There were around 1, responses for the control group and responses for each treatment group.
After the participants read the text or viewed a blank screen , we asked them a series of questions. Some of the outcomes we measured were behavior changes that could directly help animals—for example, interest in signing a petition and intention to reduce fish consumption. We also measured attitude changes that we think may correlate with behavior change based on other research.click
Farmed Fish Welfare - UFAW
We told participants that an animal protection group had launched a petition to address the fish welfare issue they had just read about and then asked how interested they would be in signing that petition. Each of the six treatment texts about welfare issues made people more likely to sign the petition, and the results were statistically significant.
The average increase in interest was around a half point on a 1—5 scale. For example, if people in the control group rated their interest a 3, the treatment group rated their interest a 3.
- Women of Mystery: The Lives and Works of Notable Women Crime Novelists.
- Fish welfare.
- We, the people of Europe? : reflections on transnational citizenship.
- The Missing Peace: Solving the Anger Problem for Alcoholics, Addicts and Those Who Love Them.
- Fish welfare | Compassion in World Farming.
- EAS Member Login.
There is some evidence that the text about disease and water quality issues may be more effective at making people willing to sign the petition than the other texts, although this was generally not statistically significant. Aside from that, we were unable to determine how effective the other treatments were relative to one another. We asked people how they expected their fish consumption to change in the 90 days after the study: Would it increase, decrease, or stay about the same?
The slaughter text might also be effective, although the evidence was not statistically significant.
Other studies have found that attitudes about farmed animal intelligence and sentience correlate with how much meat a person eats and how open someone is to eating vegetarian. In this study, we measured attitudes by asking people how much they agreed or disagreed with the following statements:. Their adjusted p-values were 0. Even if these treatments did have an effect, however, the change would be only about a 0.
Online course on salmon welfare launched
As you can see, on average people are most likely to view fish as capable of suffering, but least likely to view them as having rich emotional lives. Research on health interventions has found that people who think they have the power to make a diet or lifestyle change are significantly more likely to do so. None of the treatments had any significant effect on the outcome, and in fact all the treatment texts except slaughter and crowding had negative effects although these negative effects were also not statistically significant.
Research has found that people are more likely to believe or to do something when they think most other people believe it or do it. Speakers and participants from research, policy, advocacy, and industry used the forum offered by the event to demonstrate the range of issues and opportunities for enhancing fish welfare in European aquaculture.
They also confirmed that the common practice of asphyxiation in ice slurry fails standards and causes prolonged suffering. For example, it is mandatory to stun fish prior to killing; there are some exceptions like mass-catching from a fishing vessel.
With a view to a level playing field across Europe, we support an increased level of cooperation on fish welfare. How can we ensure that all organic farmed fish meet the regulation so that Irish producers are not undercut?
The event coincides with the release by Eurogroup for Animals and Compassion in World Farming of a recent European opinion survey sounding public perceptions around fish welfare.