scholarly journals Use and non-use values to explain farmers’ motivation for the provision of animal welfare

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enoch Owusu-Sekyere ◽  
Helena Hansson ◽  
Evgenij Telezhenko
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Latent Class ◽  
Latent Class Models ◽  
Customer Relationships ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Dairy Farmers ◽  
Motivational Constructs ◽  
External Pressures ◽  
Swedish Dairy ◽  
Use Values

Abstract This paper examines how differences in motivation in terms of use and non-use values affect the choice of animal welfare improvement practices. The application is focused on Swedish dairy farmers’ preferences for different flooring systems’ attributes. Using multiple indicators and multiple causes and hybrid latent class models, the findings demonstrate that dairy farmers who favour flooring solutions that enhance farm animal welfare are motivated by a complex set of both use values relating to internal and external pressures and non-use values linked to animal freedom, ethical codes of farmers and building business-to-customer relationships. The findings imply that measures to stimulate more uptake of animal welfare improvement practices can be better targeted by using insights into motivational constructs of farmers and by adopting policy communication that captures the whole breadth of use and non-use motivational constructs held by farmers.

scholarly journals ANIMAL WELFARE PERCEPTIONS OF THE U.S. PUBLIC AND COW-CALF PRODUCERS

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 544-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
MELISSA G.S. McKENDREE ◽  
GLYNN T. TONSOR ◽  
CHRISTOPHER A. WOLF
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Latent Class ◽  
Latent Class Models ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
The Public ◽  
Best Worst Scaling ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Class Models ◽  
The U.S

AbstractThe U.S. livestock industry is increasingly faced with pressure to adjust practices in response to societal concerns—specifically related to farm animal welfare. Using best-worst scaling, we determine which practices the U.S. public and cow-calf producers view as the most effective and most practical practices to improve beef cattle welfare. Latent class models are used to understand heterogeneity within and across the public and producers. Fresh, clean feed and water was viewed by most groups as both effective and practical. Furthermore, castrate with pain control and dehorn with pain control were seen as the least effective and practical practices.

Protecting farm animal welfare during intensification: Farmer perceptions of economic and regulatory pressures

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
M Molnár ◽  
D Fraser
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Consumer Choice ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
Production Costs ◽  
Time Lags ◽  
Economic Pressure ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Niche Markets ◽  
External Pressures

Pig (Sus scrofa) production in Hungary provides a case study in how external pressures influence animal production, animal welfare and intensification. External pressures were explored in 24 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with Hungarian pig farmers operating either confinement or alternative systems. Confinement producers reported intense economic pressure because of a power imbalance with the large meat-processing companies that buy their animals. These companies, in the view of the farmers, can source internationally and largely dictate prices. When prices paid by the companies fall below the cost of production, farmers cannot respond by reducing production because of the long time-lags between breeding and marketing; and with their large investment in confinement buildings that are difficult to modify, farmers see little option except to reduce production costs further. Alternative farmers reported being more resilient to economic pressures because they sell into niche markets, use inexpensive technologies, and typically produce a diversity of agricultural products which buffer periods of low profit in any one commodity. The current regulatory system was seen as inadequate to protect animal welfare from economic pressure because it focuses on certain inputs rather than welfare outcomes, does not cover some important determinants of animal welfare, and does not accommodate certain realities of farming. Current subsidies were also seen as an inadequate remedy, and were viewed as inequitable because they are difficult for alternative producers to access. Consumer-choice options, while used by alternative producers, are not available in mainstream markets which demand uniform 'commodity' production. The economic constraints that influence animal welfare might be better mitigated by a regulatory system developed with greater consultation with producers, a more equitable subsidy programme, and more developed consumer-choice programmes.

Provision of Farm Animal Welfare: Integrating Productivity and Non‐Use Values

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 484-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Johan Lagerkvist ◽  
Helena Hansson ◽  
Sebastian Hess ◽  
Ruben Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Use Values

scholarly journals German dairy farmers’ attitudes toward farm animal welfare and their willingness to participate in animal welfare programs: a cluster analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. 1121-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heinke Heise ◽  
Ludwig Theuvsen
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Target Group ◽  
Market Potential ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare ◽  
Welfare Programs ◽  
Dairy Farmers ◽  
Market Effects ◽  
Positive Attitudes

Farm animal welfare (FAW) is at the center of a controversial public debate, and the demand for higher farm animal welfare standards is growing. Nevertheless, there are hardly any dairy products from pure animal welfare programs (AWPs) on the market. Although dairy farmers are a very important stakeholder group for the successful implementation of AWPs, very little is known about their attitudes toward the introduction of such programs. For this study, 258 conventional dairy farmers in Germany were questioned about FAW and AWPs via an online survey. We identified five clusters (farmer groups) that significantly differ with regard to their attitudes toward AWPs, FAW, and their own willingness to improve the level of animal welfare or take part in specialized AWPs. Cluster A consists of farmers who strongly oppose AWPs; farmers in this cluster will probably not take part in AWPs, especially because they do not consider it profitable to do so. Farmers in cluster B also view AWPs and the associated market effects with some skepticism; however, they are willing to improve their level of animal welfare and, therefore, may someday become willing to participate in AWPs. Cluster C farmers have diverse attitudes toward AWPs; since they are slightly willing to improve the level of animal welfare on their farms and as they are comparatively most optimistic concerning the market effects of higher animal welfare standards, these farmers could also become AWP participants in the future. Farmers in cluster D have positive attitudes toward AWPs and show the highest willingness among the five clusters to improve animal welfare on their farms. However, when it comes to the market effects of higher national animal welfare standards and the market potential for more animal-friendly products, these farmers are the most skeptical; if the economic security of AWPs were guaranteed, Cluster D farmers would probably constitute an important target group. Farmers in cluster E have positive attitudes toward AWPs, show a high willingness to improve the own FAW, and tend to be less skeptical about the market effects of higher animal welfare standards; these farmers constitute the most important potential target group for AWPs. Our results can provide a starting point for the design of tailor-made AWPs that fulfill the requirements of both dairy farmers and the broader public.

Edinburgh Farm Animal Welfare Scale

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth J. Austin ◽  
Ian J. Deary ◽  
Gareth Edwards-Jones ◽  
Dale Arey
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Farm Animal ◽  
Farm Animal Welfare
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document