Impact of personal values and personality on motivational factors for farmers to work with farm animal welfare: a case of Swedish dairy farmers

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Hansson* ◽  
CJ Lagerkvist ◽  
KM Vesala
2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. 1121-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heinke Heise ◽  
Ludwig Theuvsen

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.


Author(s):  
Enoch Owusu-Sekyere ◽  
Helena Hansson ◽  
Evgenij Telezhenko

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.


2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth J. Austin ◽  
Ian J. Deary ◽  
Gareth Edwards-Jones ◽  
Dale Arey

2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 1081-1093 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Jones ◽  
Joop Lensink ◽  
Maria Cecilia Mancini ◽  
Richard Tranter

Agriculture ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 104
Author(s):  
Jill N. Fernandes ◽  
Paul H. Hemsworth ◽  
Grahame J. Coleman ◽  
Alan J. Tilbrook

It costs money to improve the welfare of farm animals. For people with animals under their care, there are many factors to consider regarding changes in practice to improve welfare, and the optimal course of action is not always obvious. Decision support systems for animal welfare, such as economic cost–benefit analyses, are lacking. This review attempts to provide clarity around the costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare, thereby enabling the people with animals under their care to make informed decisions. Many of the costs are obvious. For example, training of stockpeople, reconfiguration of pens, and administration of pain relief can improve welfare, and all incur costs. Other costs are less obvious. For instance, there may be substantial risks to market protection, consumer acceptance, and social licence to farm associated with not ensuring good animal welfare. The benefits of improving farm animal welfare are also difficult to evaluate from a purely economic perspective. Although it is widely recognised that animals with poor welfare are unlikely to produce at optimal levels, there may be benefits of improving animal welfare that extend beyond production gains. These include benefits to the animal, positive effects on the workforce, competitive advantage for businesses, mitigation of risk, and positive social consequences. We summarise these considerations into a decision tool that can assist people with farm animals under their care, and we highlight the need for further empirical evidence to improve decision-making in animal welfare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document