Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T10:56:33.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How best to improve farm animal welfare? Four main approaches viewed from an economic perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

T Christensen ,
S Denver  and
P Sandøe
T Christensen
Affiliation:
Department of Food Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
S Denver
Affiliation:
Department of Food Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
P Sandøe
Affiliation:
Department of Food Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
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.

Looking at the issues from an economic perspective, we examine four approaches to the improvement of farm animal welfare: legislative initiatives, and initiatives driven by producers, consumer choice (labelling), and food companies (Corporate Social Responsibility; CSR). We take as our starting point the assumption that to obtain the best possible improvements in animal welfare, a combination of all four approaches will be needed. The main focus of the paper is to show that (and how) economics and other social sciences can play an important role in determining how to design and implement these approaches most effectively. We argue that insights from animal welfare science on what constitutes an improvement in animal welfare, and how such improvements are best measured, are a necessary input to the economic analyses. Economic analyses can guide the form and extent of welfare legislation so as to set decent minimum standards of animal welfare. To exploit producer-driven animal welfare opportunities, understanding the relationship between animal welfare, productivity and other product or production characteristics is essential. To make best use of initiatives driven by consumer choice and CSR, the focus needs to be on, not simply aspects of animal welfare for which consumers are known to be willing to pay, but also other welfare dimensions viewed as essential by animal welfare experts. Finally, recent, rapid developments in the marketing of animal welfare-friendly products have demonstrated the need for more knowledge about the ways in which consumers perceive the different kinds of information used in labels and CSR strategies.

Keywords

animal welfareconsumerscorporate social responsibilityeconomicslegislationstakeholders
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 95 - 106
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

Appleby, MC 2003 The EU ban on battery cages: History and pro-spects. In: Salem DJ and Rowan AN (eds). The State of the Animals II pp 159–174. Humane Society Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC 2019 We demand compromise: which achieves more, asking for small or large changes? Animal Welfare 28: 83–93. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, EJ, Deary, IJ, Edwards-Jones, G and Arey, D 2005 Attitudes to farm animal welfare. Journal of Individual Differences 26: 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.26.3.107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, AP, Rutherford, KMD, Langford, FM and Haskell, MJ 2011 The effect of lameness prevalence on technical efficien-cy at the dairy farm level: An adjusted data envelopment analysis approach. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 5449–5457. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumol, WJ and Oates, WE 1988 The Theory of Environmental Policy, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belay, D 2018 Economics of information and incentives in regulation of market failure: Information disclosure, impact evaluation, market design, antibiotics and commodity markets. PhD thesis, University of Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Bennett, RM 1997 Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy 22: 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(97)00019-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, BB and van Huik, MM 2007 Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109(11): 931–944. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, I 2014 So-called ‘welfare products’ harm the sales of organic meat. Organic and Business 554(4): 4. http://okologi.dk/media/635431/554-okt-l.pdfGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 2017 Animal welfare in the European Union. European Parliament. Directorate General for Internal Policies Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Petitions. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analysesGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T 2015 Questionnaire about consumer perceptions of pork and pig production focusing on loose sows. University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics (IFRO), Documentation 648 2015/1. https://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/131999243/IFRO_Dokumentation_2015_1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T, Denver, S, Hansen, HO, Lassen, J and Sandøe, P 2014 Animal welfare labels: A comparison of experiences from six EU-coun-tries. University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics (IFRO) Commissioned work 2014/10. https://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130202208/IFRO_Udredning_2014_10.pdfGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T, Lawrence, A, Lund, M, Stott, A and Sandøe, P 2012 What can economists do to help improve animal welfare? Animal Welfare21: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B, Stewart, GB, Panzone, LA, Kyriazakis, I and Frewer, LJ 2017 Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy 68: 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council Directive 1999 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 on laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31999L0074&from=ENGoogle Scholar
CPH 2017 Danish supermarket chain dropping barn eggs from its shelves, May 29 2017. http://cphpost.dk/news/danish-supermarket-chain-dropping-barn-eggs-from-its-shelves.htmlGoogle Scholar
Danish Order 2015 Danish Order 49 of January 11 2017 on the indoor keeping of gilts and sows. https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=186206Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2017 Animal welfare and efficient farming: is confli-ct inevitable? Animal Production Science 57: 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2018 Stocking density: Can we judge how much space poultry need? In: Mench, JM (ed) Advances in Poultry Welfare – Food Technology and Nutrition pp 227–242. Woodhead Publishing: UK. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100915-4.00011-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS, Donnelly, CA and Jones, TA 2004 Chicken wel-fare is influenced more by housing than by stocking density. Nature 427: 342–344. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jonge, J and van Trijp, HCM 2013a Meeting heterogeneity in consumer demand for animal welfare: A reflection of existing knowledge and implication for the meat sector. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26: 629–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9426-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jonge, J and van Trijp, HCM 2013b The impact of broiler production system practices on consumer perceptions of animal welfare. Poultry Science 92: 3080–3095. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03334CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denver, S, Sandøe, P and Christensen, T 2017 Consumer preferences for pig welfare: can the market accommodate more than one level of welfare pork? Meat Science 129: 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.02.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dierks, LH 2007 Does trust influence consumer behaviour? Agrarwirtschaft 56(2): 106–111Google Scholar
Dyrenes Beskyttelse 2016 Pork labelled with stars is unambitious. Dyrenes Beskyttelse, May 10 2016. https://www.dyrenesbeskyt-telse.dk/artikler/svinekod-maerket-med-stjerner-er-uambitiostGoogle Scholar
Euro Coop 2017 Euro Coop Position Paper on Animal Welfare. Euro Coop, February 2017. http://www.eurocoop.coop/uploads/Euro%20Coop%20Position%20Paper%20on%20Animal%20welfa-re%20(2).pdfGoogle Scholar
Eurobarometer 2007 Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Eurobarometer 2016 Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Special Eurobarometer 442. http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2096Google Scholar
European Commission 2006 Labelling: competitiveness, consu-mer information and better regulation for the EU. http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/betterregulation/c ompetitiveness_consumer_info.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2009 Options for animal welfare labelling and the establishment of a European Network of Reference Centres for the pro-tection and welfare of animals. COM/2009/584, final. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2017 Welfare of cattle on dairy farms. European Commission – DG Health and Food Safety. An overview Report. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8950fa88-d651-11e7-a506-01aa75ed71a1/language-enGoogle Scholar
FAO 2018a Animal production. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations. http://www.fao.org/animal-production/en/Google Scholar
FAO 2018b Animal welfare at the heart of sustainability. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2014_ Animal_Welfare_at_the_Heart_of_Sustainability.htmlGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2011 Economics and Farm animal welfare. Farm Animal Welfare Committee: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Frankfurter Allgemeine 2018 In drei Stufen zu mehr Tierwohl, May 5 2018. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/staatliche-label-in-drei-stufen-zu-mehr-tierwohl-15575850.htmlGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2008 Toward a global perspective on farm animal wel-fare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galioto, F, Paffarini, C, Chiorri, M, Torquati, B and Cecchini, L 2017 Economic, environmental, and animal welfare performan-ce on livestock farms: conceptual model and application to some case studies in Italy. Sustainability 9: 1615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunert, KG, Sonntag, WI, Glanz-Chanosa, V and Forum, S 2018 Consumer interest in environmental impact, safety, health and animal welfare aspects of modern pig production: Results of a cross-national choice experiment. Meat Science 137: 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.11.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansson, H and Lagerkvist, CJ 2015 Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture. Food Policy 50: 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.food-pol.2014.10.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heerwagen, LR, Christensen, T and Sandøe, P 2013 The pro-spect of market-driven improvements in animal welfare: lessons from the case of grass milk in Denmark. Animals 3: 499–512https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3020499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heerwagen, LR, Mørkbak, MR, Denver, S, Sandøe, P and Christensen, T 2015 The role of quality labels in market-driven animal welfare. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 28:67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9521-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Initiative Tierwohl 2018 Einordnung und Ausblick der Initiative Tierwohl 2018. https://initiative-tierwohl.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/20180503-ITW-Rechenschaftsbericht.pdfGoogle Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O 2018 Animal welfare and social decisi-ons: Is it time to take Bentham seriously? Ecological Economics 145:90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D and Tversky, A 1979 Prospect theory: Analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kudahl, AB, Kirchner, MK, Denwood, M, Houe, H, Forkman, B, Nielsen, SS, Østergaard, S and Sørensen, JT 2017 Investing in cow welfare – a cost-effective initiative? Proceedings from Animal Welfare Conference. 3-4 October 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark. https://ivh.ku.dk/english/aboutthedepartment/animal-welfare-conference/Abstracts_book_-_FINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar
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
McInerney, J 2004 Animal welfare, economics and policy pp 1–21. DEFRA: London, UKGoogle Scholar
McMullen, S 2016 Animals and the Economy. The Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-43474-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ 2015 Positive animal welfare states and reference standards for welfare assessment. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63(1): 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2014.926802CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Environment and Food in Denmark 2018 New government animal welfare label. https://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/SiteCollectionDocuments/26_Kampagne/Dyrevelf%c3%a6rdsm%c3%a6rket/Factsheet_ani-mal-welfare_label.pdfGoogle Scholar
Norwood, FB and Lusk, JL 2011 Compassion by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199551163.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, DS, Wolf, CA, Widmar, NJO and Bir, C 2018 Consumer perceptions of egg-laying hen housing systems. Poultry Science 97: 3390–3396. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OECD 2017 Producer incentives in livestock disease management. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279483-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olynk, NJ 2012 Assessing changing consumer preferences for livestock production processes. Animal Frontiers 2(3): 32–38. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2012-0046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palomo-Vélez, G, Tybur, JM and van Vugt, M 2018 Unsustainable, unhealthy, or disgusting? Comparing different per-suasive messages against meat consumption. Journal of Environmental Psychology 58: 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, AB, Nielsen, HO, Christensen, T and Hasler, B 2012 Optimising the effect of policy instruments: a study of farm-ers’ decision rationales and how they match the incentives in Danish pesticide policy: Journal of Environment and Planning 55(8): 1094–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.636568Google Scholar
Pedersen, MF 2017 Production economic effects of reduced stocking density in egg production. Department of Food and Resource Economics, IFRO Commissioned work 2017/20. https://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/184846479/IFRO_Udredning_2017_20.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, MF and Olsen, JV 2015 Sector-level scenarios for out pha-sing egg production in enriched cages in Denmark. Department of Food and Resource Economics, IFRO Commissioned work 2015/15. https://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/138220732/IFRO_Udredning_2015_15.pdfGoogle Scholar
Porral, CC and Levy-Mangin, JP 2016 Food private label brands: the role of consumer trust on loyalty and purchase intention. British Food Journal 118(3): 679–696. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2015-0299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabobank 2012 Producing both brands and private labels. Rabobank Industry Note # 322, May 2012. https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2012/06/28/Rabobank-Private-Label-and-Brands-report?utm_source=copyright&utm_ medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyrightGoogle Scholar
Ryland, D 2015 Animal welfare in the reformed Common Agricultural Policy: Wherefore art thou? Environmental Law Review 17(1): 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461452914563218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P and Jensen, KK 2013 The idea of animal welfare: developments and tensions. In: Wathes, CM, Corr, SA, May, SA, McCulloch, SP and Whiting, MC (eds) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Veterinary and Animal Ethics pp 19–31. September 2011, London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiner, JA and Hess, S 2017 The role of non-use values in dairy farmers’ willingness to accept a farm animal welfare pro-gramme. Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(2): 553–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, CM, Richards, GJ and Nicol, CJ 2010 Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science 51: 488–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.502518CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sørensen, LY 2013 Poultry Sector in the 1900s, Second Volume 1950-2005. Danish Agriculture and Food Council: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Spinka, M 2006 How important is natural behaviour in animal far-ming systems? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, S, Sonesson, U, Gunnarsson, S, Öborn, I, Kummand, KI and Nybrant, T 2005 Sustainable development of food pro-duction: A case study on scenarios for pig production. Ambio 34(4/5): 402–407. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stott, AW, Vosough, AB, Dwyer, CM, Kupiec, B, Morgan-Davies, C, Milne, E, Ringrose, S, Goddard, P, Phillips, K and Waterhouse, A 2012 Interactions between profit and welfare on exensive sheep farms. Animal Welfare 21(S1): 57–64. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Danish Poultry Council 2017 Annual report 2016. The Danish Poultry Council. https://danskfjerkrae.dk/%C3%A5rsberetning/aars-beretning-2016Google Scholar
Thorslund, CAH, Aaslyng, MD and Lassen, J 2017 Perceived importance and responsibility for market-driven pig welfare: Literature review. Meat Science 125: 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.11.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanhonacker, F and Verbeke, W 2014 Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food products: challenges and opport-unities. Journal of Agricultures and Environmental Ethics 27: 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9479-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vialles, N 1984 Animal to Edible. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Weary, D and Robbins, J 2019 Understanding the multiple con-ceptions of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 28: 33–40. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weible, D, Christoph-Schulz, I, Salamon, P and Zander, K 2016 Citizens’ perception of modern pig production in Germany: a mixed-method research approach. British Food Journal 118 (8):2014-2032. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2015-0458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widmar, NJO, McKendree, MGS and Croney, CC 2013 Consumer preferences for and perceptions of livestock producti-on process attributes: animal welfare and food safety attributes. Proceedings of the American Meat Science Association 66th Reciprocal Meat Conference 16-19 June 2013, Alabama, USAGoogle Scholar
Willer, H and Lernoud, J 2018 The world of organic agriculture, statistics and emerging trends 2017. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FIBL), Frick, and IFOAM (Organics International): Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Zanasi, C, Rota, C, Trerè, S and Falciator, S 2017 An asses-sment of the food companies sustainability policies through a gre-enwashing indicator. International Journal on Food System Dynamics Proceedings in System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks 2017: 61–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.18461/pfsd.2017.1707Google Scholar