Analysis of the Effectiveness of Animal Welfare Implementation in the Sheep Export Process to Malaysia Via Teluk Nibung Port

In the process of exporting sheep to Malaysia, there are several stages that sheep must go through, starting from the pen to the destination (Malaysia). Sheep always interact and receive treatment from humans during the export process. This has the potential to cause suffering for sheep. Sheep are often only used as objects. These sheep deserve attention in terms of animal welfare. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effectiveness of the application of animal welfare principles carried out by each party involved in sheep exports to Malaysia through Teluk Nibung Port, Tanjungbalai City, North Sumatra Province from 2019-2022. The analysis used in this study is a descriptive analysis using the CIPP model evaluation approach (context, input, process, product). Exporters are suspected of several times not paying attention to the application of animal welfare. One example is a sheep that cannot stand and even the sheep's legs protrude from the wall of the transport vehicle during transportation. The application of animal welfare in the sheep export process was implemented effectively with a score of 26.4 or 62.92%.

Export, sheep, animal welfare, CIPP

1. [BPS] Central Statistics Agency. Sheep Population by Province (Heads), 2020-2022. https://www.bps.go.id/indicator/24/473/1/populasi-domba-menurut-provinsi.html. Accessed April 11, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. [EC] Eval Community. 2024. Evaluation Theory: Understanding the M&E Framework. https://www.evalcommunity.com/career-center/evaluation-theories/. Accessed December 9, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. [SM] Survey Monkey. 2024. Using the Guttman Scale in Surveys: A Comprehensive Overview. https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/how-to-use-the-guttman-scale-in-your-survey/. Accessed December 27, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. [SU] Sopact University. 2024. New Approach to Program Evaluation. https://university.sopact.com/article/program-evaluation. Accessed December 9, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. [WOAH] World Organization for Animal Health. 2019. Chapter 7.1. Introduction to The Recommendations for Animal Welfare. https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=chapitre_aw_introduction.htm. Accessed April 13, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. [WOAH] World Organization for Animal Health. 2019. Chapter 7.2. Transport of Animals by Sea. https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=chapitre_aw_sea_transpt.htm#chapitre_aw_sea_transpt_0. Accessed November 4, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. [WOAH] World Organization for Animal Health. 2019. Chapter 7.3. Transport of Animals by Land. https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=chapitre_aw_land_transpt.htm#chapitre_aw_land_transpt_0. Accessed November 4, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Amin S. 2014. Introducing Qualitative Program Evaluation. ETHNOHISTORY Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Animal, Fish, and Plant Quarantine Center, Tanjungbalai Asahan Service Unit. 2024. Sheep Export Data 2019 – 2022. Asahan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Chen M and Weary DM. 2022. “Cattle Welfare Is Basically Human Welfare”: Workers' Perceptions of 'Animal Welfare' on Two Dairies in China. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. Vol. 8, Article 808767. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.808767. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Darodjat and Wahyudhiana M. 2015. Program Evaluation Mode. Islamadina, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2015: 1-28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Emma Dunston-Clarke, Renee S Willis, Patricia A Fleming, Anne L Barnes, David W Miller, and Teresa Collins. 2020. Developing an Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Livestock Transported by Sea. Animals 2020, 10, 705; doi:10.3390/ani10040705. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hempstead MN, Stilwell G, and Plummer PJ. 2019. Overview of indicators to assess on-farm welfare of sheep and goats. AABP PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 52, no. 2, 182-186, September 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Idris M. 2023. Teluk Nibung Port Information, Tickets, and Malaysian Ship Schedules. https://money.kompas.com/read/2023/07/21/132643226/info-pelabuhan-teluk-nibung-tiket-dan-jadwal-kapal-ke-malaysia. Accessed November 4, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ivanov NT. 2020. Sheep welfare during transport and slaughter in Bulgaria - Impact Sheep welfare during transport and slaughter in Bulgaria - Impact of welfare on slaughter carcass and meat quality: a review. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences: Vol. 44: No. 2, Article 2. doi.org/10.3906/vet-1909-30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Muhammad M, Stokes JE, Manning L. 2022. Positive Aspects of Welfare in Sheep: Current Debates and Future Opportunities. Animals 2022, 12, 3265. doi.org/10.3390/ani12233265. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Muryadi AD. 2017. Program Evaluation Model in Evaluation Research. Scientific Journal of Physical Education. Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Nielsen S, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, CanaliE, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Rojas JLG, Schmidt CG, Michel V, Chueca MAM, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Spoolder H, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Earley B, Edwards S, Faucitano L, Marti S, de La Lama GCM, Costa LN, Thomsen PT, Ashe S, Mur L, Van der Stede Y, and Herskin M. 2022. Welfare of small ruminants during transport. EFSA Journal 1 June 2022. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7404. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. President of the Republic of Indonesia. 2014. Law Number 41 of 2014 concerning Amendments to Law Number 18 of 2009 concerning Animal Husbandry and Health. Ratified by the President of the Republic of Indonesia in Jakarta on October 17, 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. President of the Republic of Indonesia. 2019. Law Number 21 of 2019 concerning Animal, Fish, and Plant Quarantine. Ratified by the President of the Republic of Indonesia in Jakarta on October 18, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Qotrun A. 2021. 5 Types of Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, to Mixed. https://www.gramedia.com/literasi/jenis-jenis-penelitian/?srsltid=AfmBOop75R7hvMwsRT7Hf0jeyrDhbDMxAASbBAqencE1DqurEvKs72Yt. Accessed December 9, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Rama A. Ambiyar, Rizal F, Jalinus N, Waskito, Wulansari RE. 2023. The concept of the context, input, process, product (CIPP) evaluation model in vocational high schools. JRTI (Jurnal Riset Aksi Indonesia) Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 82-86. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Sinclair M, Fryer C, Phillips CJC. 2019. The Benefits of Improving Animal Welfare from the Perspective of Livestock Stakeholders across Asia. Animals 2019, 9, 123; doi:10.3390/ani9040123. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Stufflebeam DL. 2003. The CIPP Model For Evaluation. Presented at the 2003 Annual Conference of the Oregon Evaluators Network (OPEN). https://goeroendeso.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cipp-modeloregon10-031.pdf. Accessed December 27, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Suprayogi A., Satrija F., Tumbelaka LITA, Indrawati A., Purnawarman T., Wijaya A., Noviana D., Ridwan Y., Yudi. 2013. Animal Health and Environmental Management. Bogor, IPB Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluation of the Nutritional Content of Abattoir Waste, Agro By-Products and their Bioavailability to Weaner Pigs.
• Haematology and Serum Biochemistry of Broiler Chicks Fed Mushroom Meal at Varying Levels
• Comparative Assessment of Concentration, Volume and Motility of Semen among Different Breeds of Dairy Bull