Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T06:19:23.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic effects of participation in animal welfare programmes: does it pay off for farmers?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

H Heise ,
S Schwarze  and
L Theuvsen
H Heise
Affiliation:
Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: hheise@gwdg.de
S Schwarze
Affiliation:
University of Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, D-37073 Goettingen, Germany
L Theuvsen
Affiliation:
University of Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, D-37073 Goettingen, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There has been an increased demand by some sections of society for higher farm animal welfare standards. In response, a number of programmes marketing products of animal origin, produced under higher animal welfare standards, have been established on the market in recent years. However, the market segments for products from so-called animal welfare programmes (AWPs) have remained small. Farmers are considered an important stakeholder group for higher market shares of more animal welfare-friendly products. Farmers’ decision to adapt their production to the requirements of AWPs is multi-dimensional, but always linked to financial incentives. Since little is known about the financial attractiveness of higher animal welfare standards in livestock farming, this study investigates the perceived economic success of 579 conventional farmers keeping livestock on their farms. The survey data were analysed using propensity score matching to assess the average effect of participation in AWPs on a farm's perceived profitability, liquidity and stability from the farmer's point of view. No significant effect was found of participation in AWPs on the economic success of farmers. The implications of this result are two-fold. On the one hand, it suggests that it is of particular importance to create further financial incentives to encourage farmers to take part in these programmes. On the other, it shows that farmers’ concerns that the required costly and highly specific investments will pay off are unfounded, as farmers participating in AWPs rate their own financial situation as equivalent to that of their colleagues not participating in AWPs.

Keywords

animal welfareanimal welfare programmeseconomic effectsfarmersGermanypropensity score matching
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 167 - 179
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adebaw, D and Haile, MG 2013 The impact of cooperatives on agricultural technology adoption: Empirical evidence from Ethiopia. Food Policy 38: 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.food-pol.2012.10.003Google Scholar
Bahlmann, J and Spiller, A 2008 Wer koordiniert die Wertschöpfungskette? Fleischwirtschaft 8(88): 23–29. [Title translation: Who coordinates the supply chain?]Google Scholar
Bauer, J, Etzel, JW, Müller, M and Vogel, A 2003 Zukunftsvisionen junger Tierhalter. Wege zu besserem Image und Ansehen pp 101–125. DLG Publishers: Frankfurt, Germany.[Title translation: Visions of young farmers: Ways to a better image and reputation]Google Scholar
BMEL 2011 Milcherzeugung in den EU-Mitgliedstaaten Milch nur von Milchkühen. http://berichte.bmelv-statistik.de/SBT-0302010-2009.pdf.[Title translation: Dairy milk production within the EU member states]Google Scholar
BMEL 2015 Bruttoeigenerzeugung an Fleisch. http://berichte.bmelv-statistik.de/SJT-8032400-0000.pdf. [Title translation: Gross indige-nous production of meat]Google Scholar
BMEL 2017a Deutschland, wie es isst. BMEL report 2017. http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Broschueren/Ernae hrungsreport2017.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. [Title translation: Germany how it eats]Google Scholar
BMEL 2017b Milchbericht 2017. https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Broschueren/Milchbericht2017.pdf?__ blob=publicationFile. [Title translation: Milk report 2017]Google Scholar
Bock, BB and Van Huik, MM 2007 Animal welfare: the attitudes and behavior of European farmers. British Food Journal 109(11):931-944. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009a Overall animal wel-fare assessment reviewed. Part 1: Is it possible? Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47(3/4): 279–291Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009b Overall assessment of animal welfare: Strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®. Animal Welfare 18(4): 363–370Google Scholar
Boulding, W and Christen, M 2001 First mover disadvantage. Harvard Business Review 79(5): 20–21Google Scholar
Buller, H and Cesar, C 2007 Eating well, eating fare: farm animal welfare in France. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15(3): 45–58Google Scholar
Busch, G 2016 Nutztierhaltung und Gesellschaft: Kommunikationsmanagement zwischen Landwirtschaft und Öffentlich-keit. PhD Thesis, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Germany. [Title translation: Livestock production and society: communication management between agriculture and the public]Google Scholar
Busch, G, Kayser, M and Spiller, A 2013 Factory farming from a consumer's perspective: associations and attitudes. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Agrarökonomie 22(1): 61–70Google Scholar
Caliendo, M and Kopeinig, S 2008 Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys 22(1): 31–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranfield, J, Henson, S and Holliday, S 2010 The motives, ben-efits and problems of conversion to organic production. Agriculture and Human Values 27: 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9222-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darnhofer, I, Schneeberger, W and Freyer, B 2005 Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria: Farmer types and their rationale. Agriculture and Human Values 22:39–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-004-7229-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deimel, I, Franz, A, Frentrup, M, von Meyer, M, Spiller, A and Theuvsen, L 2010 Perspektiven für ein Europäisches Tierschutzlabel. http://download.ble.de/08HS010.pdf. [Title translation: Perspectives for an European animal welfare label]Google Scholar
DESTATIS 2013 Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei. Sozialökonomische Verhältnisse Agrarstrukturerhebung. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/LandForst wirtschaft/Betriebe/SozialoekonomischeVerhaeltnisse2030215139004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. [Title translation: Agriculture and forestry, fishery. Socio-economic circumstances. Agricultural structure survey 2013]Google Scholar
DESTATIS 2014 Publikation - Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei. Viehhaltung der Betriebe. Agrarstrukturerhebung 2013. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Land Forstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeugung/Viehhal-tung2030213139004.pdf?__ blob=publicationFile. [Title translation: Agriculture and forestry, fishery. Livestock keeping farms. Agricultural structure survey 2013]Google Scholar
DESTATIS 2015 Fleischproduktion im ersten Quartal 2015 auf Höchststand. https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/Wirtschaftsbereiche/LandForstwirtschaftFischerei/Tiereundtierisch eErzeugung/AktuellSchlachtungen.html. [Title translation: Meat pro-duction in the first quartile of 2015 on highest level]Google Scholar
DESTATIS 2017a Fachserie 3 Reihe 2.1.8 - Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei. Arbeitskräfte und Berufsbildung der Betriebsleiter/Geschäftsführer - Agrarstrukturerhebung - 2016.[Title translation: Report 3, 2.1.8 on Agriculture and forestry, fishery. Employees and education of farm managers]Google Scholar
DESTATIS 2017b F achserie 3 Reihe 2.1.5 - Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei. Rechtsformen und Erwerbscharakter -Agrarstrukturerhebung - 2016. [Title Translation: Report 3, 2.1.5 Agriculture and forestry, fishery. Legal forms and organisation]Google Scholar
Duffy, R and Fearne, A 2009 Value perceptions of farm assur-ance in the red meat supply chain. British Food Journal 111(7): 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910972369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC (European Commission) 2006 A community action plan on the protection and welfare of animals 2006–2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:f82003Google Scholar
Franz, A, Deimel, I and Spiller, A 2012 Concerns about animal welfare: a cluster analysis of German pig farmers. British Food Journal 114(10): 1445-1462. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211263019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardeboek, C 2006 Comparing risk attitudes of organic and non-organic farmers with a Bayesian random coefficient model. European Review of Agricultural Economics 33(4): 485–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbl029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gocsik, É, Saatkamp, HW, De Lauwere, CC and Lansink, AGJM 2014 A conceptual approach for a quantitative economic analysis of farmers’ decision-making regarding animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27(2): 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9464-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gocsik, É, van der Lans, IA, Lansink, AGJM and Saatkamp, HW 2015 Willingness of dutch broiler and pig farmers to convert to production systems with improved welfare. Animal Welfare 24:211–222. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.2.211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, J, Black, F, Babin, BJ and Anderson, RE 2010 Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
Hansson, H and Lagerkvist, CJ 2012 Measuring farmers’ atti-tudes to animal welfare and health. British Food Journal 114(6): 840–852. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211234363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, G and Makatouni, A 2002 Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5): 287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J, Hidehiko, H and Todd, P 1997 Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training program. Review of Economic Studies 64: 605–654. https://doi.org/10.2307/2971733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J, Ichimura, H, Smith, J and Todd, P 1998 Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66(5): 1017–1098. https://doi.org/10.2307/2999630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heise, H and Theuvsen, L 2017 The willingness of convention-al farmers to participate in animal welfare programmes: An empir-ical study in Germany. Animal Welfare 26: 67–81. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.26.1.067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, C 2012 Do farm assurance schemes make a difference to animal welfare? Veterinary Record 170: 150–151. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.e847CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hujips, K, Hogeveen, H, Antonides, G, Valeeva, N, Lam, T and Oude Lansink, AG 2010 Sub-optimal economic behavior with respect to mastitis management. European Review of Agricultural Economics 37(4): 553–568. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Initiative Tierwohl 2016 Die Initiative Tierwohl. http://initiative-tierwohl.de/. [Title translation: The initiative Tierwohl]Google Scholar
Jasjeet, S and Sekhon, JS 2011 Multivariate and propensity score matching. Software with automated balance optimization: The matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software 42(7): 1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L, Evans, A, Forkmann, B and Kjærnes, U 2013 Welfare Quality® principles and criteria. In: Blokhuis, H, Miele, M, Veissier, I and Jones, B (eds) Improving Farm Animal Welfare: Science and Society Working Together: The Welfare Quality® Approach pp 91–114. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjærnes, U, Miele, M and Roex, J 2007 Attitudes of consumers, retailers and producers to farm animal welfare. Welfare Quality® Report No 2. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/cplan/sites/default/files/WQReport-2_0.pdfGoogle Scholar
Knage-Rasmussen, KM, Sørensen, JT, Rousing, T and Houe, H 2013 No association between slaughter pig herd size and animal welfare index based on on-farm welfare assessment. ‘Does big mean bad? The science behind large scale production’. Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A 2013 Can large intensive systems match the Five Freedoms for pigs? Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Leach, K, Whay, H, Maggs, C, Barker, Z, Paul, E, Bell, A and Main, D 2010 Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. Research in Veterinary Science 89: 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.02.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lusk, JL and Norwood, FB 2012 Speciesism, altruism and the economics of animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics 39(2): 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbr015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, BR 1995 Specific investment, economies of scale, and the make-or-buy decision: A test of transaction cost theory. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation 26: 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(94)00070-UCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makatouni, A 2002 What motivates consumers to buy organic food in the UK? British Food Journal 104 (3/4/5): 345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metz, CE 1978 Basic principles of ROC analysis. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine Volume VIII (4): 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2998(78)80014-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer-Hamme, SEK 2016 Zusammenhang zwischen Bestands, Gruppengröße und Indikatoren des Tierwohls in der konventionellen Schweinemast. PhD Thesis, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, Germany. [Title translation: Relationship between farm and group size and animal welfare indicators on conventional pig farms]Google Scholar
Miele, M, Blokhuis, H, Bennett, R and Bock, B 2013 Changes in farming and in stakeholder concern for animal welfare. In: Blokhuis H, Miele M, Veissier I and Jones B (eds): Improving Animal Welfare. Science and Society Working Together: The Welfare Quality® Approach pp 19–48. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-770-7_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möhring, A, Mack, G, Zimmermann, A, Gennaio, MP, Mann, S and Ferjani, A 2011 Modellierung von Hofübernahme- und Hofaufgabeentscheidungen in agentenbasierten Modellen. Yearbook of Socioeconomic Agriculture 2011: 163–188Google Scholar
Müller, AK and Theuvsen, L 2015 Financial literacy and food safety standards in Guatemala: The heterogenous impact of GlobalGAP on farm income. GlobalFood Discussion Papers No 63. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/199383/2/GlobalFood_ DP63.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nocella, G, Hubbard, L and Scaroa, R 2010 Farm animal wel-fare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economic Perspective and Policy 32(2): 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppp009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palczynski, L, Buller, H, Lambton, S and Weeks, CA 2016 Farmer attitudes to injurious pecking in laying hens and to potential control strategies. Animal Welfare 25(1): 29–38. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.1.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Y and Kellis, M 2015 Deep learning for regulatory genomics. Nature Biotechnology 33: 825–826. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3313CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pencina, MJ, D’Agostino Sr, RB, D’Agostino, RB Jr and Vasan, RS 2008 Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: From area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Statistics in Medicine 27: 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2929CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pirrachio, R, Resche-Rigon, M and Chevret, S 2012 Evaluation of the Propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios in case of small sample size. BMC Medical Research Methodology 12: 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pufahl, A and Weiss, CR 2009 Evaluating the effects of farm programmes: Results from propensity score matching. European Review of Agricultural Economics 36(1): 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbp001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, PR 2002 Observational Studies. Springer: New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3692-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, PR and Rubin, DB 1983 The central role of the propensity score in observable studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70: 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, B 2004 Die Stalltür steht weit offen. Nutztierhaltung in der berufständigen Öffentlichkeit in Bayern. In: Kirchinger, J (ed) Zwischen Futtertrog und Werbespot. Landwirtschaftliche Tierhaltung in Gesellschaft und Medien pp 75–87. Regensburg: GermanyGoogle Scholar
Schulze, B, Lemke, D and Spiller, A 2008 Glücksschwein oder arme Sau? Die Einstellung der Verbraucher zur modernen Nutztierhaltung. In: Spiller, A and Schulze, B (eds) Zukunftsperspektiven der Fleischwirtschaft – Verbraucher, Märkte, Geschäftsbeziehungen pp 465–488. University Publishing Goettingen: Goettingen, Germany. [Title translation: Poor pig or lucky sow? Consumers’ attitudes towards modern livestock production]Google Scholar
Skarstad, GA, Terragni, L and Torjusen, H 2007 Animal wel-fare according to Norwegian consumers and producers: Definitions and Implications. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15(3): 74–90Google Scholar
Smith, J and Todd, P 2005 Does matching overcome Lalonde's critique of non-experimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics 125: 305–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinton, SM, Rector, N, Robertson, GP, Jolejole-Foreman, C and Lupi, F 2015 Farmer decisions about adopting environ-mentally beneficial practices. In: Hamilton, SK, Doll, JE and Robertson, GP (eds) The Ecology of Agricultural Landscapes pp 340–359. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Theuvsen, L 2011 Tierschutzlabel: Handlungsoptionen – Wirkungen – Verantwortlichkeiten. Akademie für tierärztliche Fortbildung Fachgruppe. Aktuelle Probleme des Tierschutzes pp 63–71. Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie der Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule: Hannover, Germany. [Title translation: Animal wel-fare label: Options - effects - responsibilities]Google Scholar
Vaarst, M, Paarup-Laursen, B, Houe, H, Fossing, C and Andersen, HJ 2002 Farmers’ choice of medical treatment of mastitis in Danish dairy herds based on qualitative research inter-views. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 992–1001. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74159-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetouli, T, Lund, V and Kaufmann, B 2012 Farmers’ attitude towards animal welfare aspects and their practice in organic dairy calf rearing: A case study in selected Nordic farms. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25(3): 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9301-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WBA (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Agrarpolitik BMEL) 2015 Wege zu einer gesellschaftlich akzeptierten Nutztierhaltung. http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Ministerium/Beir aete/Agrarpolitik/GutachtenNutztierhaltung.pdf?__blob=public ationFile. [Title translation: Ways to a socially acceptable live-stock production]Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Heise et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 154.9 KB