Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the attitude of pig farmers toward animal welfare in light of the state‐of‐the‐art legislation on animal welfare and production schemes in Italy.

The general framework regarding pig production, legislation and production schemes will be described by a literature review and personal communications from experts in the field. The results of farmers' attitudes toward animal welfare are based on a survey carried out among pig producers.

The main findings of the research are related to the survey results among pig producers. The paper presents a short description of the Italian pig sector and the results of the animal welfare legislation and production schemes.

The main limitation of the study is the relatively limited number of survey interviews. For this reason the sample cannot be considered statistically representative of the whole country.

The information collected in this article could represent a useful source for farmers, policy makers, and retailers, as well as consumers interested in animal welfare issues.

This is the first time that pig producers have been asked to express their opinion on animal welfare as defined by the legislation in force and the existing production schemes.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the attitude of UK pig farmers to the delivery of improved farm animal welfare standards and to investigate how they contribute to this objective through their membership of a range of different farm assurance schemes.

The analysis focuses on three main groups of pig farmers: farmers engaged in conventional farm assurance schemes; farmers participating in specific animal welfare schemes; and certified organic farmers. In total 54 farmers were interviewed about their participation in farm assurance schemes and their attitudes to animal welfare and towards the retailers and consumers they supply. Each answer was analysed individually and a list of themes identified for each type of scheme. These were compared and synthesised in an overall analysis.

The analysis identified how differently or similarly the different groups of farmers viewed the issues related to animal welfare. The findings revealed that, while farmers shared some attitudes regardless of the schemes in which they participated, there were differences between schemes in certain key areas such as farmers' motives for participation.

Although the sample was limited to England (the main focus of pig production in the UK) and was not random, farmers were selected to reflect the geographical distribution of production and the range of relevant schemes.

This study adds to the limited literature that focuses on farmers' views, attitudes and perceptions with regard to animal welfare. The paper is of value to stakeholders involved in the food chain who have an interest in animal welfare such as farmers, retailers, consumers and policy makers.

The primary purpose of this study is to investigate whether welfare issues are important to consumers also relating to fish. Second, it aims to identify segments based on animal and fish welfare issues, environmental concerns and ambivalence about farmed fish.

A questionnaire was designed to investigate consumers' concern for environmental and animal and fish welfare issues together with variables used in profiling segments in the study. The measurement scales used here are adapted from validated scales in previous studies. The survey was conducted in Valencia, Spain, among 450 randomly‐chosen respondents.

Animal welfare issues related to farmed fish do not seem to be important for the consumers in Valencia. There are, however, differences among the consumers relating to general environmental and animal welfare concern, and ambivalence. Three segments were identified: the unconcerned (27 per cent), the wild fish concerned (34.5 per cent) and the ambivalent (38.5 per cent). Attitudes toward farmed fish, the importance of natural food and social class were most important in profiling differences between clusters.

The findings indicate that the animal welfare issue has not yet become a barrier for farmed fish in Valencia. The results may help fish‐farming companies to find their target group among the consumers, based on environmental and animal welfare issues. The results also indicate that there are consumers who are somewhat ambivalent about farmed fish. For this group, more information and knowledge can change their attitudes so they become more positive toward farmed fish in the future.

The paper provides useful information for fish‐farming companies or the authorities planning healthy‐eating campaigns targeting fish.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into the rationale of Dutch pig farmers concerning animal welfare and animal‐friendly production. It aims to show the interrelations between farmers' production logic, their ideas about good farming and animal welfare and the characteristics of Dutch pig production.

In total, 62 Dutch pig farmers, participating in quality assurance schemes with different focuses on animal welfare, were interviewed about animal welfare, legislation, quality assurance schemes, and possibilities for animal‐friendly production.

Farmers' attitudes towards animal welfare and the implementation of animal welfare measures follow their understanding of good farming practices, which in turn are strongly influenced by the rationale of the market in which they operate. Two groups can be distinguished. Farmers operating in markets that focus on price and production‐efficiency tend to define animal welfare in terms of animal health and optimal zoo‐technical performance. Farmers operating in markets with a broader sense of quality, which incorporates values such as naturalness, animal welfare and care for the environment, define animal welfare in terms of the room the animals have to express natural behaviour.

This article provides insights into the perception of Dutch pig farmers about animal welfare and their readiness to change towards more animal‐friendly production methods. It points to the interrelations between animal welfare attitudes and behaviour, farmers' perception of good farming and the production logic of the farm. These interrelated influences should be borne in mind by policy makers and researchers seeking to raise welfare levels in pig production.

The purpose of this paper is threefold: first, to assess how concerned Norwegians are about fish welfare; second, to investigate Norwegians’ willingness to pay for salmon filet made from welfare-assured farmed fish with high levels of welfare; and third, to examine Norwegian opinions about the appropriate way to pay for better welfare standards in fish production.

On the basis of two focus group sessions, a survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to a representative sample of 2,147 Norwegian households via e-mail.

Results showed that the Norwegian public is concerned about fish welfare and is willing to pay a price premium for products made from welfare-assured fish. Norwegian consumers do not, however, want to be the only ones paying for fish welfare, as the main responsibility for fish welfare lies with producers and the Government.

In this study willingness to pay is measured using a hypothetical choice experiment. Values people express as citizens, however, may not accurately predict true consumer behaviour. This is generally referred to as “citizen-consumer duality” and may have affected the results.

The study shows that there is a national market for welfare-assured fish products, but education initiatives focusing on fish farming and fish welfare issues would further influence the attitudes and purchasing habits of Norwegian consumers.

Although concern about animal welfare is growing in the western world, very little attention has been given to the welfare of fish. This paper aims to make up for this by presenting a study of how Norwegians view the welfare of farmed salmon.

Explores the suggestion that the UK is at the forefront of Europe with respect to animal welfare issues and looks at farm animal welfare legislation and consumer concern in the UK and Europe. Results of a survey conducted in 1992 and a follow‐up in 1994, which looked at the importance with which meat manufacturers in the UK, Germany and Switzerland, view consumer concerns for animal welfare. Concludes that the meat industry needs to develop ways in which real concerns for animal welfare can be satisfied in a manner which both reassures the consumer and brings about improvement where it is necessary.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into the behaviour and attitudes of European pig producers towards animal welfare. It looks at the relationship of these factors with farmers' understanding of good farming and production logic, together with national characteristics of production, and market and policy arrangements.

This article synthesises the results of six national studies in which circa 360 pig farmers were interviewed. It compares the differences in attitudes and behaviour of farmers across different countries forming quality‐assurance schemes. This allows for an understanding of how participation in different types of schemes affects farmers' definitions and practice of animal welfare and how this is embedded in specific national contexts.

Farmers' readiness to implement stricter animal welfare regulations and their belief in animal‐friendly production differ according to their definition of animal welfare and the importance they attach to it, but are also linked to their participation in schemes. In general two groups of farmers can be distinguished. Farmers participating in basic or top quality‐assurance schemes define animal welfare in terms of animal health and production‐performance. By contrast, farmers who participate in organic or specific welfare schemes emphasise the animals' opportunity for expressing natural behaviour. These different attitudes towards the animal welfare issue are underpinned by differences in farming style, or production logic.

The article provides insights into how pig farmers across Europe perceive and construct animal welfare. By relating these factors with farmers' understanding of good farming and production logic and national characteristics of production, market and policy arrangements, it contributes to the scientific understanding of animal welfare attitudes and behaviour. It provides insights into the factors that influence farmers' readiness to engage in animal‐friendly production, which may be of use to policymakers.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the main characteristics of the animal welfare specifications in different quality schemes of the French pig sector; to present the French pig farmers' attitudes towards animal welfare in general, and illustrate different quality schemes.

Prime source of data is interviews with 60 pig farmers. Supplementary sources are research reports and statistics, specifications of the quality schemes.

On many themes, the responses and attitudes of the farmers differ according to their participation or not in a quality assurance scheme, and according to the level of stringency of their scheme regarding animal welfare. For instance, farmers in the most stringent schemes define animal welfare as providing natural living conditions for the animals, whereas for farmers in no schemes, or in more intensive schemes, animal welfare is above all an animal in good health, for which one must provide correct housing and a balanced and sufficient diet. Animal welfare is almost always a part of more global quality schemes including environmental and high flavour quality aspects.

The paper provides insights into the different definitions of good animal welfare by French pig farmers, as well as their attitudes towards public regulations and different types of private schemes. This is interesting from a scientific point of view and to fuel the debate between a high level of regulation for all farmers, a market segmentation based on welfare specification, or a market segmentation in which animal welfare is one aspect of the specifications.

Greater attention to and anxiety about farm animal welfare emerged at the end of the 20th century, as worries over food safety and food quality (connected to the BSE, FMD, avian influenza and other epidemics) pushed farm animal welfare into public discourse and political debate. This chapter looks at one of the ways in which consumers’ concerns and anxieties about animal welfare are addressed by the Soil Association (the United Kingdom), whose standard is based on a scheme of production that endorses animals’ natural life in the case of certification of organic eggs in the United Kingdom. Drawing on STS approaches it addresses the processes of producing ‘naturalness’ as food ‘attribute’ (to borrow from economics) and how ‘the natural life of hens’ is achieved in the context of eggs’ production.

The purpose of this paper was to assess the economic impact of investment in different animal welfare–enhancing flooring solutions in Swedish dairy farming.

The authors developed a bio-economic model and used stochastic partial budgeting approach to simulate the economic consequences of enhancing solid and slatted concrete floors with soft rubber covering.

The findings highlight that keeping herds on solid and slatted concrete floor surfaces with soft rubber coverings is a profitable solution, compared with keeping herds on solid and slatted concrete floors without a soft covering. The profit per cow when kept on a solid concrete floor with soft rubber covering increased by 13%–16% depending on the breed.

Promoting farm investments such as improvement in flooring solution, which have both economic and animal welfare incentives, is a potential way of promoting sustainable dairy production. Farmers may make investments in improved floors, resulting in enhanced animal welfare and economic outcomes necessary for sustaining dairy production.

This literature review indicated that the economic impact of investment in specific types of floor improvement solutions, investment costs and financial outcomes have received little attention. This study provides insights needed for a more informed decision-making process when selecting optimal flooring solutions for new and renovated barns that improve both animal welfare and ease the burden on farmers and public financial support.