpeople should take into account the stockpeople’s cultural and educational backgrounds. Conclusion The results of the present survey allow us to appreciate the levels of knowledge, attitudes and practices on animal welfare among Zimbabwean dairy stockpeople. It can be concluded that stockpeople in Zimbabwe generally have poor perceptions on the welfare of dairy animals as evidenced by the low responses to questions on Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices on dairy animal welfare. It is therefore important that extension approaches be modified to improve stockpeople and in turn farmer knowledge, attitudes and practices on animal dairy cow welfare and consequently dairy productivity in Zimbabwe. Declarations Funding No external funds were received to support this research. I personally funded the research. Acknowledgements My appreciation goes to all staff from my study institution (University of Zimbabwe) for the technical support in the development of this paper. Statement of Animal Rights Ethical approval was obtained from the Department of Veterinary Field Services Conflict of Interest Statement No conflict of interest exists in this study Author contributions Tonderai Mutibvu and Pamela Woods are my two supervisors; they have been instrumental in every stage of writing this manuscript Data availability Data for this paper is available upon request References Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P., Kumkale, G.T., 2005. Attitudes: Introduction and scope. Handb. attitudes 2005, 3–19. Aleri, J.W., Mogoa, E.M., Mulei, C.M., 2012. Welfare of dairy cattle in the smallholder (zero-grazing) production systems in Nairobi and its environs. Anim. Welf. 24, 1–7. Andreasen, S.N., Sandøe, P., Waiblinger, S., Forkman, B., 2020. Negative attitudes of Danish dairy farmers to their livestock correlates negatively with animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 29, 89–98. Bertenshaw, C., Rowlinson, P., 2009. Exploring Stock Managers’ Perceptions of the Human—Animal Relationship on Dairy Farms and an Association with Milk Production. Anthrozoos 22, 59–69. Casamassima, D., Sevi, A., Palazzo, M., Ramacciato, R., Colella, G.E., Bellitti, A., 2001. Effects of two different housing systems on behavior, physiology and milk yield of Comisana ewes. Small Rumin. Res. 41, 151–161. Ceballos, M.C., Sant’Anna, A.C., Boivin, X., de Oliveira Costa, F., Monique, V. de L., da Costa, M.J.R.P., 2018a. Impact of good practices of handling training on beef cattle welfare and stockpeople attitudes and behaviors. Livest. Sci. 216, 24–31. Ceballos, M.C., Sant’Anna, A.C., Góis, K.C.R., Ferraudo, A.S., Negrao, J.A., da Costa, M.J.R.P., 2018b. Investigating the relationship between human-animal interactions, reactivity, stress response and reproductive performance in Nellore heifers. Livest. Sci. 217, 65–75. Cornish, A.R., Briley, D., Wilson, B.J., Raubenheimer, D., Schlosberg, D., McGreevy, P.D., 2020. The price of good welfare: Does informing consumers about what on-package labels mean for animal welfare influence their purchase intentions? Appetite 148, 104577. Ellingsen, K., Coleman, G.J., Lund, V., Mejdell, C.M., 2014. Using qualitative behaviour assessment to explore the link between stockperson behaviour and dairy calf behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 153, 10–17. Fishbein, M., 1979. A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. Hansen, B.G., Østerås, O., 2019. Farmer welfare and animal welfare-Exploring the relationship between farmer’s occupational well-being and stress, farm expansion and animal welfare. Prev. Vet. Med. 170, 104741. Higham, L.E., Deakin, A., Tivey, E., Porteus, V., Ridgway, S., Rayner, A.C., 2018. A survey of dairy cow farmers in the United Kingdom: knowledge, attitudes and practices surrounding antimicrobial use and resistance. Vet. Rec. 183, 746. Horback, K.M., Parsons, T.D., 2016. Temporal stability of personality traits in group-housed gestating sows. Animal 10, 1351–1359. Kauppinen, T., Vesala, K.M., Valros, A., 2012. Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livest. Sci. 143, 142–150. Kiggundu, M., Kigozi, A., Walusimbi, H.K., Mugerwa, S., 2021. Farmers’ perception of calf housing and factors influencing its adoption on dairy cattle farms in Uganda. Sci. African e00805. Melfi, V., Hosey, G., 2011. Capacity building for better animal welfare. Int. Zoo Yearb. 45, 274–281. Musallam, I.I., Abo-shehada, M.N., Guitian, J., 2015. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) and Practices Associated to Brucellosis in Animals of the Livestock Owners of Jordan. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.15-0294 Nicol, C.J., Davies, A., 2013. Poultry welfare in developing countries. Poult. Dev. Rev. Food Agric. Organ. United Nations, Rome 110–120. Ostrom, T.M., 1969. The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 5, 12–30. Pol, F., Kling-Eveillard, F., Champigneulle, F., Fresnay, E., Ducrocq, M., Courboulay, V., 2021. Human–animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming. Animal 15, 100103. Robichaud, M.V., Rushen, J., de Passillé, A.M., Vasseur, E., Orsel, K., Pellerin, D., 2019. Associations between on-farm animal welfare indicators and productivity and profitability on Canadian dairies: I. On freestall farms. J. Dairy Sci. 102, 4341–4351. Saraiva, S., Esteves, A., Oliveira, I., Stilwell, G., 2020. Assessment of fear response and welfare indicators in laying hens from barn systems. Livest. Sci. 104150. Sorge, U.S., Cherry, C., Bender, J.B., 2014. Perception of the importance of human-animal interactions on cattle flow and worker safety on Minnesota dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 97, 4632–4638. Staley, M., Conners, M.G., Hall, K., Miller, L.J., 2018. Linking stress and immunity: Immunoglobulin A as a non-invasive physiological biomarker in animal welfare studies. Horm. Behav. 102, 55–68. Vetouli, T., Lund, V., Kaufmann, B., 2012. Farmers’ attitude towards animal welfare aspects and their practice in organic dairy calf rearing: a case study in selected Nordic farms. J. Agric. Environ. ethics 25, 349–364. Waiblinger, S., Menke, C., Coleman, G., 2002. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 79, 195–219. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3850293","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":271065719,"identity":"22908427-b7c7-4716-b562-40901e2f1fa0","order_by":0,"name":"Zivanayi Matore","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Zimbabwe","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zivanayi","middleName":"","lastName":"Matore","suffix":""},{"id":271065720,"identity":"67050018-4f18-40ad-92e5-18011fcf7921","order_by":1,"name":"Pamela SA Woods","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Zimbabwe","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pamela","middleName":"SA","lastName":"Woods","suffix":""},{"id":271065721,"identity":"219ca1ee-e171-495e-9cae-528afcee935e","order_by":2,"name":"Tonderai Mutibvu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Zimbabwe","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tonderai","middleName":"","lastName":"Mutibvu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-01-10 12:44:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850293/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850293/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":50790479,"identity":"4c94f2d7-6091-4886-9ce1-7e4ac87dbb5f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-07 10:31:33","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36669,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eZimbabwean large-scale dairy stockpeople attitudes towards animal welfare- Midlands Province\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3850293/v1/db108b265569786fb8f945c3.png"},{"id":50790480,"identity":"0cf6f4d2-10ef-4abd-83dc-bb55a1fb4aa3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-07 10:31:33","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":25495,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eZimbabwean large-scale dairy stockpeople’s handling practices towards animal welfare- Midlands Province\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3850293/v1/16f54428135e26aea3800df6.png"},{"id":56346598,"identity":"f5aa7d44-4e2e-4624-95b0-cf4163693e59","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-13 02:32:01","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":6900083,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3850293/v1/ccee106d-cea8-4e45-a536-ae6b4dbe6142.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Dairy cattle welfare: knowledge, attitudes and practices of stockpeople from Midlands Province- Zimbabwe’s large-scale dairy farms”","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDairy animal welfare is an important consideration for optimum production in the dairy industry (Robichaud et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, in a number of developed economies animal welfare has received rising attention from consumers of animal products, who are now demanding to know the particular environment and conditions in which animal products are produced, processed and marketed (Cornish et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Due to an increase in literacy rate and globalisation animal welfare issues are also receiving attention from developing economies (Nicol and Davies, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral studies in the livestock industry have shown that interactions between farmers and their animals can limit the health, welfare and productivity of farm animals (Hansen and \u0026Oslash;ster\u0026aring;s, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Farm animals can become highly fearful of their stockpeople because of certain behaviours and attitudes they exhibited towards them (Saraiva et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Previous studies showed that when dairy cattle are handled roughly, the result is a decrease in milk yield (Bertenshaw and Rowlinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Stockpeople\u0026rsquo;s knowledge, attitudes, and practises (KAP) regarding animal welfare determine their stockmanship (Sorge et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Attitudes of humans towards an object can be used to predict human behaviour towards that particular object as underpinned by the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). Attitudes have three components i.e. cognition which refers to the person\u0026rsquo;s beliefs about the object; connation which is the person\u0026rsquo;s behavioural tendency towards the object and affect which is the emotional response towards the object (Ostrom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e). Even though attitudes cannot be measured directly, a person\u0026rsquo;s responses to any of these attitude components will help determine their attitudes. Stockpeople KAP surveys are help us understand the status of animal welfare and address the challenges leading to reduced animal welfare (Musallam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe aim of this study was to identify the current level of knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) among personnel that look after dairy cattle from large-scale dairy units from the Midlands Province in Zimbabwe. The study sought to identify the level of KAP among personnel that look after dairy animals from Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s large-scale dairy farms. After these aspects are identified, tailored advice and intervention strategies may then be developed for use by agriculture policy makers, development partners supporting the livestock industry and government extension agencies to improve the welfare and productivity of dairy animals in Zimbabwe.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval (002/2021)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn order to protect the rights and welfare of the participants, ethical approval was sought and obtained from the Department of Veterinary field Services (DVS) in Zimbabwe (002/2021). The Department of Agriculture Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX) authorised this research and provided contacts of all dairy farmers in the Province under study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy site\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional study was conducted in 31 out of the 34 large-scale dairy farms in Zimbabwe\u0026rsquo;s Midlands Province to determine stockpeople\u0026rsquo;s knowledge, attitudes, and practises towards the welfare of animals. The other 3 farmers were left out because they didn\u0026rsquo;t give consent to the study. Purposive sampling was done to come up with large-scale dairy farms to include in the study. Small-scale dairy farms were defined as those farms that produced less than 200 L of milk per day, while medium-scale dairy farms referred to farms that produced 200\u0026ndash;500 L of milk per day and lastly large-scale dairy farms were farms producing 500 L of milk or more per day and selling to a registered processor. Using this definition of large-scale dairy farms, all the 34 farms in the Midlands Province that met the criteria were then selected for the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGeneral procedure for data collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Midlands Province has a total of 34 large-scale dairy farms. Before the study was conducted, all the 34 farm owners/managers were called and consent to conduct the study sought for. Three out of the 34 farmers refused to participate in the study, the study was then conducted with the 31 farmers that consented to participate in the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eKey informant interviews\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey informant interviews were held with four district state veterinarians, 27 paraveterinarians, four district livestock officers and one regional dairy officer between 16 March 2022 and 20 April 2022. Information on names and number of key informants was obtained from the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development departments that offer extension services in the Province studied, i.e. Veterinary Services, Agriculture Extension Services and Dairy Services. All government extension agents in selected districts that offer extension services were then requested to take part in the study voluntarily as key informants. It was assumed that key informants interviewed were personnel who offered consultant and extension services to dairy farmers and stockpeople from study sites in light of their roles in extension services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe key informant questionnaire consisted of 10 questions. The first five questions were meant to find out what the key informants understood about the term animal welfare; whether animal welfare was an issue in their work areas and to find out if animal welfare was part of the key informant farmer training curriculum. The other five questions on the key informant questionnaire focussed on how key informants perceived the KAP on dairy animal welfare by stockpeople from large-scale dairy farms in Zimbabwe. All participants for the key informant interviews volunteered to be interviewed, before key informant interviews commenced. The key informant interviews were compliant with the regulations for interviews concerning human participants as provided in the University of Zimbabwe Faculty of humanities guidelines for ethical research. The WHO guidelines for preventing the spread and transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus were strictly adhered to during the interviews.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eActivity 2: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practises (KAP) questionnaire\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe KAP questionnaire developed by Higham et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e ) to determine the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of United Kingdom large-scale dairy farmers on antimicrobial use and resistance was modified to develop the KAP questionnaire used for this study (Higham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The questionnaire was pilot tested on five large-scale dairy farms. After the pilot test, changes were made to clarify some terms and the final questionnaire was then administered to the 31 large-scale dairy farms in Midlands Province. On arrival at the farm, the primary investigator explained to the farm owner/manager the objectives of the survey and that participation in the study was entirely voluntary and that no identity of the farm would be disclosed in future publications related to the survey. After consent to conduct the interview was freely granted, the KAP questionnaire was administered to any three more senior stockpeople who were reported to have frequent contact with the dairy animals. This was a standardised structured questionnaire with mainly closed ended questions organised in four sections. The first section had questions on the socio-demographic characteristics of the stockpeople such as gender, level of education and experience at work. The second part of the questionnaire had questions to test the general animal welfare knowledge by stockpeople. These questions included the stockpeople\u0026rsquo;s definition of animal welfare, knowledge on the five freedoms of animal welfare, the animal welfare legislation in Zimbabwe as well as knowledge on pain experienced by animals. The third section of the questionnaire had questions on the stockpeople\u0026rsquo;s attitudes towards animal welfare. Questions in this section were designed to measure attitudes of stockpeople towards handling of dairy cows in pens and in the milking parlour. Attitude questions were divided into four sections namely \u0026prime;contact with cows\u0026prime;; \u0026prime;caring for cows\u0026prime;; \u003csup\u003e\u0026prime;\u0026prime;\u003c/sup\u003emoving animals to and from the milking parlour\u003csup\u003e\u0026prime;\u0026prime;\u003c/sup\u003e and interaction with cows during milking and other routine activities such as milking\u0026prime;. These were closed ended opinion questions assessed on a five point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree; 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;disagree; 3 not sure; 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;agree; 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree). Questions to assess the animal welfare practises by stockpeople were in the fourth section (last section). Responses to questions on animal welfare practises were also on a five point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;never; 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;rarely; 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;sometimes; 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;most of the times; 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;always).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eActivity 3: Direct observations of stockpeople’s practices towards animal welfare\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach farm under study was visited at least once during the study period. After filling in the KAP questionnaire, random observations of stockpeople behaviour related to their attitudes towards animals were conducted. These random observations included observation of the milking procedure, tactile and acoustic behaviour during moving and milking of animals in the parlour. Vocal and acoustic interactions categories included the way stockpeople interacted with dairy animals, i.e. talking softly talking dominantly, talking impatiently, and shouting, whistling, and clapping. Tactile interactions included: patting (touching gently), forceful handling, stick gently and stick forceful. These observations were done each time selected farms were visited and in total 75 stockpeople were interviewed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore data analysis commenced all data that could lead to the identification of the respondents were removed. Collected data were then entered and cleaned in Microsoft excel and then later exported to IBM SPSS version 26 for descriptive statistical analysis and testing associations between stockpeople's demographic characteristics and their responses to KAPs questions using the Chi square test for association. Results of key informant interviews were used to explain responses to KAP questions by stockpeople.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eKey informant interviews\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults of the interviews with key informants revealed that only 20% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;36) of the key informants could give the correct definition of the term \u0026acute;animal welfare. The majority (80%) of definitions of animal welfare from key informants lacked an appreciation of the fact that for an animal to be in good state of welfare, its physiological and psychological needs must be fulfilled. However, nearly all (90%) of key informants interviewed agreed that indeed dairy animal welfare was compromised in Zimbabwe. The major reason that compromised welfare of dairy animals in Zimbabwe was the harsh climatic conditions in most parts of the country. Key informants also alluded to the fact that heavy rains exposed dairy animals to wet conditions and this often resulted in increased prevalence of foot rot cases, particularly during the rainy season. Key respondents furthermore perceived that the KAP of stockpeople from Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms was low. According to key informants, the major reason for the perceived low KAP is that most stockpeople in Zimbabwe have no professional background in agriculture or animal husbandry. Key informants indicated that there was need for in-service training of stockpeople to improve their KAP on animal welfare. Animal welfare advocacy and farming community sensitisation were also cited by key informants as one of the many ways animal welfare KAP could be improved among stockpeople from large-scale dairy farms. It was clear from key informant interviews that though animal welfare was part of their farmer training curriculum, most veterinarians and livestock officers did not provide any animal welfare training to dairy stockpeople during the year 2021. However, only 10% of the key informants indicated that they carried out animal welfare training occasionally i.e. during farm visits and when carrying out farmer consultations. All key informants interviewed generally agreed that dairy animal welfare was indeed linked to the animal\u0026rsquo;s productivity and that all stakeholders in Zimbabwe should collaborate to improve dairy animal welfare and consequently dairy productivity in the country.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eKAP of Zimbabwean large-scale dairy stockpeople towards animal welfare\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocio demographic characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe majority of stockpeople interviewed (65%) were male, while 35% were females. Direct observations and informal discussions with personnel from most farms visited also revealed that the majority of stockpeople in Zimbabwean large-scale dairy farms were males. Findings from this study also revealed that the biggest proportion (54.7%) of Zimbabwe dairy stockpeople had an age range of 30\u0026ndash;39 years. The maximum level of education for the majority of participants (71%) in this study was secondary education, while 24% of the participants were primary school dropouts and the remainder (5%) possessed tertiary qualifications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eZimbabwean large-scale dairy stockpeople\u0026rsquo;s knowledge towards dairy animal welfare\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe stockpeople questionnaire had several questions designed to assess the level of animal welfare knowledge possessed by stockpeople from Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms. 68% of the interviewed stockpeople could not define the term animal welfare. However, only 32% of the Zimbabwean large-scale dairy stockpeople attempted to explain the term animal welfare in vernacular. Nevertheless, the explanations by those who made an attempt to define the term lacked a clear appreciation of the fact that for animals to be in good welfare state, their physical, psychological and physiological needs must be met. The ability to define animal welfare was significantly associated with the stockpeople level of education (χ2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.54, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.006)). Generally, stockpeople who had secondary and tertiary educational qualifications made an attempt to define the term animal welfare. None of the given animal welfare definitions by stockpeople were classified as best definition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimal welfare knowledge among stockpeople from Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms- Midlands Province\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimal welfare knowledge question\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes response\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo response\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimals have freedoms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimals suffer from stress\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStress reduces milk yield\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimals have pain perception\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable one shows that, only 18% of the respondents, responded positively to the question that animals have freedoms, but none of those that gave positive responses could list all the five freedoms. On a more positive note, table one shows that a greater proportion of stockpeople interviewed responded positively to questions on suffering of animals, pain in animals and effects of stress on milk yield in dairy animals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eZimbabwean stockpeople\u0026rsquo;s attitudes towards animal welfare\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs illustrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, the highest proportion of stockpeople (45.3%) regarded the freedom from disease, pain and injury as the most important freedom, whereas the freedom from hunger and thirst was regarded as the second most important freedom by 36% of the stockpeople. The freedom from fear and distress was regarded as the least important freedom (8%) after the freedom to express normal behaviour (1.3%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimal welfare freedoms ranking by stockpeople from Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms- Midlands Province\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimal welfare freedoms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProportion of stockpeople\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFreedom from fear and distress\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFreedom from hunger and thirst\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFreedom to express normal behaviour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFreedom from discomfort\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFreedom from disease pain and injury\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows responses by stockpeople to some of the important questions that assess their attitudes on some important animal welfare practices. As illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, 40% of the respondents never regarded clinical examination of animals before handling them as an important practice. Interestingly, the majority (58%) of interviewees considered regular feeding of dairy animals as very important. When stockpeople were asked to respond to whether humane handling of dairy cattle was an important consideration in their practise, the majority of respondents (69%) responded that they \u0026ldquo;sometimes\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; considered humane handling of dairy animals as important. The belief that clinical examination of animals is an important consideration was significantly associated (χ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001) with dairy training received. However, there was no significant association between short courses in agriculture training received and the perception that clinical examination of animals was important in terms of animal welfare.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStockpeople practices on animal welfare\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn order to evaluate the practises of stockpeople towards animal welfare, the investigator used the stockpeople questionnaire and an observation tool with parameters to score the practices of stockpeople towards animal welfare. 69.3% of the dairy stockpeople reported that they had at one point in time handled dairy animals with a poor prognosis for recovery. Of those that agreed that they had handled dairy animals with a poor prognosis for recovery, only 38.2% stated that the animals were euthanized, while 61.8% said the animals were left to suffer and die without humane euthanasia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the proportion of stockpeople that responded to animal welfare practices such as shouting, whipping, talking, slurry removals and teat dipping. About 14% of the respondents frequently talked to and only 19% touched the dairy animals when handling them. A significant association was reported between gender of stockpeople and responses to touching (χ2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.7, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.005) and talking to dairy animals (n nχ2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.5, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), with a high proportion of female stockpeople responding positively to touching/interacting and talking to dairy animals when handling them. On a more positive note it was interesting to note that the practise of tying hind limbs of dairy cows when milking them was seldom (5.3%) done by stockpeople.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVisual observations of the milking procedure together with stockpeople interviews revealed that, teat dipping after milking was not frequently practised by stockpeople from all dairy farms visited. Instead, predipping is a common practise. Discussions with stockpeople revealed that the instruction not to teat dip after milking was a way of cutting the cost of teat dip chemical used during milking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e displays responses to assess the general farm hygienic practises associated with animal welfare. As shown in Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, 100% of the respondents revealed that slurry removal from milking parlour was done frequently by stockpeople in all visited farms (100%). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e also illustrates that removal of slurry from cattle pens and collection yards is seldom done by most stockpeople (82.7%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eZimbabwean large-scale dairy stockpeople\u0026rsquo;s hygienic practices towards cow welfare- Midlands Province\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNever\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeldom\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequently\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeat dip after milking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSlurry removal from yard\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSlurry removal from pen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e82.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSlurry removal from parlor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStockpeople knowledge on dairy animal welfare\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe high proportion of stockpeople who could not define or attempt to explain what they understood by the term animal welfare signifies that animal welfare issues are not well appreciated among stockpeople in Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms. Even when probed in their local language to explain what they understood by the term animal welfare, most of the stockpeople still struggled to explain the term in vernacular. On a different perspective, the findings that stockpeople could not define the term welfare could be due to the fact that the question was wrongly phrased and might not necessarily imply that stockpeople in Zimbabwe have a poor comprehension of the term animal welfare. It is important that future studies try to re-phrase the question on animal welfare definition and make it clearer and understandable to a lay person. Studies conducted in Uganda on farmer perceptions on calf housing indicated that level of education among other factors affected the way dairy farmers housed their dairy calves (Kiggundu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and that collaborates with our outcomes. Dairy or agriculture related education, capacitates the farmer to practise good dairy production practises that ensures welfare of animals is well taken care of. These findings tally with responses from key informants who attributed the low level of animal welfare knowledge among stockpeople to their lower level of formal education. Discussions with key informants revealed that the trend in Zimbabwe farms is to employ stockpeople with poor academic background. The knowledge gap on animal welfare by dairy stockpeople in Zimbabwe is further explained by the fact that only 10% of the key informants interviewed provided animal welfare training to stockpeople. Key informants are the people who are supposed to be spearheading animal welfare improvement programs in their areas of operation. The low levels of animal welfare knowledge among dairy personnel may compromise their animal welfare practices. Compromised dairy animal welfare leads to reduced productivity of the animals (Casamassima et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStockpeople attitudes towards animal welfare and their implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe attitudes of stockpeople and their willingness to adopt good animal welfare practices are important attributes required for successful implementation of any animal welfare intervention program (Farms, 2014; Vetouli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, several attitude questions were posed to determine the attitudes of stockpeople towards welfare of dairy animals. The fact that the freedom from disease, pain and injury was acknowledged as the most important freedom followed by the freedom from hunger and thirst shows that stockpeople are more concerned by the direct benefits they obtain from cows such as high milk yield when cows are in good health and are properly fed. These findings tally with a study which concluded that Kenyan smallholder dairy farmers perceived the freedom from disease, pain and injury as the most important freedom (Aleri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Even after a detailed explanation of all the five freedoms by the primary investigator, stockpeople still had a poor conceptualisation of the freedom to express normal behaviour and freedom to be free from discomfort. This was confirmed by the low scores of importance that were allocated to these freedoms by stockpeople. Such poor conceptualisations about some welfare freedoms could in turn affect stockpeople\u0026rsquo;s attitudes towards these freedoms and in turn affect welfare of dairy animals (Andreasen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Work done on 30 family run dairy farms, who had cows housed in cubicle houses revealed that personal characteristics and attitudes are important determinants of dairy cow productivity (Ceballos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018b\u003c/span\u003e), with milk yield being high on farms where stockpeople had good attitudes towards interactions with dairy animals (Waiblinger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Attitudes of stockpeople towards good animal welfare practises can be improved by regular training on animal welfare issues such as low stress handling, performing animal welfare assessments and training on the importance of the five freedoms of animal welfare to stockpeople (Ceballos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018a\u003c/span\u003e). Interviews with key informants revealed that animal welfare training is not even prioritised in the master farmer training curriculum. The results of this study confirm the bond already established in literature reviews (Pol et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and previous studies between the fear of animals by humans and human attitudes towards animals (Horback and Parsons, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Kauppinen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). It is, therefore, important that broader studies should be conducted in Zimbabwe to find out the impact of dairy personnel animal welfare knowledge, attitudes and practices on dairy animal indicators such as body condition, lameness e.t.c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStockpeople practises towards animal welfare and their implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is essential that a good human-animal relationship should exist for improved animal welfare. In this study, though a greater proportion of stockpeople reiterated that they never whipped their dairy animals, the observation that there were some few stockpeople who sometimes shouted and whipped dairy animals reflects on poor practises by stockpeople towards dairy animal welfare. Unwanted behaviours such as use of whips and shouting at dairy animals reported in this study induce fear of humans by dairy animals and eventually reduced productivity (Ellingsen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The finding that only 6.3% of the stockpeople talk to the dairy animals when milking them could be attributable to insufficient training on animal welfare issues, cultural beliefs and upbringing. It is essential that agriculture and veterinary extension staff include animal welfare training in their farmer training curriculum if stockpeople\u0026rsquo;s KAP on animal welfare are to be improved in Zimbabwe (Melfi and Hosey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The study identified some good practices of dairy cow management in large-scale dairy farms that support good animal welfare. For example, very few stockpeople whipped their animals when milking or driving them. However, it can be concluded that stockpeople from Zimbabwe large-scale dairy farms generally have low appreciation KAP on dairy animal welfare. It is essential that the extension personnel, dairy farm owners and farm managers in Zimbabwe should invest their time and resources towards improving the KAP by stockpeople hence improved dairy productivity. It is recommended that further studies should be done to establish better and more effective ways of teaching animal welfare concepts and practises. These approaches of teaching animal welfare to stockpeople should take into account the stockpeople\u0026rsquo;s cultural and educational backgrounds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of the present survey allow us to appreciate the levels of knowledge, attitudes and practices on animal welfare among Zimbabwean dairy stockpeople. It can be concluded that stockpeople in Zimbabwe generally have poor perceptions on the welfare of dairy animals as evidenced by the low responses to questions on Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices on dairy animal welfare. It is therefore important that extension approaches be modified to improve stockpeople and in turn farmer knowledge, attitudes and practices on animal dairy cow welfare and consequently dairy productivity in Zimbabwe.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo external funds were received to support this research. I personally funded the research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMy appreciation goes to all staff from my study institution (University of Zimbabwe) for the technical support in the development of this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatement of Animal Rights\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval was obtained from the Department of Veterinary Field Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo conflict of interest exists in this study\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTonderai Mutibvu and Pamela Woods are my two supervisors; they have been instrumental in every stage of writing this manuscript\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData for this paper is available upon request\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAjzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179\u0026ndash;211.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlbarrac\u0026iacute;n, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P., Kumkale, G.T., 2005. Attitudes: Introduction and scope. Handb. attitudes 2005, 3\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAleri, J.W., Mogoa, E.M., Mulei, C.M., 2012. Welfare of dairy cattle in the smallholder (zero-grazing) production systems in Nairobi and its environs. Anim. Welf. 24, 1\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndreasen, S.N., Sand\u0026oslash;e, P., Waiblinger, S., Forkman, B., 2020. Negative attitudes of Danish dairy farmers to their livestock correlates negatively with animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 29, 89\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBertenshaw, C., Rowlinson, P., 2009. Exploring Stock Managers\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of the Human\u0026mdash;Animal Relationship on Dairy Farms and an Association with Milk Production. Anthrozoos 22, 59\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCasamassima, D., Sevi, A., Palazzo, M., Ramacciato, R., Colella, G.E., Bellitti, A., 2001. Effects of two different housing systems on behavior, physiology and milk yield of Comisana ewes. Small Rumin. Res. 41, 151\u0026ndash;161.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCeballos, M.C., Sant\u0026rsquo;Anna, A.C., Boivin, X., de Oliveira Costa, F., Monique, V. de L., da Costa, M.J.R.P., 2018a. Impact of good practices of handling training on beef cattle welfare and stockpeople attitudes and behaviors. Livest. Sci. 216, 24\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCeballos, M.C., Sant\u0026rsquo;Anna, A.C., G\u0026oacute;is, K.C.R., Ferraudo, A.S., Negrao, J.A., da Costa, M.J.R.P., 2018b. Investigating the relationship between human-animal interactions, reactivity, stress response and reproductive performance in Nellore heifers. Livest. Sci. 217, 65\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCornish, A.R., Briley, D., Wilson, B.J., Raubenheimer, D., Schlosberg, D., McGreevy, P.D., 2020. The price of good welfare: Does informing consumers about what on-package labels mean for animal welfare influence their purchase intentions? Appetite 148, 104577.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEllingsen, K., Coleman, G.J., Lund, V., Mejdell, C.M., 2014. Using qualitative behaviour assessment to explore the link between stockperson behaviour and dairy calf behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 153, 10\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFishbein, M., 1979. A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHansen, B.G., \u0026Oslash;ster\u0026aring;s, O., 2019. Farmer welfare and animal welfare-Exploring the relationship between farmer\u0026rsquo;s occupational well-being and stress, farm expansion and animal welfare. Prev. Vet. Med. 170, 104741.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHigham, L.E., Deakin, A., Tivey, E., Porteus, V., Ridgway, S., Rayner, A.C., 2018. A survey of dairy cow farmers in the United Kingdom: knowledge, attitudes and practices surrounding antimicrobial use and resistance. Vet. Rec. 183, 746.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHorback, K.M., Parsons, T.D., 2016. Temporal stability of personality traits in group-housed gestating sows. Animal 10, 1351\u0026ndash;1359.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKauppinen, T., Vesala, K.M., Valros, A., 2012. Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livest. Sci. 143, 142\u0026ndash;150.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKiggundu, M., Kigozi, A., Walusimbi, H.K., Mugerwa, S., 2021. Farmers\u0026rsquo; perception of calf housing and factors influencing its adoption on dairy cattle farms in Uganda. Sci. African e00805.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMelfi, V., Hosey, G., 2011. Capacity building for better animal welfare. Int. Zoo Yearb. 45, 274\u0026ndash;281.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMusallam, I.I., Abo-shehada, M.N., Guitian, J., 2015. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) and Practices Associated to Brucellosis in Animals of the Livestock Owners of Jordan. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.15-0294\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4269/ajtmh.15-0294\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNicol, C.J., Davies, A., 2013. Poultry welfare in developing countries. Poult. Dev. Rev. Food Agric. Organ. United Nations, Rome 110\u0026ndash;120.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOstrom, T.M., 1969. The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 5, 12\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePol, F., Kling-Eveillard, F., Champigneulle, F., Fresnay, E., Ducrocq, M., Courboulay, V., 2021. Human\u0026ndash;animal relationship influences husbandry practices, animal welfare and productivity in pig farming. Animal 15, 100103.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobichaud, M.V., Rushen, J., de Passill\u0026eacute;, A.M., Vasseur, E., Orsel, K., Pellerin, D., 2019. Associations between on-farm animal welfare indicators and productivity and profitability on Canadian dairies: I. On freestall farms. J. Dairy Sci. 102, 4341\u0026ndash;4351.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaraiva, S., Esteves, A., Oliveira, I., Stilwell, G., 2020. Assessment of fear response and welfare indicators in laying hens from barn systems. Livest. Sci. 104150.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSorge, U.S., Cherry, C., Bender, J.B., 2014. Perception of the importance of human-animal interactions on cattle flow and worker safety on Minnesota dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 97, 4632\u0026ndash;4638.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStaley, M., Conners, M.G., Hall, K., Miller, L.J., 2018. Linking stress and immunity: Immunoglobulin A as a non-invasive physiological biomarker in animal welfare studies. Horm. Behav. 102, 55\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVetouli, T., Lund, V., Kaufmann, B., 2012. Farmers\u0026rsquo; attitude towards animal welfare aspects and their practice in organic dairy calf rearing: a case study in selected Nordic farms. J. Agric. Environ. ethics 25, 349\u0026ndash;364.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaiblinger, S., Menke, C., Coleman, G., 2002. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 79, 195\u0026ndash;219.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Large-scale, stockpeople, knowledge, attitudes, practices","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850293/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850293/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e Welfare of dairy animals and consequently their health and productivity is influenced by a number of factors such as the quality and quantity of supplement, health care given to animals, and stockpeoples; knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) on animal welfare. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the influence of most of the above factors on welfare of dairy animals, but very few studies focused on the influence of stockpeoples\u0026rsquo; KAP on dairy welfare. A cross sectional study involving 93 stockpeople from the 31 large-scale dairy farms in the Midlands Province, Zimbabwe was conducted to determine their KAP on animal welfare. Results revealed that 67% of the stockpeople could not define animal welfare and this was significantly associated with the stockperson\u0026rsquo;s level of education (χ2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.54, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.006). Only 14% of the stockpeople interviewed always talked to dairy cows when handling them and this was significantly associated with gender of the stockperson (χ2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.7, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). About 20% of the stockpeople responded positively to touching the dairy animals when handling them and this was associated significantly with the stockperson\u0026rsquo;s gender (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.005). On responses to whipping of animals when driving them, about 90% of the stockpeople said they never whip animals when handling or driving them. It is recommended that further studies be done to find better and more effective ways of teaching animal welfare concepts and practices.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Dairy cattle welfare: knowledge, attitudes and practices of stockpeople from Midlands Province- Zimbabwe’s large-scale dairy farms”","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-02-07 10:31:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3850293/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"cd3cf44d-4e50-43b2-a39c-00e578bb2cc3","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 7th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-05-13T02:23:35+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-02-07 10:31:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3850293","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3850293","identity":"rs-3850293","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}