Livestock Science 123 (2009) 16–22
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Livestock Science
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i v s c i
Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm
animal production
Filiep Vanhonacker a,⁎, Wim Verbeke a, Els Van Poucke b, Stephanie Buijs b, Frank A.M. Tuyttens b
a
b
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Animal Sciences, Animal Husbandry and Welfare, Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 28 April 2008
Revised 25 September 2008
Accepted 26 September 2008
Keywords:
Animal welfare
Citizen
Flanders
Group size
Pen size
Stocking density
a b s t r a c t
Farm animal welfare has become increasingly important and relevant from the societal point of
view throughout the livestock production chain, with space allowance for farm animals being
one of its most topical and vividly debated sub-matters. Anticipating on the increasing power of
the citizens' voice in Western society, this study focuses on societal concerns related to space
allowance in Flemish animal production. This paper reports a quantitative analysis of crosssectional surveys conducted among citizens of Flanders during 2000–2002 (n = 521) and
during 2006 (n = 459). Compared with other animal welfare aspects, the survey participants
perceived stocking densities and pen sizes as very essential for attaining an acceptable level of
farm animal welfare. In addition, they evaluated stocking densities and pen sizes in current
Flemish animal production as inadequate. Combined these results indicate that societal
concern, defined as the difference between perceived importance and evaluative belief, is very
high for stocking density and pen size, though less for group size. Societal concern about
stocking density was found to be higher among younger people and households without
children, while societal concern was not significantly associated with living environment (rural
versus urban). Gender (higher concern among women in dataset 2006) and educational
(higher concern among higher educated people in dataset 2000–2002) differences were not
consistently significant in all datasets. The findings from this study suggest that larger gains in
terms of animal welfare image among the public can be realised from providing farm animals
with more space relative to reducing animal group size.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Strong intensification in European agricultural production
has been realised since the 1950s in response to the food
shortage after the World Wars. This development has had a
profound impact on West-European agriculture and animal
production as maximisation of output and economic profitability became a major driver for agribusiness. The intensification resulted in a radical change of the living conditions of farm
animals as the animals were increasingly denied from outdoor
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 9 2646204; fax: +32 9 2646246.
E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Vanhonacker).
1871-1413/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2008.09.023
access and the number of animals per farm was maximised by
increasing stocking density. At present, maximisation of output
is no longer the only production driver. Qualitative traits
become more and more apparent in a society where sustainability and ethical issues have emerged as important themes in
food production and consumption debates (Vermeir and
Verbeke, 2006). Within the concept of sustainability and
agricultural ethics, animal welfare arises next to issues like
environmental friendliness, fair trade, landscape management,
and a viable and profitable rural livelihood for producers.
The importance of farm animal welfare is recognised by all
stakeholders in the farm animal production chain including
scientists, government, retailers, producers, consumers, and
society as a whole (Bracke et al., 2005). This has led to a
substantial body of animal welfare related research originating
F. Vanhonacker et al. / Livestock Science 123 (2009) 16–22
from varying scopes and resulting in many – often conflicting –
definitions of and approaches to welfare. Within these various
studies the aspect of space allowance in stables or confinements is an often recurring theme, irrespective of the animal
species considered, the science research perspective, or the
stakeholder at word. At the institutional level, EU welfare
legislation has already introduced some abolitions and/or
obligations linked to minimal space allowance for farm
animals. At retailers' level, examples of efforts relate to the
establishment of quality assurance schemes and labels claiming more attention for animal welfare. Almost invariably, issues
relating to space are a cornerstone of such quality assurance
schemes. Farmers also increasingly consider space allowance as
an important issue in obtaining an acceptable level of farm
animal welfare and end product quality (Van Poucke et al.,
2006; Bock and van Huik, 2007; Borgen and Skarstad, 2007;
Bruckmeier and Prutzer, 2007; Hubbard et al., 2007; KlingEveillard et al., 2007; Menghi, 2007; Vanhonacker et al.,
2008a). However farmers face a difficult trade-off between
economic interests and animal welfare-related concerns.
Specifically, the optimal space allowance per animal from the
perspective of animal welfare and health is usually larger than
that for maximising farm economic profits. In addition, severe
(inter)national competition on animal food product markets
pushes farmers to produce at minimal costs. As a result, it
is neither self-evident that farmers voluntarily house their
animals at a stocking density that is sub-optimal in terms of
economic profitability, nor that mandatory systems with lower
densities are readily accepted.
With regard to the citizen's view related to farm animals'
available space, very little research is currently available (e.g.
Hall and Sandilands, 2007), in contrast to the vast amount of
studies concentrating on individuals' (citizen or consumer)
perceptions about farm animal welfare in general (Verbeke
and Viaene, 2000; Harper and Henson, 2001; McGlone, 2001;
Te Velde et al., 2002; Kanis et al., 2003; Phan-Huy and Fawaz,
2003; Frewer et al., 2005; Heleski et al., 2006; Maria, 2006;
Vanhonacker et al., 2008a) and to many studies evaluating
the effect of stocking density on welfare from the animal's
point of view (Spoolder et al., 1999; Spinu et al., 2003;
Zimmerman et al., 2006; Estevez, 2007; Postollec et al., 2008).
Despite criticism towards focusing on citizen opinions due
to the so-called “citizen–consumer duality”, the proposition of
citizens being hypocrite is refuted (Dagevos and Sterrenberg,
2003). Consequently, citizen perceptions cannot simply be
ignored despite their often loose relationship with marketplace behaviour, even more so taking into account the trend
of reversal of the food chain, which has shifted from a supply
orientation to a demand orientation.
Focusing on space related issues is topical since the lack of
space is one of the issues most frequently brought into charge
by animal welfare organisations and subject to a proportionally
high share of media coverage. It is also one of the most tangible
and visible features of animal production systems, and therefore highly relevant in a society that is largely alienating from
agriculture and farm animal production practices.
In this study available survey data from Flemish citizens,
collected by the researchers during the period 2000–2006, in
different waves and with different purposes, are explored in
order to gain insights in the societal concern and perception
of space allowance as an animal welfare issue. First, we
17
explore to what extent people associate space allowance
with animal welfare and to what extent they consider it a
problem or not in current Flemish livestock production.
Second, since citizens cannot be considered one homogenous
group regarding their concern towards animal welfare
(Vanhonacker et al., 2007), significant differences between
socio-demographic citizen groups will be assessed within
each dataset. Finally, starting from the theoretical assumption
that the perception related to pen size and group size
contribute to the perception of stocking density, we examine
to what extent pen size or group size perceptions weigh more
heavily in people's formation of beliefs relating to stocking
density.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Sample and procedure
Cross-sectional data were collected through a series of
surveys using self-administered questionnaires in Flanders in
four different years (2000, 2001, 2002 and 2006). In 2000,
2001 and 2002 (dataset 1) the overall goal of the surveys was
to obtain insights in the self-reported impact of farm animal
welfare issues on meat consumption decisions. Identical
questionnaires were used and respondents' recruitment was
focused on the selection of the person responsible for food
purchasing in the household, with age as the single quota
control variable. The study in 2006 (dataset 2) was constructed independently of the former studies and aimed at
picturing the societal interpretation of farm animal welfare as
a multi-dimensional concept (Vanhonacker et al., 2008b). The
sampling strategy aimed at surveying a sample of respondents that is representative for the Flemish population
in terms of gender, age, living environment (rural versus
urban) and region. Methodological details of the 2006 study
are provided in Vanhonacker et al. (2008a). A total net response of n = 980 respondents was obtained with respectively
n = 179, n = 185, n = 157 and n = 459 respondents in the
consecutive years (Table 1).
Owing to the different study objectives, a significantly
different between-sample gender composition was found
(χ2 = 10.7; p = 0.001). In dataset 1, respondents were responsible for food purchasing, which is clearly reflected in the
gender distribution (female majority), while a representative fifty–fifty gender distribution was obtained in dataset 2.
The mean age and the share of urban respondents corresponded reasonably well with the population census data
(mean age: 40.2years; 35% living in urban areas (NIS, 2003))
Table 1
Socio-demographic characteristics of the four samples.
Dataset 1
2001
Dataset 2
Year
2000
Sample size
n = 179 n = 185 n = 157 n = 521 n = 459
Females (%)
Age (mean, years)
Urban residents (%)
Household with children (%)
Education beyond age of
18 years (%)
59.2
37.3
36.3
48.6
49.8
60.5
40.6
51.4
63.9
64.0
2002
66.9
37.4
34.4
48.8
52.8
Total
62.2
38.5
41.1
54.1
55.8
2006
51.5
37.8
38.9
48.9
68.7
18
F. Vanhonacker et al. / Livestock Science 123 (2009) 16–22
and did not differ significantly between both datasets (t = 0.78;
p = 0.438 and χ2 = 0.55; p = 0.459, respectively). The proportion of households with children was somewhat higher in
dataset 1 as compared to dataset 2 (χ2 = 4.46; p = 0.035),
though more closely matching the population composition of
about 60%. Finally, education level was higher in dataset 2 than
in dataset 1 (χ2 = 12.38; p b 0.001) and biased towards higher
education.
2.2. Dependent variables
The surveys probed for the respondents' perceived
importance and evaluative belief concerning the aspect of
stocking density (number of animals housed per m2, i.e. the
concept of space allowance) as well as of its two components –
pen size (in both datasets) and group size (only in dataset 2) –
relative to a list of other aspects related to the concept of farm
animal welfare. Both measures reflect citizens' perceptions
or beliefs, without linking to potential marketplace behaviour
as consumer.
Perceived importance refers to individual's perception
of the relative importance or relevance of these aspects
for the realisation of an acceptable level of farm animal
welfare. In dataset 1, perceived importance was measured as:
“According to your personal opinion, to what extent do
the following acts or factors have to do with animal welfare”,
and was probed on a five point Likert-scale, ranging from
“has nothing to do with animal welfare” (score of 1), to “has a
lot to do with animal welfare” (score of 5). In dataset 2, the
equivalent question was formulated as: “According to your
personal opinion, how important is this factor or act in
obtaining an acceptable level of farm animal welfare”, again
probed on a five point Likert-scale but now ranging from
“totally unimportant” (score of 1) to “very important” (score
of 5). The difference in phrasing between both datasets
possibly induces bias, which imposes limits on the comparability. However, the assumption is that the between-dataset
response style for this measure is systematic, hence not
preventing the comparison of the ranking of the aspects
under consideration.
Evaluative belief refers to a “good–bad judgment” (Zajonc,
1980) or to an evaluative opinion about what a specific issue
is or ought to be, more specifically animal welfare related
aspects in the present study. Evaluative belief was measured
in dataset 1 as: “To what extent do you think the following
acts or factors influence the welfare of the animals in current
Flemish animal production?”, probed on a five point Likertscale, ranging from “has a very negative impact on animal
welfare” (score is 1) to “has a very positive impact on animal
welfare” (score is 5). In dataset 2, this question was formulated as: “What is your personal evaluation about this
factor or act: to what extent do you think this factor or act is a
problem for the welfare of animals in current Flemish animal
production?”, also probed on a five point Likert-scale, ranging
from “is a big problem” (score is 1), to “is no problem at all”
(score is 5). In this case, the different phrasings include a
clear difference in connotation. In dataset 1, we asked the
respondent to make an overall judgment about the actual
state (hence relating rather to an overall image), while in
dataset 2, we asked for the respondent's personal evaluation
or personal image. Hence, comparison of mean values and
magnitude between both datasets should be handled very
carefully.
Since the perceived importance and the evaluative belief
scores were probed for in adjacent positions (physically in
the questionnaire) and scored on the same type of scale
(five point Likert scale), the difference between both scores
was calculated and used as a proxy of the degree to which
the aspect is evoking concern among individuals. ‘Concern’
refers on one hand to ‘something that is of interest or importance to a person’ and on the other hand associates with
‘anxiety or worry’ (source: http://www.thefreedictionary.
com/concern). The former association is covered by a
positive relationship with the perceived importance measure, the latter by an inverse relationship with the evaluative
belief measurement. High perceived importance combined
with low (or negative) evaluative belief (positive difference
score) correspond with a high concern (Fig. 1). Aspects with
such a positive difference score are subject to a strong
perceived potential improvement, which is perceived as
badly needed. Aspects for which a small and/or negative
difference score is obtained can have several meanings. First,
the aspect can have a high score on both measurements, i.e.
they are both perceived as very important and evaluated as
good. Such aspects have the potential to contribute
substantially to the positive image of farm animal welfare
but should be preserved from negative news seen their high
perceived importance (positive attention point). Second, if
an aspect has a low perceived importance score and a good
judgment, it evokes “no particular concern”. Third, aspects
that receive a low perceived importance and a negative
evaluation only have a low potential for contributing to the
improvement of citizens' perception of farm animal welfare
(not an issue).
Stocking density and pen size (dataset 1 and dataset 2)
or group size (dataset 2) were included among a list of
other relevant aspects with respect to farm animal welfare
for which the respondents' perceived importance and
evaluative belief are assessed. In dataset 1, the list was
composed of 23 aspects that were selected based on
literature review (Table 2). In 2006, a more elaborated list
of in total 72 aspects was used based on four focus group
discussions with citizens and a profound literature review.
The latter list is considered as being fairly exhaustive with
respect to the societal interpretation of farm animal welfare
Fig. 1. Conceptualisation of concern as a combination of perceived
importance (PI) and evaluative belief (EB).
F. Vanhonacker et al. / Livestock Science 123 (2009) 16–22
Table 2
Perceived importance, evaluative belief, and concern scores for 23 animal
welfare aspects in dataset 1 (n = 521); mean (standard deviation) on 5-point
scale; aspects are ranked according to their (descending) concern score.
Transport
Loading/unloading
Stocking density
Pen size
Growth promoters
Stunning
Slaughter
Medication
Feed ad libitum
Breeding
Outdoor access
Hygiene in barn
Barn climate
Feed composition
Litter
Group housing
Lairage before slaughter
Ventilation
Flooring type
Atmospheric humidity
Temperature of
surroundings
Artificial insemination
Selection
Perceived
importance
Evaluative
belief
Concern
4.15 (0.85)
4.16 (0.84)
4.44 (0.72)
4.47 (0.69)
3.48 (1.35)
4.13 (0.93)
4.12 (0.99)
3.79 (1.03)
3.49 (1.14)
3.70 (1.14)
4.38 (0.74)
4.47 (0.67)
4.20 (0.76)
4.08 (0.89)
4.11 (0.77)
4.00 (0.85)
3.61 (1.11)
4.16 (0.73)
3.93 (0.90)
4.01 (0.79)
4.06 (0.81)
2.82 (1.19)
2.84 (1.17)
3.20 (1.34)
3.27 (1.34)
2.36 (1.11)
3.13 (1.14)
3.11 (1.15)
2.78 (1.11)
2.59 (1.05)
2.83 (1.04)
3.53 (1.29)
3.67 (1.14)
3.47 (1.03)
3.40 (1.13)
3.43 (1.02)
3.32 (1.07)
2.95 (0.99)
3.54 (1.00)
3.31 (0.99)
3.45 (0.94)
3.52 (0.94)
1.33 (1.49)
1.32 (1.44)
1.24 (1.53)
1.19 (1.50)
1.11 (1.70)
1.00 (1.50)
1.00 (1.52)
1.00 (1.45)
0.90 (1.46)
0.88 (1.51)
0.86 (1.44)
0.81 (1.25)
0.73 (1.22)
0.69 (1.38)
0.67 (1.19)
0.67 (1.31)
0.64 (1.48)
0.62 (1.15)
0.61 (1.21)
0.56 (1.08)
0.55 (1.13)
2.98 (1.17)
2.99 (1.09)
2.85 (0.86)
2.96 (0.84)
0.14 (1.46)
0.05 (1.35)
(Table 3) (Van Poucke et al., 2006; Vanhonacker et al.,
2008b).
2.3. Statistical analyses
Data were analysed using SPSS 15.0. Bivariate analyses
through comparison of mean scores, i.e. independent samples
t-tests and ANOVA F-tests with Bonferroni and Dunnett's T3
post-hoc comparison of mean scores, were used to assess
association between the interval scaled space related aspects
on one hand and the categorical scaled socio-demographic
characteristics on the other hand. Stepwise linear regression
analysis was used to assess which of the components of
stocking density (i.e. pen size or group size) most strongly
influences citizen perceptions of stocking density.
3. Results
3.1. Relative importance of stocking density, pen size and group
size
In dataset 1, pen size and stocking density were attributed
the second and third highest perceived importance score
among the 23 aspects, only headed by hygiene in the barn
(Table 2). The aspects pen size and stocking density were
ranked 11th and 12th respectively, in terms of evaluative
belief. When ranking all 23 aspects from highest to lowest
concern (i.e. perceived importance score minus evaluative
belief score), stocking density and pen size ranked third and
fourth (Table 2). The highest concern was expressed for the
transport of animals and the (un)loading of animals.
In dataset 2, in particular stocking density's perceived
importance was very high (ranking 7th on 72 aspects),
19
and also pen size ranked relatively high (14th). Group size,
however, ranked only 58th. The top aspects were related to
the availability of feed and water, the relationship between
the farmer and his animals, animal health, and pain and stress
related aspects (for more details, see: Vanhonacker et al.,
2008a). Most importantly, stocking density was attributed the
lowest mean evaluative belief score (i.e. perceived as the most
problematic aspect in relation to farm animal welfare) of all
72 aspects, while pen size also scored as highly “problematic”
(6th). Group size was ranked in the middle (41th) (Table 3).
Of all aspects, stocking density received the highest concern;
pen size also ranked very high (4th), while group size ranked
55th.
3.2. Influence of socio-demographic characteristics
In order to account for differences in question phrasing
and scale use between both datasets, the results of the two
datasets for the aspect ‘stocking density’ will be discussed
separately (Table 4). In dataset 1, no significant effect of
gender on concern towards stocking density was found,
despite a more negative evaluative belief among males. In
contrast, in dataset 2, a highly significant effect of gender was
found, with a higher concern among women. Women
reported both a higher perceived importance and a more
negative evaluative belief. Concerning age, a significant effect
on concern was found in both datasets. In dataset 1, the
concern decreased from the youngest to the oldest age
category. In dataset 2, concern scores differed between the
youngest two categories and the oldest two categories. This
difference was based on a more negative evaluation among
the younger group, while no significant difference in
perceived importance score was found. This age-effect was
also reflected in the ranking of stocking density relative to the
other welfare related aspects in dataset 2 (results not shown).
Stocking density was ascribed the highest level of concern
among the first three age groups, while it only ranked seventh
in the oldest group. Living environment did not associate
significantly with levels of concern about stocking density.
Both datasets revealed a higher level of concern among
households without children. In dataset 1, the association was
resulting from a more negative evaluative belief, while in
dataset 2, households without children both perceived
stocking density more important as well as evaluated it as
more problematic compared to households with children.
Finally, dataset 1 revealed a significant higher concern among
higher educated people, while no association with education
was detected in dataset 2.
3.3. Relationship between perceptions of stocking density, pen
size and group size
By definition and mathematically, stocking density is
determined by the number of animals per unit surface area.
In the questionnaire, perceptions related to stocking density
are measured directly, while perception related to group
size (number of animals) and pen size (surface area) can be
assumed indirect measurements. In this case, a relevant
question to address is to what extent the citizens' perception
about stocking density is determined by their respective
perceptions relating to pen size and group size. Using
20
F. Vanhonacker et al. / Livestock Science 123 (2009) 16–22
Table 3
Perceived importance (PerImp), evaluative belief (EvalBel) and concern (Concern) scores of the 72 animal welfare aspects listed in dataset 2 (n = 459); mean
(standard deviation) on 5-point scale; aspect are ranked according to their (descending) concern score.
Stocking density
Stress
Slaughter without pain or stress
Pen size
Pain by human intervention
Handling of animals
Natural growth rate
Thirst during transport
Space during transport
Air quality
Duration of transport
Outdoor access
Natural behavior
Disease
Daylight
Natural environment
Skilled animal handlers
Fear
Respect for animals
Procedure of (un)loading
Body care
Transport of living animals
Shockproof and calm transport
Explorative behavior
Hygiene in the barn
Comfort
Stunning
Availability of water
Ability to rest
Natural feed
Pain by conspecifics
Balanced feed
Curative medication
Climate during transport
Social behavior
Freshness of feed
PerImp
EvalBel
Concern
4.28 (0.74)
4.15 (0.86)
4.30 (0.86)
4.16 (0.75)
4.23 (0.87)
4.07 (0.84)
4.04 (0.90)
4.10 (0.89)
3.97 (0.86)
4.16 (0.73)
4.03 (0.86)
4.02 (0.96)
4.00 (0.88)
4.37 (0.71)
4.08 (0.85)
3.88 (0.96)
4.29 (0.70)
4.04 (0.85)
4.39 (0.71)
3.97 (0.80)
3.89 (0.97)
3.93 (0.89)
3.90 (0.86)
3.86 (0.92)
4.29 (0.68)
3.99 (0.93)
4.01 (1.08)
4.56 (0.62)
4.05 (0.75)
3.88 (1.01)
3.96 (0.79)
4.17 (0.71)
4.23 (0.66)
3.81 (0.88)
3.84 (0.90)
4.24 (0.73)
2.11 (1.03)
2.22 (0.99)
2.36 (1.09)
2.29 (1.07)
2.43 (1.04)
2.28 (0.99)
2.29 (1.09)
2.37 (0.96)
2.24 (1.01)
2.52 (0.94)
2.46 (1.03)
2.46 (1.08)
2.45 (1.05)
2.82 (1.03)
2.54 (1.01)
2.38 (1.08)
2.79 (1.03)
2.55 (0.97)
2.92 (1.09)
2.51 (0.99)
2.43 (1.06)
2.47 (1.03)
2.44 (1.00)
2.43 (1.05)
2.91 (0.98)
2.63 (1.01)
2.66 (1.10)
3.27 (1.02)
2.77 (1.00)
2.61 (1.07)
2.69 (0.94)
2.92 (1.06)
2.98 (1.00)
2.58 (1.02)
2.62 (1.02)
3.03 (1.01)
2.17 (1.58)
1.93 (1.57)
1.94 (1.66)
1.88 (1.61)
1.81 (1.56)
1.78 (1.63)
1.75 (1.75)
1.73 (1.59)
1.73 (1.69)
1.64 (1.40)
1.57 (1.70)
1.56 (1.80)
1.55 (1.71)
1.55 (1.36)
1.54 (1.61)
1.50 (1.81)
1.50 (1.40)
1.49 (1.53)
1.48 (1.44)
1.46 (1.57)
1.46 (1.80)
1.46 (1.69)
1.46 (1.66)
1.44 (1.78)
1.38 (1.30)
1.36 (1.47)
1.35 (1.90)
1.29 (1.25)
1.28 (1.50)
1.27 (1.83)
1.27 (1.47)
1.26 (1.45)
1.25 (1.27)
1.24 (1.69)
1.22 (1.71)
1.21 (1.37)
dataset 2, which includes the necessary information on each
of the three aspects, three regression analyses were
performed with perceived importance (PerImp), evaluative
Mortality
Attention for animals
Natural birth
Maternal behavior
Variation in feed
Shelter
Frustration
Number of transports
Growth hormones
Lairage time
Boredom
Having fun
Sexual behavior
Hunger during transport
Light regime
Foraging behavior
Availability of feed
Group housing
Play behavior
Design of slaughterhouse
Group size
Functional areas in barn
Life span
Flooring type
Barn temperature
Frequency of visual inspection
Farmer-animal bond
Mixture of groups during t/s
Size of livestock herd on farm
Preventive medication
Taste of feed
Stable groups
Genetic selection
Feed on fixed moments
Distraction material
Technical noise
PerImp
EvalBel
Concern
4.04 (0.91)
4.25 (0.74)
3.81 (1.00)
3.80 (0.96)
3.90 (0.89)
3.94 (0.90)
3.66 (0.96)
3.79 (0.93)
3.26 (1.55)
3.72 (0.97)
3.50 (1.02)
3.67 (1.04)
3.72 (0.94)
3.66 (0.99)
3.74 (0.88)
3.64 (1.00)
4.23 (0.68)
3.71 (0.85)
3.58 (1.03)
3.61 (0.96)
3.63 (0.94)
3.53 (0.97)
3.64 (1.02)
3.67 (0.89)
3.84 (0.82)
3.68 (0.86)
3.59 (1.05)
3.38 (1.09)
3.40 (1.11)
3.36 (1.08)
3.59 (0.90)
3.43 (0.90)
3.30 (1.13)
3.69 (0.89)
3.14 (1.06)
3.22 (0.97)
2.86 (0.94)
3.08 (1.02)
2.66 (1.08)
2.66 (1.03)
2.75 (1.03)
2.82 (0.99)
2.57 (1.02)
2.71 (1.04)
2.18 (1.16)
2.68 (0.98)
2.47 (1.05)
2.66 (1.04)
2.72 (0.97)
2.67 (0.94)
2.77 (0.97)
2.66 (1.03)
3.28 (0.97)
2.77 (0.99)
2.66 (1.06)
2.70 (0.98)
2.72 (1.01)
2.67 (1.01)
2.83 (1.05)
2.91 (0.98)
3.10 (0.93)
3.07 (0.92)
2.97 (1.01)
2.77 (1.00)
2.80 (1.09)
2.85 (1.04)
3.11 (0.93)
3.00 (0.88)
2.92 (1.04)
3.34 (0.94)
2.82 (1.08)
2.91 (0.96)
1.18 (1.50)
1.17 (1.35)
1.16 (1.77)
1.14 (1.74)
1.14 (1.63)
1.12 (1.64)
1.09 (1.73)
1.08 (1.73)
1.07 (2.08)
1.04 (1.68)
1.03 (1.85)
1.01 (1.88)
1.00 (1.65)
1.00 (1.74)
0.97 (1.57)
0.97 (1.74)
0.95 (1.31)
0.94 (1.58)
0.93 (1.88)
0.91 (1.70)
0.91 (1.72)
0.87 (1.68)
0.81 (1.79)
0.77 (1.63)
0.75 (1.41)
0.62 (1.45)
0.62 (1.67)
0.61 (1.84)
0.60 (1.97)
0.51 (1.55)
0.48 (1.56)
0.42 (1.49)
0.38 (1.71)
0.35 (1.47)
0.33 (1.94)
0.31 (1.72)
belief (EvalBel) and citizen concern (Concern) towards
stocking density, respectively, as the dependent variable
and perceived importance, evaluative belief and citizen
Table 4
Influence of socio-demographic characteristics on the perceived importance, the evaluative belief and the concern towards stocking density; mean scores on
5-point scales.
Dataset 1 (n = 521)
PerImp
Gender
Age
Living environment
Presence of children
Education
Male
Female
18–24
25–39
40–54
55+
Urban
Rural
Yes
No
Till 18
Beyond 18
4.41
4.46
4.54b
4.35a,b
4.49b
4.19a
4.59 ⁎⁎⁎
4.33 ⁎⁎⁎
4.45
4.50
4.34 ⁎
4.53 ⁎
EvalBel
3.01 ⁎⁎
3.32 ⁎⁎
2.86a
3.03a,b
3.48b
3.46b
3.18
3.20
3.48 ⁎⁎⁎
2.88 ⁎⁎⁎
3.32 ⁎⁎
3.09 ⁎⁎
Dataset 2 (n = 459)
Concern
PerImp
EvalBel
Concern
1.40 ⁎
1.15 ⁎
1.68c
1.32b,c
1.01a,b
0.73a
1.40 ⁎
1.13 ⁎
0.97 ⁎⁎⁎
1.62 ⁎⁎⁎
1.03 ⁎⁎
1.43 ⁎⁎
4.13 ⁎⁎⁎
4.43 ⁎⁎⁎
4.40a
4.33a
4.16a
4.22a
4.25
4.30
4.13 ⁎⁎⁎
4.42 ⁎⁎⁎
2.26 ⁎⁎⁎
1.95 ⁎⁎⁎
2.00a,b
1.87a
2.31b,c
2.41c
2.04
2.15
2.37 ⁎⁎⁎
1.86 ⁎⁎⁎
1.86 ⁎⁎⁎
2.48 ⁎⁎⁎
2.40a,b
2.46b
1.85a
1.81a
2.22
2.14
1.76 ⁎⁎⁎
2.56 ⁎⁎⁎
4.29
4.28
2.14
2.09
2.14
2.19
Different letters (a-b-c-d) indicate significantly different scores on five-point scales using ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc test.
⁎ 0.05 b p b 0.1.
⁎⁎ 0.001 b p b 0.05.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
F. Vanhonacker et al. / Livestock Science 123 (2009) 16–22
Table 5
Regression analysis with stocking density as dependent variable and pen size
and group size as explanatory variables; dataset 2 (n = 459).
Perceived importance
Evaluative belief
Concern
Constant
Pen size
Group size
Constant
Pen size
Group size
Constant
Pen size
Group size
b
SE
1.717
0.473
0.163
0.135
0.553
0.260
0.856
0.603
0.202
0.160
0.041
0.033
0.092
0.037
0.039
0.073
0.037
0.034
β
R2adj
0.363
0.481
0.207
0.575
0.575
0.257
0.591
0.617
0.220
concern of both pen size and group size, respectively as independent variables:
PerImpðstocking densityÞ = a + b1 PerImpðpen sizeÞ + b2 PerImpðgroup sizeÞ
EvalBelðstocking densityÞ = a + b1 EvalBelðpen sizeÞ + b2 EvalBelðgroup sizeÞ
Concernðstocking densityÞ = a + b1 Concernðpen sizeÞ + b2 Concernðgroup sizeÞ
For all three models, a consistent picture of effects and
effect sizes was found (Table 5). Both pen size and group size
were confirmed to be significant as explanatory variables of
perceptions of stocking density (p b 0.05) and a satisfactory
goodness-of-fit was obtained for each of the regression
equations. Higher standardised regression coefficients were
found for pen size as compared to group size, indicating a
stronger effect of perceived pen size, relative to group size,
on public opinions about stocking density.
4. Discussion and conclusion
The data used for this study was based on surveys that
differed considerably in the construction of the questionnaire,
in question wording and in the characteristics of the samples. As
a consequence, the aim of the discussion is not primarily to
compare results between the two datasets and the respective
time periods. Instead, we aimed to find out whether certain
trends and effects were robust in the sense that they were
apparent in both datasets despite the differences in methodology, sample and timing. Trends that could be detected in one
dataset only could indicate either that the trend is less robust,
that a real shift in opinion took place during the first and last
survey, or that the trend could not be statistically proven in the
other dataset due to inadequate set-up or statistical power for
that particular aspect. Indeed, the reasons for between dataset
differences cannot be discerned with certainty as it cannot be
verified whether the observed difference is a reflection of real
evolutions in the societal perception and/or consciousness
of the issue at stake, or rather due to differences in question
wording or sample composition or due to social phenomena,
like for instance media coverage related to animal welfare.
In both datasets, the application of appropriate standards
regarding stocking density and pen size were perceived as
fundamental requirements for an acceptable level of farm animal welfare. Group size however, though attributed a positive
importance score, was not perceived as a top priority in attaining positive animal welfare. Regarding the aspects' evaluative
beliefs, stocking density was identified as the most problematic
aspect in relation with animal welfare in Flemish animal
production in dataset 2. Also pen size was ranked among the
21
most problematic ones, while fewer problems were perceived
with respect to group size. In dataset 1 these aspects were not
perceived as the ones having the most negative influence on the
welfare of the animals in Flemish animal production.
Combining the perceived importance and evaluative belief
score yielded a measure for ‘concern’. As a common – and
therefore robust – conclusion, we found that the societal
concern of both stocking density and pen size is imperative
within the full picture of farm animal welfare. In comparison
with other animal welfare related aspects, both stocking density
and pen size rank high in terms of perceived importance and
receive relatively low evaluative belief scores. Both aspects are
herewith clearly positioned in the upper left “high concern”
quadrant of Fig. 1. The perceived importance for group size is
considerably lower as compared to stocking density and pen
size, and citizen judgments are milder towards this aspect.
Regarding the socio-demographic influencing factors,
some consistent results were found indicating that younger
people and households without children are the higher
concerned citizen groups as concerns stocking density in
present animal production. Another consistent picture pertains to the impact of living environment, which did not
associate significantly with the concern of Flemish citizens
regarding stocking density. Finally, a higher concern among
women and higher educated people in one of the datasets
was neither confirmed nor disconfirmed in the other dataset.
In literature, no specific data is available concerning the
association of socio-demographic characteristics with citizen
concerns about the issue of stocking density or space
allowance in particular. Though several studies have investigated associations between socio-demographics and concern
towards animal welfare in general. Our findings corroborate
with regard to a higher concern among younger people
(Boogaard et al., 2006; Harper and Henson, 2001; Kendall
et al., 2006; Maria, 2006) and households without children
(Kendall et al., 2006). The higher concern among households
without children could be attributed to families with children
prioritising health and safety above production-related attributes like animal welfare. In contrast with Boogaard et al.
(2006) and Kendall et al. (2006), our data did not confirm a
significant effect of living environment. The role of gender
(Harper and Makatouni, 2002; Boogaard et al., 2006; Maria,
2006) and education level (Harper and Makatouni, 2002;
Boogaard et al., 2006; Kendall et al., 2006) were only partly
confirmed. Given the very strong gender effect in the second
dataset, the non significant impact in the first dataset is expected to be largely due to methodological issues. Specifically,
samples were restricted to people responsible for food
purchasing in dataset 1, whereas this selection criterion was
not used for the sample in the second dataset. This suggests
that concern related to stocking density is more apparent
among females in their role as a citizen than in their role as
food shopper. The non-significance of living environment can
probably be ascribed to the self-administered and subjective
interpretation of the measurement scale. It only allowed
the respondent to indicate whether he/she lived in either a
city or in the countryside without further specification. Our
findings related to the role of education may be attributed to
the composition of our samples, in which only a small share of
respondents had a low level of education (less than secondary
school). Indications of a different degree of concern between
22
F. Vanhonacker et al. / Livestock Science 123 (2009) 16–22
different socio-demographic groups in society are very
valuable since it gives insight into which citizen groups efforts
should be addressed to alleviate public concern and improve
perceptions regarding the welfare of farm animals, particularly regarding stocking density.
Finally, it is also important to anticipate on the best way to
communicate, in order to most effectively build favourable
public perception and livestock farming image. The perception
of stocking density appeared to be most strongly dependent
on the perception of pen size. This indicates that especially
the perception of spatial aspects (such as ideas, images or
expectations about the available space, the pen size or cage size)
is of importance in public perception and citizen concern
regarding stocking density, rather than the perception of group
size (i.e. the number of animals housed together). These findings corroborate with insights obtained during the focus group
discussions preceding the 2006 study (Vanhonacker et al.,
2008b). When the discussion was concentrated on spatial
aspects in relation to animal welfare, the focus group participants rarely related an excessive stocking density to a too high
number of animals, but almost invariably to a too limited space
availability. In addition, group size seemed not to be perceived
as a negative factor only, in the sense that both a too high and a
too small number of animals were indicated as potentially
detrimental for animal welfare. The focus group participants
also remarked that for a good animal welfare, animals should
not be housed individually (referring to sows; leaving calves
with the cows; images from herds in nature). Consequently it
could be expected that changing animal group sizes and
associated communication will contribute less to building a
more positive perception about stocking density compared to
an increase of pen size. These findings also indicate that
communication efforts that focus on enlarged pen size stand a
better chance of being effective when the aim is to realise a
more positive public perception about stocking density and
higher societal acceptance of farm animal production practices.
Seen the debated relationship between individuals' attitudes or what they state as citizens and what they actually do
as consumers, future research is recommended focusing on the
extent to which the stated perceptions discussed in this study
can be translated into purchasing intentions and actual buying
behaviour of food products produced under better standards
of stocking density and space allowance for farm animals.
Acknowledgements
The partial financing of this research by the Ministry of the
Flemish Community through the project ALT/AMS/2005/1,
and by IWT Flanders through the project 50679 is gratefully
acknowledged. Two anonymous referees and the journal
editor are acknowledged for the valuable comments and suggestions on previous versions of this paper.
References
Bock, B.B., van Huik, M.M., 2007. Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour
of European pig farmers. Br. Food J. 109, 931–944.
Boogaard, B.K., Oosting, S.J., Bock, B.B., 2006. Elements of societal perception
of farm animal welfare: a quantitative study in The Netherlands. Livest.
Sci. 104, 13–22.
Borgen, S.O., Skarstad, G.A., 2007. Norwegian pig farmers' motivations for
improving animal welfare. Br. Food J. 109, 891–905.
Bracke, M., Greef, K., Hopster, H., 2005. Qualitative stakeholder analysis for
the development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal
welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18, 27–56.
Bruckmeier, K., Prutzer, M., 2007. Swedish pig producers and their
perspectives on animal welfare: a case study. Br. Food J. 109, 906–918.
Dagevos, H., Sterrenberg, L., 2003. Burgers en consumenten: Tussen
tweedeling en twee-eenheid. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 160p.
Estevez, I., 2007. Density allowances for broilers: where to set the limits?
Poult. Sci. 86, 1265–1272.
Frewer, L.J., Kole, A., Van De Kroon, S.M.A., De Lauwere, C., 2005. Consumer
attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry
systems. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18, 345–367.
Hall, C., Sandilands, V., 2007. Public attitudes to the welfare of broiler
chickens. Anim. Welf. 16, 499–512.
Harper, G., Henson, S., 2001. Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the
Impact on Food Choice. FAIR, EU. (CT98-3678 Final Report, 38 pp. Available
on http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/welfare/eu_fair_project_en.
pdf (last consulted: 21/04/2008)).
Harper, G., Makatouni, A., 2002. Consumer perception of organic food
production and farm animal welfare. Br. Food J. 104, 287–299.
Heleski, C.R., Mertig, A.G., Zanella, A.J., 2006. Stakeholder attitudes toward
farm animal welfare. Anthrozoos 19, 290–307.
Hubbard, C., Bourlakis, M., Garrod, G., 2007. Pig in the middle: farmers and
the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. Br. Food J. 109, 919–930.
Kanis, E., Groen, A.F., De Greef, K.H., 2003. Societal concerns about pork and
pork production and their relationships to the production system.
J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 16, 137–162.
Kendall, H.A., Lobao, L.M., Sharp, J.S., 2006. Public concern with animal wellbeing: place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural
Sociol. 71, 399–428.
Kling-Eveillard, F., Dockes, A.C., Souquet, C., 2007. Attitudes of French pig
farmers towards animal welfare. Br. Food J. 109, 859–869.
Maria, G.A., 2006. Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livest.
Sci. 103, 250–256.
McGlone, J.J., 2001. Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues:
toward sustainable systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 72, 75–81.
Menghi, A., 2007. Italian pig producers' attitude toward animal welfare.
Br. Food J. 109, 870–878.
NIS, 2003. Population Census Data January 1, 2003. NIS, National Institute for
Statistics, Brussels.
Phan-Huy, S.A., Fawaz, R.B., 2003. Swiss market for meat from animalfriendly production — responses of public and private actors in Switzerland. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 16, 119–136.
Postollec, G., Boilletot, E., Maurice, R., 2008. The effect of pen size and an
enrichment structure (elevated platform) on the performances and the
behaviour of fattening rabbits. Anim. Welf. 17, 53–59.
Spinu, M., Benveneste, S., Degen, A.A., 2003. Effect of density and season on
stress and behaviour in broiler breeder hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 44, 170–174.
Spoolder, H.A.M., Edwards, S.A., Corning, S.,1999. Effects of group size and feeder
space allowance on welfare in finishing pigs. Anim. Sci. 69, 481–489.
Te Velde, H.T., Aarts, N., Van Woerkum, C., 2002. Dealing with ambivalence:
farmers' and consumers' perceptions of animal welfare in livestock
breeding. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 15, 203–219.
Van Poucke, E., Vanhonacker, F., Nijs, G., Braeckman, J., Verbeke, W., Tuyttens,
F., 2006. Defining the concept of animal welfare: integrating the opinion
of citizens and other stakeholders. In: Kaiser, H.M., Lien, M. (Eds.), Ethics
and the Politics of Food. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen,
The Netherlands, pp. 555–559.
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F., 2007. Segmentation
based on consumers' perceived importance and attitude toward farm
animal welfare. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 15, 91–107.
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F., 2008a. Do citizens
and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?
Livest. Sci. 16, 126–136.
Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F., Verbeke, W., 2008b. Multidimensional definition of farm animal welfare from a citizens' perspective. Working paper. Ghent: Ghent University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
Verbeke, W., Viaene, J., 2000. Ethical challenges for livestock production:
meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare.
J. 3Agric. Environ. Ethics 12, 141–151.
Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W., 2006. Sustainable food consumption: exploring the
consumer “attitude-behavioral intention” gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 19,
169–184.
Zajonc, R.B., 1980. Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am.
Psychol. 35, 151–175.
Zimmerman, P.H., Lindberg, A.C., Pope, S.J., 2006. The effect of stocking
density, flock size and modified management on laying hen behaviour
and welfare in a non-cage system. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 101, 111–1246.