Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:29:58.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A formal model for assessing the economic impact of animal welfare improvements at bovine and porcine slaughter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

J Jerlström ,
C Berg ,
AH Karlsson ,
A Wallenbeck  and
H Hansson
J Jerlström*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 234, 532 23 Skara, Sweden
C Berg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 234, 532 23 Skara, Sweden
AH Karlsson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 234, 532 23 Skara, Sweden
A Wallenbeck
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 234, 532 23 Skara, Sweden
H Hansson
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7013, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
* Contact for correspondence: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The relationship between animal welfare at slaughter and slaughterhouse profitability is complex, with potential trade-offs between animal welfare costs and benefits. Slaughterhouses currently lack data support for decisions on investments that can improve both animal welfare and profitability. Therefore, this study mapped the economic impacts for slaughterhouse businesses of improved cattle and pig welfare at slaughter. Specific aims were to: (i) highlight the possible economic impact of animal welfare improvements, based on the scientific literature; (ii) develop an economic model demonstrating the theoretical contribution of animal welfare to slaughterhouse profitability; and (iii) validate the economic model through focus group interviews with slaughterhouse personnel in Sweden. The findings indicated that investing in animal welfare improvements could result in accumulation of an intangible asset that can be considered together with other production factors in the economic model. Model validation stressed the importance of selling by-products for the economic outcome and of smooth workflow for productivity. The study thus improves understanding of the economic impacts of animal welfare at slaughter and incentives for slaughterhouse businesses to improve animal welfare. The results are important for public and private policy-makers interested in enhancing animal welfare at slaughter.

Keywords

abattoiranimal welfarecattleeconomic impactpigsprofitability
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , August 2022 , pp. 361 - 371
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ahmed, H, Alvåsen, K, Berg, C, Hansson, H, Hultgren, J, Röcklinsberg, H and Emanuelson, U 2020 Assessing economic consequences of improved animal welfare in Swedish cattle fattening operations using a stochastic partial budgeting approach. Livestock Science 232: 10392010.1016/j.livsci.2020.103920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexandratos, N and Bruinsma, J 2012 World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision, Volume 12, No 3, World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision, Volume 12, No 3, FAO: Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Algers, A and Berg, C 2017 Open knowledge about slaughter on the internet — a case study on controversies. Animals 7: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7120101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alleweldt, F, Kara, S, Schubert, K, Fries, R and Großpietsch, R 2007 Study on the stunning/killing practices in slaughterhouses and their economic, social and environmental consequences. Final Report, Part 1: Red Meat. European Commission pp 166. Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Alonso, ME, González-Montaña, JR and Lomillos, JM 2020 Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 10: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alvåsen, K, Hansson, H, Emanuelson, U and Westin, R 2017 Animal welfare and economic aspects of using nurse sows in Swedish pig production. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arzoomand, N, Vågsholm, I, Niskanen, R, Johansson, A and Comin, A 2019 Flexible distribution of tasks in meat inspection – A pilot study. Food Control 102: 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.food-cont.2019.03.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, S, Velarde, A and Algers, B 2013 Assessment of stun quality at commercial slaughter in cattle shot with captive bolt. Animal Welfare 22: 473–481. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.4.473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V and Clarke, V 2006 Using thematic analysis in psychol-ogy. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaCrossRefGoogle 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 Behaviour Science 66: 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00097-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carson, D, Gilmore, A, Perry, C and Gronhaug, K 2011 Focus group interviewing. Qualitative Marketing Research: 113-131Google Scholar
Chulayo, AY and Muchenje, V 2015 A balanced perspective on ani-mal welfare for improved meat and meat products. South African Journal of Animal Sciences 45: 452–469. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v45i5.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GJ, Rice, M and Hemsworth, PH 2012 Human-ani-mal relationships at sheep and cattle abattoirs. Animal Welfare 21: 15–21. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13353700593329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, LN, Fiego, DPL, Tassone, F and Russo, V 2006 The relationship between carcass bruising in bulls and behaviour observed during pre-slaughter phases. Veterinary Research Communications 30: 379–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-006-0086-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyne, LA, Pinchbeck, GL, Williams, NJ, Smith, RF, Dawson, S, Pearson, RB and Latham, SM 2014 Understanding antimi-crobial use and prescribing behaviours by pig veterinary surgeons and farmers: A qualitative study. Veterinary Record 175: 593. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.102686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Ouden, M, Nijsing, JT, Dijkhuizen, AA and Huirne, RBM 1997 Economic optimization of pork production-marketing chains: I. Model input on animal welfare and costs. Livestock Production Science 48: 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(96)01411-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Community 2009 Council Regulation No 1099/2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing. Official Journal of the European Union L303: 1-30Google Scholar
Fernandes, JN, Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ and Tilbrook, AJ 2021 Costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare. Agriculture (Switzerland) 11: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/agricultu-re11020104Google Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A sci-entific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–20510.1017/S0962728600019795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallo, C, Teuber, C, Cartes, M, Uribe, H and Grandin, T 2003 Improvements in stunning of cattle with a pneumatic stunner after changes in equipment and employee training. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria 35: 159–170. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0301-732X2003000200004Google Scholar
Gallo, CB and Huertas, SM 2015 Main animal welfare problems in ruminant livestock during preslaughter operations: A South American view. Animal 10: 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, TJ and Jackson, EL 2017 The economics of animal wel-fare. OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique 36: 125–135. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.36.1.2616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gori, E, Chang, TFM, Iseppi, L, Goga, BC, Iulietto, MF, Sechi, P and Lepellere, MA 2017 The assessment of consumer sensi-tivity to animal welfare: An application of Rasch Model. Rivista di Studi sulla Sostenibilita 1: 107–127. https://doi.org/10.3280/RISS2017-001008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1995 The economic benefits of proper animal welfare. 48th Annual Reciprocal Meat Conference pp 122–127. San Antonio, TX, USA. https://meatscience.org/docs/default-source/publications-resources/rmc/1995/the-economic-benefits-of-proper-ani-mal-welfare.pdf?sfvrsn=2Google Scholar
Grandin, T 1996 Factors that impede animal movement at slaughter plants. Journal American Veterinary Medical Association 209: 757–759Google ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 1997 Assessment of stress during handling and trans-port. Journal of Animal Science 75: 249–257. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.751249xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2000 Handling and welfare of livestock in slaughter plants. In: Grandin, T (ed) Livestock Handling and Transport pp 409–439. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851994093.0409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2007 Livestock Handling and Transport pp 329–353. CABI: Wallingford UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845932190.0329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2013 Making slaughterhouses more humane for cat-tle, pigs, and sheep. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 1: 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-031412-103713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, S, More, S, Boyle, L, O’Connell, N and Hanlon, A 2012 Good animal welfare makes economic sense: Potential of pig abat-toir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool. Irish Veterinary Journal 65: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-0481-65-11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL, Borg, S and Dowling, S 2002 The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80: 68–78. https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.80168xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH, Rice, M, Karlen, MG, Calleja, L, Barnett, JL, Nash, J and Coleman, GJ 2011 Human-animal interactions at abattoirs: Relationships between handling and animal stress in sheep and cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135: 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henningsen, A, Czekaj, TG, Forkman, B, Lund, M and Nielsen, AS 2018 The relationship between animal welfare and economic performance at farm level: A quantitative study of Danish pig producers. Journal of Agricultural Economics 69: 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holdstock, J, Aalhus, JL, Uttaro, BA, López-Campos, Ó, Larsen, IL and Bruce, HL 2014 The impact of ultimate pH on muscle char-acteristics and sensory attributes of the longissimus thoracis within the dark cutting (Canada B4) beef carcass grade. Meat Science 98: 842–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.07.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huertas, SM, van Eerdenburg, F, Gil, A and Piaggio, J 2015 Prevalence of carcass bruises as an indicator of welfare in beef cat-tle and the relation to the economic impact. Veterinary Medicine and Science 1: 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hultgren, J, Wiberg, S, Berg, C, Cvek, K and Lunner Kolstrup, C 2014 Cattle behaviours and stockperson actions related to impaired animal welfare at Swedish slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 152: 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ and Hess, S 2011 A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38: 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leary, S, Underwood, W, Anthony, R, Cartner, S, Lilly, E, Anthony, R, Cartner, S, Corey, D, Clinic, AV, Walla, W, Grandin, T, Collins, F, Greenacre, C, Gwaltney-Brant, S, McCrackin, MA, Polytechnic, V, Meyer, R, State, M, Miller, D, Shearer, J, Yanong, R, Golab, GC, Division, AW, Patterson-Kane, E, Scientist, AW and Division, AW 2013 AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition. American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumburg, IL, USA. https://www.in.gov/boah/files/AVMA_Euthanasia_Guidelines.pdfGoogle Scholar
Leonardsson, H, Macgregor, M and Bruckmeier, K 2011 Report No 6: Trends and the future. Developments in Animal Welfare: 1-21Google Scholar
Losada-Espinosa, N, Villarroel, M, María, GA and Miranda-de la Lama, GC 2018 Pre-slaughter cattle welfare indicators for use in commercial abattoirs with voluntary monitoring systems: A systematic review. Meat Science 138: 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.12.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lusk, JL 2011 The market for animal welfare. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 561–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9318-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marrocu, M, Paci, R and Pontis, M 2021 Intangible capital and firms’ productivity. Industrial and Corporate Change 21: 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McInerney, J 2004 Animal welfare, economics and policy. Report on a study undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Animal%20wel-fare%2C%20economics%20and%20policy&publication_year=2004&author=JGoogle Scholar
Napolitano, F, Pacelli, C, Girolami, A and Braghieri, A 2008 Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willing-ness to pay for yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 910–917. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telldahl, C, Hansson, H and Emanuelson, U 2019 Modelling animal health as a production factor in dairy pro-duction- a case of low somatic cell counts in Swedish dairy agriculture. Livestock Science 230: 103840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.103840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorell, K and Wallenbeck, A 2012 Pig behaviour during crowding – a study in organic and conventional herds. Nordic Symposium of the International Association of Applied Ethology (ISAE). 16-18 January 2012, Skara, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Warner, RD, Ferguson, DM, Cottrell, JJ and Knee, BW 2007 Acute stress induced by the preslaughter use of electric prodders causes tougher beef meat. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47: 782–788. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiberg, S 2012 Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet Skara Avhandling 5 Institutionen för Husdjurens Miljö och Hälsa Avdelningen för Husdjurshygien. [Title translation: Slaughter-not only about animals an interdisciplinary study of handling of cattle at slaughter]Google Scholar
Wigham, EE, Butterworth, A and Wotton, S 2018 Assessing cattle welfare at slaughter – Why is it important and what chal-lenges are faced? Meat Science 145: 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jerlström et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 151.5 KB