Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T20:17:02.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The willingness of conventional farmers to participate in animal welfare programmes: an empirical study in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

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

Abstract

In recent years, poor farm animal welfare (FAW) has been a continual focus of public criticism and, in many European countries, large segments of society have repeatedly demanded higher FAW standards. In spite of these demands, there are hardly any products from pure animal welfare programmes (AWPs) on the market. Given this background, farmers are a very important stakeholder group for the successful implementation of such programmes, but little is known about their attitudes towards the introduction of AWPs. For this study, 657 conventional farmers in Germany were questioned about FAW and AWPs via an online survey. Three clusters (farmer groups) were identified with respect to their attitudes towards AWPs and, based on these clusters, various target groups were determined for participation in AWPs. Cluster A (the ‘sceptical animal welfare opponents’) (n = 204) is characterised by strong opposition to AWPs and higher welfare standards in livestock husbandry. Farmers in this cluster will probably not take part in AWPs, especially because they do not consider AWPs profitable. Cluster B (the ‘undecided’) (n = 229) have diverse attitudes towards AWPs. As they do not reject the enhancement of animal welfare standards, these farmers may someday become willing to participate in AWPs. Cluster C, (the ‘marketconscious animal welfare friends’) (n = 224) have the most positive attitudes of the sample towards AWPs. However, even these farmers have diverse attitudes towards the monetary effects of AWP. Overall, they constitute the most important potential target group for AWPs as they indicate the highest willingness to take part in these programmes. The empirical results have important managerial implications and provide a starting point for the design of tailor-made strategies to increase the market penetration of AWPs.

Keywords

animal welfareattitudescluster analysisfactor analysisfarmersGermany
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 67 - 81
Copyright
© 2017 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

Ajzen, I 1991 The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 90(2): 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albersmeier, F and Spiller, A 2010 The reputation of the German meat sector: a structural equation model. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(4): 258–270Google Scholar
Bacher, J, Pöge, A and Wenzig, K 2010 Clusteranalyse. Anwendungsorientierte Einführung in Klassifikationsverfahren, Third Edition. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag: Munich, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1524/9783486710236. [Title translation: Cluster analysis. An application orientated introduction].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhaus, K, Erichson, E, Plinke, W and Weiber, R 2011 Multivariate Analysemethoden- Eine anwenderorientierte Einführung. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16491-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahlmann, J and Spiller, A 2008 Wer koordiniert die Wertschöpfungskette? Fleischwirtschaft 8(88): 23–29. [Title translation: Who co-ordinated the supply chain?]Google Scholar
Blandford, D and Fulponi, L 1999 Emerging public concerns in agriculture: domestic policies and international trade commit-ments. European Review of Agricultural Economics 26(3): 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/26.3.409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BMEL 2011 Milcherzeugung in den EU-Mitgliedstaaten Milch nur von Milchkühen. http://berichte.bmelv-statistik.de/SBT-0302010-2009.pdf. [Title translation: Milk production in EU-member. Milk only from dairy cows]Google Scholar
BMEL 2015 Bruttoeigenerzeugung an Fleisch. http://berichte.bmelv-statistik.de/SJT-8032400-0000.pdf. [Title translation: Gross indige-nous production]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
Bracke, MBM 2007 Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16(2): 229–231Google Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Matthews, LR and Coleman, GJ 2000 Behavioural response to humans and the pro-ductivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behavior Science 66: 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00097-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brosius, F 2011 SPSS 19. Mitp: Heidelberg/Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Bühl, A 2010 SPSS 18 Einführung in die moderne Datenanalyse. Pearson: Munich, Germany. [Title translation: Introduction to modern data analysis]Google 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
Burda Community Network 2009 Typologie der Wünsche 2009: Menschen-Medien-Märkte. Burda Community Network: Offenburg, Germany. [Title translation: Typology of wishes. People-media-markets]Google Scholar
Busch, G, Kaiser, 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
Coff, C, Korthals, M and Barling, D 2008 Ethical traceability and informed food choice. ethical traceability and communicating food. In: Coff, C, Barling, D, Korthals, M and Thorkild, N (eds) The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 15 pp 1–18. Springer: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GJ, Hemsworth, PH and Hay, M 1998 Predicting stockperson behavior towards pigs from attitudinal and job-relat-ed variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behavior Science 58: 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01168-9CrossRefGoogle 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 a European animal welfare label]Google Scholar
Deimel, I, Franz, A and Spiller, A 2011 Das Animal Welfare -Verständnis deutscher Schweinemäster: Eine Analyse landwirtschaftli-cher Frames. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Agrarökonomie 20(2): 191–200. [Title translation: The animal welfare understanding of German pig producers: an analysis of agricultural frames]Google Scholar
Destatis 2010 Landwirtschaftszählung 2010. Landwirtschaftliche Betriebe und landwirtschaftlich genutzte Fläche nach Größenklassen der landwirtschaftlich genutzten Fläche 2010. https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/Wirtschaftsbereiche/La ndForstwirtschaftFischerei/Landwirtschaftszaehlung2010/Tabellen/1_2_LandwirtschaftlicheBetriebeGenutzteFlaeche_end.html.[Title translation: Agricultural census 2010, Farms and agricultural land in size categories]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, fishing, socioeconomic condition, structural survey]Google Scholar
Destatis 2014 Publikation - Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei. Viehhaltung der Betriebe. Agrarstrukturerhebung 2013. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Pu-blikationen/Thematisch/LandForstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeu gung/Viehhaltung2030213139004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. [Title translation: Agriculture and forestry, fishing. Livestock-keeping farms, structural survey 2013]Google Scholar
Destatis 2015a Fleischproduktion im ersten Quartal 2015 auf Höchststand. https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/Wirtschaftsbereiche/LandFo rstwirtschaftFischerei/TiereundtierischeErzeugung/AktuellSchlachtunge n.html. [Title translation: Meat production in the first quarter of 2015 at a record high]Google Scholar
Destatis 2015b Bildungsstand. Bevölkerung nach Bildungsabschluss in Deutschland. https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/BildungForschungKultur/Bildungsstand/Tabellen/Bildungsabschluss.html. [Title translation: Level of education, population separated in education levels]Google Scholar
Döring, R and Wichtmann, W 2007 Chancen einer Öko-Kennzeichnung von Erzeugnissen der Seefischerei für die deutsche Fischwirtschaft. Final Research Project Report, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. [Title translation: Chances of eco-labelling for products of sea-fishing for the German fish industry]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
EC (European Commission) 2007 Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer 229(2). http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/sp_barom-eter_fa_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Everitt, BS 1998 The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle 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
Franz, A, Meyer, M and Spiller, A 2010 Einführung eines Animal Welfare Labels in Deutschland: Ergebnisse einer Stakeholder Befragung. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Agrarökonomie 19(1): 41–50. [Title translation: Implementation of a animal welfare label in Germany: Results of a stakeholder analysis]Google Scholar
German Meat 2015 Fleisch aus Deutschland. http://www.german-meat.org/de/fleisch-aus-deutschland/schlachtung-und-zerlegung.[Title translation: Meat from Germany]Google 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(2): 211–222. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.2.211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golan, E, Kuchler, E and Mitchell, L 2000 Economics of food labeling. Economic research service; USDA. Agricultural Economic Report, No 793. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer 793/Google Scholar
Goldsmith, P, Turan, N and Gow, H 2003 Food safety in the meat industry: a regulatory quagmire. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 6(1): 25–37Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, LH 2006 Creating markets for eco-labelling: are consumers insignificant? International Journal of Consumer Studies 30(5): 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00534.xCrossRefGoogle 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
Hansson, H and Lagerkvist, CJ 2014 Defining and measuring farmers’ attitudes to farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 23: 47–56. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, G and Henson, S 2001 Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice. EU-Project EU-FAIR-CT-98-3678. Final Report, Centre for Food Economics Research, Department of Agriculture and Food Economics, The University of Reading, UKGoogle 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
Harvey, D and Hubbard, C 2013 Reconsidering the economy of farm animal welfare: an anatomy of market failure. Food Policy 38:105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heerwagen, LR, Christensen, T and Sand⊘e, P 2013 The prospect of market-driven improvements in animal welfare: les-sons from the case of grass milk in Denmark. Animals 3: 499–512. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3020499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellberg-Bahr, A, Steffen, N and Spiller, A 2012 Marketingpotentiale für Weidemilch. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Agrarökonomie 21 (1): 3-12. [Title translation: Marketing potentials for pasture-raised milk]Google 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
Hubbard, C, Bourlakis, M and Garrod, G 2007 Pig in the mid-dle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109(11): 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 Tierwohl Initiative]Google Scholar
Jahn, G, Peupert, M and Spiller, A 2003 Einstellungen deut-scher Landwirte zum QS-System: Ergebnisse einer ersten Sondierungsstudie. Working paper, Institute of Agricultural Economics, University of Goettingen, Germany. [Title translati-on: Attitudes of German farmers towards the OS-Systems, Results of a first exploratory study]Google Scholar
Janssen, J and Laatz, W 2007 Statistische Datenanalyse mit SPSS für Windows. Springer: Heidelberg, Germany. [Title translation: Statistical analysis with SPSS for Windows]Google 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
Keeling, L and Kjærnes, U 2009 Principles and criteria of good farm animal welfare. Fact Sheet. http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/41858/5/0/22Google Scholar
Kjærnes, U, Miele, M and Roex, J 2007 Attitudes of consumers, retailers and producers to farm animal welfare. Welfare Quality® Report No 2. Cardiff University, School of City and Regional Planning: Cardiff, 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
Main, D and Mullan, S 2012 Economic, education, encourage-ment and enforcement influenced within farm assurance schemes. Animal Welfare 21(S1): 107–111. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makatouni, A 2002 What motivates consumers to buy organic food in the UK? British Food Journal 104(3/4/5): 345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menghi, A 2007 Italian pig producers’ attitude towards animal welfare. British Food Journal 109(11): 870–878. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835688CrossRefGoogle 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
Miele, M and Parisi, V 2001 Consumer concerns about animal wel-fare and the impact on food choice. Italian Survey Report no 1, EU Project CT983678, University of Pisa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Mußhoff, O, Hirschauer, N and Hengel, P 2011 Are business management games a suitable tool for analyzing the bloodedly rational behavior of economic agents? Modern Economy 2(4): 468–478. https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2011.24052CrossRefGoogle 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
Norwood, FB and Lusk, JL 2009 The farm animal welfare debate. Choices – The Magazine of Food, Farm and Resource Issues 24(3): 1–7Google Scholar
Porter, E 1980 Competitive Strategy. The Free Press: New York, USAGoogle 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: Lucky pig or poor 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
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 Tierschutz und Institut für Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie der Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover Aktuelle Probleme des Tierschutzes pp 63–71. Hannover, Germany. [Title translation: Animal welfare label: options for action – effects - responsibilities]Google Scholar
TopAgrar 2015 Initiative Tierwohl – wie geht es weiter mit der Warteliste? http://www.topagrar.com/news/Schwein-News-Schwein-Initiative-Tierwohl-wie-geht-es-weiter-mit-der-Warteliste-1772899.html. http://www.topagrar.com/news/Schwein-News-Schwein-Initiative-Tierwohl-wie-geht-es-weiter-mit-der-Warteliste-1772899.html. [Title translation: The Tierwohl Initiative, what is going to happen to the waiting list?]Google Scholar
Valeeva, NI, Lam, TJGM and Hogeveen, H 2007 Motivation of dairy farmers to improve mastitis management. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 4466–4477. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0095CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanhonacker, F, Van Poucke, E, Tuyttens, F and Verbeke, W 2010 Citizens’ views on farm animal welfare and related infor-mation provision: exploratory insights from Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23: 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9235-9CrossRefGoogle 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
Weber, H, Rammsayer, T and Bengel, J 2005 Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie. Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany. [Title translation: Handbook of personality psychology]Google Scholar
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 accepted live-stock production]Google Scholar