Promotor:
Prof. dr. ir. W. Verbeke
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University
Dean: Prof. dr. ir. G. Van Huylenbroeck
Rector: Prof. dr. P. Van Cauwenberge
Filiep Vanhonacker
SOCIETY VERSUS FARM ANIMAL WELFARE:
PUBLIC CONCEPTION, ATTITUDE AND CITIZEN-CONSUMER
AMBIVALENCE
Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor (PhD) in Applied Biological Sciences
Dutch translation of the title:
De maatschappij versus het welzijn van landbouwhuisdieren:
publieke opvatting, houding en burger-consument ambivalentie
Way of citation: Vanhonacker, F. 2010. Society versus farm animal welfare:
public conception, attitude and citizen-consumer ambivalence. Doctoral
thesis. Ghent University.
ISBN-number: 978-90-5989-411-2
The author and the promotor give the authorisation to consult and to copy parts of this work for
personal use only. Every other use is subject to the copyright laws. Permission to reproduce any
material contained in this work should be obtained from the author.
Members of the jury
Prof. dr. ir. Wim Verbeke (promotor)
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University
Prof. dr. ir. Christian Stevens (chairman)
Department of Organic Chemistry, Ghent University
Dr. ir. Volkert Beekman
Section Sustainable Development, Agriculture & Entrepreneurship, LEI – WUR, the
Netherlands
Prof. dr. ir. Stefaan De Smet
Department of Animal Production, Ghent University
Prof. dr. Xavier Gellynck
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University
Prof. dr. Dirk Lips
Department Agro- and Biotechnology, KaHo-Sint Lieven
Centre for Science, Technology and Ethics, K.U. Leuven
Dr. Frank Tuyttens
Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO)
I
Acknowledgements
Dit doctoraat is het resultaat van een dikke vijf jaar onderzoek, waarin ik heb kunnen proeven van
verschillende onderzoeksthema’s. Dierenwelzijn, traditionele voeding en aquacultuur maakten
daarvan het grootste deel uit. Met dierenwelzijn heb ik uiteindelijk gekozen voor het thema dat mij
het meeste boeide. Het is ergens grappig vast te stellen dat dit doctoraat een bundeling is van
hetgeen mij als kind reeds sterk interesseerde, namelijk cijfers, schrijven en dieren. Mijn ouders
zullen beamen dat cijfertjes steeds een soort fascinatie zijn geweest voor mij. Als ik daarnaast terug
denk aan de opstellen in de lagere school met als titel ‘Wat ik later worden wil’ koos ik steevast voor
‘journalist’ of ‘zoöloog’. Ik kan dan ook na vijf jaar zeggen dat ik dit werk graag gedaan heb en graag
doe.
Aangezien het schrijven van een doctoraat niet de verdienste van één persoon is, wil ik graag deze
mogelijkheid aangrijpen om enkele personen te bedanken. Eerst en vooral wil ik mijn promotor
prof. Wim Verbeke bedanken. Wim, bedankt voor de kansen die ik gekregen heb, de amicale manier
van samenwerken, de vrijheid en het vertrouwen die ik steeds heb genoten. Jouw brede kennis, je
vele contacten, je snelle analyses en kritische kijk op de zaken hebben zeker positief bijgedragen tot
dit finaal resultaat. Daarnaast wil ik ook de voorzitter en de leden van de examencommissie
bedanken voor de tijd die ze genomen hebben voor het kritisch nalezen van mijn manuscript. Frank,
extra woordje voor jou: bedankt voor de goede, leerrijke en vooral fijne samenwerking met jou en
je groep doorheen de jaren.
Daarnaast wil ik ook een woordje van dank richten aan alle collega’s die doorheen deze vijf jaar mijn
pad zijn gekruist, hier aan de vakgroep of via de verschillende onderzoeksprojecten waarin ik
betrokken was. Zuzia en Stijn, als mijn ‘ervaren’ eerste office-mates kon ik bij jullie steeds terecht
voor vragen, zowel werk- als privégerelateerd. Ook wil ik onze onderzoeksgroep-unit niet vergeten.
Zuzia, Armando, Christine, Lynn en Pieter, niet zelden zitten we eens bij elkaar in de bureau voor
een korte en deugddoende babbel. Ook bedankt aan de rest van de vakgroep. De cafébezoekjes de
vrijdag na het werk, het kaarten over de middag, de barbeques, ... waren een leuke manier om
elkaar ook naast het werk beter te leren kennen en bevorderlijk voor de werksfeer. Ten slotte wil ik
ook Elza hierbij niet vergeten. Het eerste project dat ik uitvoerde was er één samen met jou. Een
kort, maar zeer leuk project waarin we samen heel wat werk hebben verzet. De lange
telefoondiscussies, de vele treintrips doorheen Vlaanderen om te enquêteren, op congres naar Oslo
zijn maar enkele zaken die mij zullen bij blijven.
Het afleggen van een doctoraatsparcours is verder ook niet mogelijk zonder een goed evenwicht
tussen werk en ontspanning. Die ontspanning vond ik niet enkel in de sport, maar ook in het
samenzijn met vrienden. Bedankt dus, Mathieu en Riet, mini-landbouw, poker-, pingpong-, squash-,
tennis-, en racketlonvrienden, oud-kotgenootjes, oud-studiegenootjes en al dezen die ik hierbij
geheel onterecht vergeet.
III
Ik heb ook steeds kunnen terugvallen op een hechte familie en schoonfamilie. Ma en pa, bedankt
voor de financiële input en ons de mogelijkheid te geven om verder te studeren. Ook bedankt, net
als de schoonoudjes, voor alle praktische en technische hulp met huis, tuin, Timon, ....
(Schoon)broers en (schoon)zussen, al zijn de zondagse bezoekjes vaak wat hectisch met al dat
rondlopend wild (en belooft het nog heel wat hectischer te worden), het is toch iets waar we steeds
naar uitkijken.
Afsluiten wil ik met mijn eigen gezinnetje. Joke, bedankt voor de mooie jaren samen en de extra
dimensie die je aan mijn leven hebt gegeven. Ik zou het niet anders willen. Timon is mijn grote held.
Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat we hem samen een warm nestje zullen geven en kijk vol
nieuwsgierigheid uit naar onze tweede spruit.
IV
Table of contents
Members of the jury
I
Acknowledgements
III
Table of contents
V
List of tables
XI
List of figures
XVI
List of abbreviations
XVIII
PART I General introduction, objectives and outline of the thesis
1.
General introduction
3
1.1.
Relevance of the topic
3
1.2.
Scope of the thesis
8
1.2.1. Public conception
9
1.2.2. Ambivalence and attitude variety: need for a segmented and
targeted approach
2.
12
1.2.3. Piglet castration
14
Conceptual framework
17
2.1.
Theory of reasoned action
18
2.2.
Modifiers of farm animal welfare attitude
19
2.2.1. Social structural variables – Place-related variables
20
2.2.2. Social structural variables – Other variables
21
2.2.3. Individual animal-related experiential variables
21
2.3.
Factors influencing the ambivalence between attitude and
behavioural intention
22
2.3.1. Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE)
23
2.3.2. Information
24
2.3.3. Availability
25
2.3.4. Cost
26
2.3.5. Dissociation
27
3.
Research objectives and hypotheses
28
4.
Research design and data sources
29
4.1.
Study 1: Secondary data sources
30
4.2.
Study 2: “Defining the concept farm animal welfare”
31
4.3.
Study 3: “Farm animal welfare and consumer behaviour”
33
4.4.
Study 4: “Surveying Flemish pig producers about their attitude towards surgical
castration without anaesthesia and its alternatives”
4.5.
34
Study 5: “Consumer perception towards immunocastration as alternative practice
for surgical castration of piglets”
34
V
4.6.
Study 6: Immunocastration versus surgical castration with anaesthesia/analgesia
35
5.
Thesis outline
36
PART II Public conception of farm animal welfare
CHAPTER 1. Public conception of farm animal welfare – qualitative approach
41
1.
Introduction
42
2.
Material and methods
43
2.1.
Survey (Study 1)
43
2.2.
Focus group discussions (part of Study 2)
45
3.
Results
3.1.
Citizens’ conceptualisation of farm animal welfare
46
3.2.
Personal relevance attached to animal welfare
48
3.2.1. Survey
48
3.2.2. Focus group discussions
49
Information and animal welfare
50
3.3.1. Survey
50
3.3.2. Focus group discussions
51
3.3.
4.
46
Discussion and conclusion
53
CHAPTER 2. Public conception of farm animal welfare – quantitative approach
55
1.
Introduction
56
2.
Material and methods
57
2.1.
Qualitative research – focus group discussions and literature search
58
2.2.
Quantitative research – survey
59
2.2.1. Study design and subjects
59
2.2.2. Survey
59
2.2.3. Exploratory factor analysis
59
2.2.4. Confirmatory factor analysis and construct validity
60
In depth interviews
60
2.3.
3.
4.
VI
Results
61
3.1.
Exploratory factor analysis
61
3.2.
Confirmatory factor analysis and construct validity
61
3.3.
In depth interviews
66
Discussion and conclusion
69
PART III Public attitudes, perceptions and concerns towards farm animal welfare &
attitude modifiers
CHAPTER 3. Concept of farm animal welfare: citizens versus farmers
75
1.
Introduction
76
2.
Material and methods
77
2.1.
Study design and subjects
77
2.2.
Survey
78
2.3.
Statistical analyses
79
3.
Results
79
3.1.
Perceived importance of animal welfare aspects
79
3.2.
Evaluative beliefs of the aspects’ practice in Flemish animal production
82
3.3.
Discordance between citizens and farmers
83
4.
Discussion
84
5.
Conclusion
87
CHAPTER 4. Welfare Quality® definition: opinion of citizens, farmers and vegetarians
89
1.
Introduction
90
2.
Material and methods
90
2.1.
Survey
90
2.2.
Statistical analyses
91
3.
4.
Results
91
3.1.
Importance of the 12 Welfare Quality® criteria
91
3.2.
Relative weights of the four Welfare Quality® principles
92
Discussion and conclusion
94
CHAPTER 5. Piglet castration – Flemish citizen sample
97
1.
Introduction
98
2.
Material and methods
99
2.1.
Survey
99
2.2.
Statistical analyses
101
3.
4.
Results
102
3.1.
Consumer awareness of piglet castration
102
3.2.
Consumer concerns about pig production practices
102
3.3.
Impact of the information message related to immunocastration
104
3.4.
Consumer attitude towards immunocastration
105
3.5.
Self-reported willingness to pay for pork from immunocastrated pigs
105
Discussion and conclusion
106
VII
CHAPTER 6. Piglet castration – European citizens
109
1.
Introduction
110
2.
Material and methods
112
2.1.
Measurement and scaling
112
2.2.
Statistical analyses
113
3.
Results
115
3.1.
Descriptive analyses
115
3.2.
Segmentation analysis
116
3.3.
Between-group comparisons
119
3.4.
Acceptance of both alternative methods
119
3.5.
Preference for the vaccine method over physical castration
121
3.6.
Associations with claimed pork purchasing intentions
121
4.
Discussion
123
5.
Conclusions
125
CHAPTER 7. Piglet castration – Flemish producers
127
1.
Introduction
128
2.
Materials and methods
129
2.1.
Survey
129
2.2.
Statistical analyses
130
3.
4.
Results
130
3.1.
Sample profile
130
3.2.
Surgical castration without anaesthesia
131
3.3.
Castration with anaesthesia and/or analgesia
132
3.4.
Immunocastration
133
3.5.
Sperm sexing
135
3.6.
Production of entire males
135
3.7.
Ranking the alternatives
136
3.8.
Influencing factors
137
Discussion and conclusion
138
CHAPTER 8. Modifiers of societal concerns related to stocking density
141
1.
Introduction
142
2.
Material and methods
143
2.1.
Sample and procedure
143
2.2.
Dependent variables
144
2.3.
Statistical analyses
146
3.
VIII
Results
146
3.1.
Relative importance of stocking density, pen size and group size
146
3.2.
Influence of socio-structural variables
147
3.3.
Relation between perceptions of stocking density, pen size and group size
149
4.
Discussion and conclusion
150
CHAPTER 9. Acknowledging consumer variety: a segmentation analysis
153
1.
Introduction
154
1.1.
Background
154
1.2.
Public attitude toward animal welfare
154
1.3.
Animal welfare related consumer behaviour
155
1.4.
Scope and objectives
156
2.
3.
Materials and methods
157
2.1.
Measurement of constructs
157
2.2.
Statistical analyses
158
Results
3.1.
3.2.
4.
159
Segmentation analysis
159
3.1.1. Segmentation variables
159
3.1.2. Cluster analysis
159
Profiling of the clusters
161
3.2.1. Determinants of animal welfare perception
161
3.2.2. Meat and meat substitute consumption
163
3.2.3. Knowledge
164
3.2.4. Information variables
164
Discussion and conclusion
165
PART IV Factors influencing the citizen-consumer ambivalence
CHAPTER 10. Citizen-consumer ambivalence: influencing factors
171
1.
Introduction
172
1.1.
State of the art
172
1.2.
Rationale and scope
172
2.
3.
Material and methods
173
2.1.
Study design and subjects
173
2.2.
Survey
174
2.3.
Statistical analyses
176
Results and discussion
176
3.1.
Attitude towards animal welfare and pro-welfare behaviour
176
3.2.
Socio-demographic characteristics and meat consumption
178
3.3.
Role of product attribute perceptions
179
3.4.
Role of perceived consumer effectiveness
181
3.5.
Outcome variables – interest in welfare labelling
182
3.6.
Impact of having a pet on attitudes towards farm animal welfare
184
IX
PART V Discussion and conclusion
1.
Recapitulation
189
2.
General discussion and policy recommendations
191
2.1.
Public conception of farm animal welfare
191
2.2.
Determinants of public attitudes towards farm animal welfare
192
2.3.
Citizen attitudes versus consumer behaviour
194
2.4.
Piglet castration
198
Limitations and future research
200
3.
ANNEX 1. Improving animal welfare – solutions and stakeholder roles
1.
2.
Selected overview of solutions proposed to improve the level of animal welfare
203
1.1.
Four ways to progress (Aerts and Lips, 2010)
203
1.2.
Defra report (McInerney, 2004)
203
1.3.
EU FAIR CT98-3678 (Harper and Henson, 2001)
204
1.4.
LEI-report a (Ingenbleek et al., 2006a)
204
1.5.
LEI-report b (de Bakker and Dagevos, 2010)
204
Role of different actors
205
2.1.
European Union
205
2.2.
National governments
207
2.3.
Non-governmental organisations
209
2.4.
Retail sector
210
2.5.
Veterinarians
210
2.6.
Scientists
211
2.7.
Industry / Animal production chain
211
2.8.
Media
212
2.9.
Citizens and consumers
212
Summary
213
Samenvatting
215
References
217
Scientific curriculum vitae
240
X
List of tables
Table 1.1.
Impacts of improvements in production efficiency on farm animal welfare (source:
Winter et al., 1998, p. 310)
7
Table 1.2.
The Five Freedoms as described by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (1993)
8
Table 1.3.
A summary of different understandings of animal welfare (source: Fisher, 2009) 9
Table 1.4.
Welfare Quality’s® operational definition of farm animal welfare with 12 criteria
aggregated into 4 principles (Botreau et al., 2008)
11
Table 1.5.
Sample characteristics of the survey respondents within Study 1
31
Table 1.6.
Sample characteristics of the survey respondents within Study 2
32
Table 1.7.
Sample characteristics of the survey respondents within Study 3
33
Table 1.8.
Sample characteristics of the survey respondents within Study 5 (%, n=225)
34
Table 1.9.
Sample characteristics of the survey respondents within Study 6
35
Table 2.1.
Characteristics of the focus group participants
46
Table 2.2.
List of aspects that reflect how people think about or conceptualise farm animal
welfare. The list is based on the focus group discussions, and aspects are arbitrarily
assigned to a dimension (in capitals), and possible sub-dimensions (in italic)
Table 2.3.
47
Comparing animal welfare to other product attributes. Mean values with standard
deviations on five-point Likert scales are provided, together with the share of the
sample that attributes a higher importance (scores 1 and 2; % less important), an
equal importance (score 3), and a lower importance (scores 4 and 5; % more
important) to animal welfare
Table 2.4.
48
Citizens’ view on information provision and monitoring in relation to animal welfare.
Mean value and standard deviation on five-point Likert agreement scales. Sample
share disagreeing (scores 1 and 2), answering neutral (score 3), and agreeing (scores
4 and 5)
Table 2.5.
51
Full list of aspects used for framing the public conception of farm animal welfare.
Between brackets the aspect coding is given that will be used in the syntax of the
confirmatory factor analysis and in further reporting
58
XI
Table 2.6.
Output of the exploratory factor analysis on the full list of aspects. Only the factor
loadings above 0.30 are presented for the twelve factors with Eigenvalue above 1
62
Table 2.7.
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis: measurement model and goodness of fit
statistics for the consecutive models
Table 2.8.
63
Standardised factor loadings of the retained aspects to the final model (M4) with 4
environment-based and 3 animal-based dimensions
65
Table 2.9.
Correlation matrix of the animal welfare dimensions
66
Table 2.10.
Aspects that were suggested to be removed or added by experts
69
Table 3.1.
Perceived importance and evaluative belief scores on 72 aspects related to animal
welfare by citizens and farmers. Aspects are classified per dimension and ranked
based on citizens’ mean perceived importance score (5-point Likert scales)
Table 3.2.
81
Structure of the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal welfare with
12 criteria aggregated into four principles. For each of the 12 criteria the mean
weights (for the different animal types) derived by Welfare Quality® are presented
(WQ weight) as well as the mean (+SD) importance score (on a scale from 1 to 10)
allocated by adult Flemish citizens, farmers and vegetarians. Significant differences
between these types of respondents (rows) are indicated by a different letter (x, y,
z) in superscript before the score. Within type of respondent (columns), importance
scores without a common superscript (a-n) after the number differ significantly
(p<0.05)
Table 3.3.
93
Average (+SD) relative weights (scored as %) allocated by adult Flemish citizens,
farmers and vegetarians to the four principles of animal welfare as defined by
Welfare Quality®. Significant differences between types of respondents (rows) are
indicated by a different letter (x-z) in superscript before the figure. Within type of
respondent (columns), significant differences are indicated by a different superscript
(a-d) after the figure
Table 3.4.
Message conditions tested in the survey: message content and number of
respondents (n) exposed to each message
Table 3.5.
94
101
Factor analysis: Flemish consumer concerns related to pig production. Factor
loadings from principal component analysis. The right column reports the mean
concern score and standard deviation (SD) for the total sample (n=225)
XII
103
Table 3.6.
Consumer evaluation of immunocastration relative to surgical castration. Figures
are mean values on a seven-point scale, that ranges from “much worse (than
surgical castration)” (1) to “much better” (7). Mean values are presented for the full
sample and for the different message conditions
104
Table 3.7.
Textual information provided to participants
114
Table 3.8.
Descriptive analyses for the different countries
117
Table 3.9.
Profile of consumer segments on segmentation variables; relative (sum across
attributes equals 4) and absolute importance scores
Table 3.10.
Profile of the different segments in terms of socio-demographics, pork consumption
frequency and absolute product importance scores
Table 3.11.
121
Relation between claimed behaviour and attitude measures related to piglet
castration
Table 3.14.
120
Intention to seeking out and avoidance of pork from physically castrated and
vaccinated male pigs, % of consumers
Table 3.13.
119
Combination of the responses on acceptance of physical castration method and
acceptability of vaccine method
Table 3.12.
118
122
Attitude of Flemish pig farmers with regard to surgical castration without
anaesthesia. Percentage of responses are registered on five-point Likert scales that
range from “disagree strongly” (1), over “neither agree, nor disagree” (3), to “agree
strongly” (5), and an additional “don’t know” (DK) option
Table 3.15.
132
Attitude of Flemish pig farmers with regard to surgical castration with anaesthesia
and/or analgesia. Percentage of responses are registered on five-point Likert scales
that range from “disagree strongly” (1), over “neither agree, nor disagree” (3), to
“agree strongly” (5), and an additional “don’t know” (DK) option
Table 3.16.
133
Attitude of Flemish pig farmers with regard to immunocastration (IC). Percentage of
responses are registered on five-point Likert scales that range from “disagree
strongly” (1), over “neither agree, nor disagree” (3), to “agree strongly” (5), and an
additional “don’t know” (DK) option
Table 3.17.
134
Attitude of Flemish pig farmers with regard to sperm sexing (SS). Percentage of
responses are registered on five-point Likert scales that range from “disagree
strongly” (1), over “neither agree, nor disagree” (3), to “agree strongly” (5), and an
additional “don’t know” (DK) option
135
XIII
Table 3.18.
Attitude of Flemish pig farmers with regard to the production of entire males (EM).
Percentage of responses are registered on five-point Likert scales that range from
“disagree strongly” (1), over “neither agree, nor disagree” (3), to “agree strongly”
(5), and an additional “don’t know” (DK) option
Table 3.19.
136
Mean rankings of the different practices to eliminate boar taint. A lower score
corresponds with a more positive ranking (SCN: surgical castration without
anaesthesia; SCA: surgical castration with anaesthesia; IC: immunocastration; SS:
sperm sexing; EM: production of entire males)
Table 3.20.
137
Influencing factors on the rankings of the different practices to eliminate boar taint.
Figures present mean rankings, where a lower score corresponds with a more
favourable ranking (SCN: surgical castration without anaesthesia; SCA: surgical
castration with anaesthesia; IC: immunocastration; SS: sperm sexing; EM:
production of entire males)
Table 3.21.
138
Perceived importance, evaluative belief, and concern scores for 23 animal welfare
aspects in dataset 1 (n=521); mean scores with standard deviation on 5-point scale;
aspects are ranked according to their (descending) concern score
Table 3.22.
146
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
Table 3.23.
148
Influence of socio-demographic characteristics on the perceived importance, the
evaluative belief and the concern towards stocking density; mean scores on 5-point
scales
Table 3.24.
149
Regression analysis with stocking density as dependent variable and pen size and
group size as explanatory variables; dataset 2 (n=459)
150
Table 3.25.
Profile of the segments on the segmentation variables (n=459)
160
Table 3.26.
Determinants of animal welfare for the different segments (n=429), frequency
distributions (%); total sample characteristics are mentioned between brackets
163
Table 3.27.
Table 3.28.
XIV
Profiling of the segments based on meat and meat substitute consumption
frequency; mean scores
163
Profiling of the segments based on knowledge and information variables
165
Table 4.1.
Attitude towards animal welfare in terms of welfare importance and welfare
evaluation for consumer groups with a different level of pro-welfare behaviour as a
reflection of an possible attitude-behaviour gap
Table 4.2.
178
Socio-demographic profile of segments with different levels of pro-welfare
behaviour (n=400). The non-shaded rows represent the results for higher welfare
eggs, the shaded rows correspond with the results for higher welfare chicken meat
178
Table 4.3.
Meat consumption frequency of segments with different levels of pro-welfare
behaviour. The non-shaded rows represent the results for higher welfare eggs, the
shaded rows correspond with the results for higher welfare chicken meat
Table 4.4.
179
Drivers in choosing animal products. Attributes are ranked with descending mean
per column (n=400). The non-shaded rows represent the results for higher welfare
eggs, the shaded rows correspond with the results for higher welfare chicken meat
180
Table 4.5.
Possible barriers and motives for engagement in pro-welfare behaviour. The nonshaded rows represent the results for higher welfare eggs, the shaded rows
correspond with the results for higher welfare chicken meat
180
Table 4.6.
Predictor values for the level of pro-welfare behaviour
181
Table 4.7.
Pro-welfare behaviour and perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE)
181
Table 4.8.
Pro-welfare behaviour and perception on welfare label issues. The non-shaded rows
represent the results for higher welfare eggs, the shaded rows correspond with the
results for higher welfare chicken meat
Table 4.9.
182
Attitudes towards farm animal welfare. Impact of having a pet in the household
185
Table A1.1.
Policy options for indicating animal welfare related information on products of
animal origin
207
XV
List of figures
Figure 1.1.
Consumption of meat in Belgium per capita per year, in kg carcass weight, 19502000 (source: Niesten et al., 2003, p.178)
5
Figure 1.2.
Conceptions of animal welfare
10
Figure 1.3.
Citizen attitude versus consumer opinion. Percentage of respondents that agree on
statement “thinking of animal welfare in general” versus “thinking of animal welfare
when buying” (source: Welfare Quality® Conference Proceedings, 17/18 November
2005, Brussels, Belgium, p.31)
Figure 1.4.
14
Estimates of the percentage of male pigs (conventional production) surgically
castrated per country (source: Fredriksen et al. (2009))
15
Figure 1.5.
Vaccination timing of piglet castration (www.berengeur.com)
16
Figure 1.6.
Conceptual framework used to discuss modifiers of public attitudes, perceptions
and concerns towards farm animal welfare, and factors that influence the
relationship between attitude and behavioural intention
17
Figure 1.7.
Outline of the thesis in relation to the conceptual framework
36
Figure 2.1.
Association of higher welfare standards with other product attributes. Mean scores
above 3 correspond with positive associations, mean scores below 3 with negative
associations
49
Figure 2.2.
Methodological summary
57
Figure 2.3.
Final structure of farm animal welfare conception
68
Figure 3.1.
Mean scores of perceived importance of 72 aspects in obtaining an acceptable level
of farm animal welfare according to farmers (Y-axis) and citizens (X-axis). The line in
the figure is the bisector, indicating equal mean scores. Colours correspond to
aspects classified in the same dimensions. For the aspects corresponding with the
numbers, please see Table 3.1. Mind that the scales of the X and Y axes are not
equal
Figure 3.2.
80
Mean scores of evaluative belief of 72 aspects according to both farmers (Y-axis)
and citizens (X-axis). The line in the figure is the bisector, indicating equal scores.
Colours correspond to aspects classified in the same dimensions. For the aspects
corresponding with the numbers, please see Table 3.1. Mind that the scales of the X
and Y axes are not equal
XVI
82
Figure 3.3.
Discordance in perception between citizen and farmer, depicted for each dimension
separately. The X-axis corresponds with the perceived importance at farmer level;
the Y-axis corresponds with the gap (perceived importance – evaluative belief) at
citizen level. For the aspects corresponding with the numbers, see Table 3.1.
Figure 3.4.
84
General attitude of consumers towards immunocastration (IC) relative to attitude
towards the traditional practice of surgical castration. Answers were registered on a
seven-point scale ranging from immunocastration perceived as (1) “much worse” to
(7) “much better”
Figure 3.5.
105
Self-reported willingness to pay (WTP) a price premium (expressed as percentage
over the price conventional pork) for meat from immunocastrated pigs. Selfreported WTP is measured on a seven-point scale ranging from “very unlikely to
buy” (1) to “very likely to buy” (7)
Figure 3.6.
106
General attitude of farmers towards immunocastration (IC) relative to attitude
towards the routine practice of surgical castration without anaesthesia. Answers are
registered on a seven-point scale ranging from IC perceived as “much worse” to
“much better”
Figure 3.7.
Conceptualisation of concern as a combination of perceived importance (PI) and
evaluative belief (EB)
Figure 3.8.
134
145
Mapping of the cluster centres according to relative importance (RI z-score) and
evaluation (EV z-score) of farm animal welfare; the size of markers reflects cluster
size
Figure 4.1.
Buying behaviour of higher welfare eggs and higher welfare chicken meat (%, nonvegetarians: n=400)
Figure 4.2.
177
Self-reported willingness to pay for higher welfare eggs, registered on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from “very unlikely” (1) and “very likely” (5)
Figure 4.3.
160
183
Self-reported willingness to pay for higher welfare chicken meat, registered on a
five-point Likert scale ranging from “very unlikely” (1) and “very likely” (5)
183
Figure A1.1.
Different country approaches (source: Kjaernes et al. (2007))
208
Figure A1.2.
Supply chain funnel on European level (Ingenbleek et al., 2004, p.58)
210
XVII
List of abbreviations
ALT
Afdeling Land- en Tuinbouw (Vlaamse overheid)
AMS
Afdeling Monitoring en Studie (Vlaamse overhead)
ANI
Animal Needs Index
ANOVA
Analysis of Variance
CAFO
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
CAP
Common Agricultural Policy
CFI
Comparative Fit Index
DF
Degrees of Freedom
DG SANCO
Directorate General for Health and Consumer Affairs
EEC
European Economic Community
EFSA
European Food Safety Authority
EM
Entire Males
EU
European Union
EWBL
Economie, Werkgelegenheid, Binnenlandse Aangelegenheden en Landbouw
FAWC
Farm Animal Welfare Council
FOD
Federale Overheidsdienst
GAIA
Global Action in the Interest of Animals
GnRH
Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone
GmbH
Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung
IC
Immunocastration
IGD
The Institute of Grocery Distribution
LEI
Landbouw Economisch Instituut
LNV
Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (NL)
MAX
Maximum
MIN
Minimum
NA
Not Applicable
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
NNFI
Non-Normed Fit Index
XVIII
OIE
World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des Epizooties)
OIVO
Onderzoeks- en Informatiecentrum van de Verbruikersorganisaties
PCE
Perceived Consumer Effectiveness
RMSEA
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
SCA
Surgical Castration with anaesthesia and/or analgesia
SCN
Surgical Castration without anaesthesia or analgesia
SD
Standard Deviation
SPSS
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
SS
Sperm sexing
VILT
Vlaams Infocentrum Land- en Tuinbouw
WTO
World Trade Organization
WTP
Willingness to pay
WQ
Welfare Quality®
WWF
World Wildlife Fund
XIX
XX
PART I
General introduction, objectives
and outline of the thesis
General introduction
1. General introduction
1.1.
Relevance of the topic
Farm animal welfare from a societal or public perspective entails a topical, challengeable and
valuable research theme. “Topical” as a stand-alone issue as well as an inherent and significant part
of the wider concept of sustainability (Boogaard et al., 2008); sustainability which is a vogue word in
the current consumption society. Korthals (2005) defined issues relating to animal welfare in a list of
the seven most common substantive consumer concerns by European consumers. Next to
widespread public concerns about animal welfare (Mejdell, 2006; Serpell, 1999), its importance is
acknowledged by all stakeholders along the animal production chain (Bracke et al., 2005). It has
been recognised as one of the key dimensions in a responsible food chain (Pouta et al., 2010) and is
the more and more required for market access.
“Challengeable” first because of the complexity of the concept farm animal welfare (Appleby,
1999b; Fraser, 1995; Lund et al., 2006; Mason and Mendl, 1993), because of the debate about what
good or acceptable welfare exactly is (Duncan, 2005) and because of the specific properties of
animal welfare as a food product attribute. Second because of the complexity associated with
research into public1 attitudes, perceptions and behaviour or behavioural intentions (Engel et al.,
1990).
“Throughout the development of the sociology of consumption, there has been very little
consensus on consumers and their characteristics” (George Ritzer (2001) in Dagevos (2005,
p.32))
“Valuable” because of the role that the public can play in improving the farm animal’s welfare;
improvements which have not (yet) been proportional to the amount of scientific research for
animal welfare (De Jonge and Goewie, 2000). Heleski et al. (2006) indicated economics, lack of
consumer willingness to pay, tradition, producer attitudes and inadequate welfare science research
as the five most named obstacles to improve the animals’ welfare. So far, research on animal
welfare has been too much expert-oriented, while involving the public in a constructive dialogue is
deemed highly desirable and necessary (Boogaard et al., 2010). The importance of insights in public
attitudes and values is nicely reflected in the following quote:
“…no amount of scientific evidence will ever be sufficient to bring about improvements in
animal welfare unless this evidence also speaks to public attitudes and values…” (Serpell,
2004, p.145)
1
I deliberately choose to use the word ‘public’, as a kind of umbrella term that covers both the individual in
his/her role of ‘consumer’ and ‘citizen’. The opposition between consumer and citizen will be part of this PhD
dissertation and is discussed in more detail in subsequent parts.
3
Part I
In the first part of this general introduction, I will provide a short overview of some evolutions and
events, which have been – in my opinion – crucial for the emerging topicality of farm animal
welfare. The second part will be on the current knowledge available about the conceptualisation of
farm animal welfare and about public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours in relation to farm
animal welfare. As these will be central themes of this PhD dissertation, this part will be more
extended and approached as the prelude for the conceptual framework (Part I.2).
Humans have lived together with animals for as long as they exist. In that sense, human-animal
relationships have always been an issue of interest for humans and for scientific research. Whereas
scientific literature has mainly focused in the past on animal welfare in relation to laboratory
animals, companion animals, and circus, zoo and/or wild animals, research in relation to farm
animals is rather new and has strongly boomed over the last decades (Bayvel, 2005; Hewson, 2004).
The societal topicality is reflected in the rise of terminology like sustainable behaviour (e.g. Vermeir
and Verbeke, 2006), ethical or green consumerism (e.g. Manning et al., 2006; McEachern and
Schröder, 2002; Shrum, 1995), corporate social responsibility (e.g. Ingenbleek and Immink, 2010)
and studies explicitly referring to an increased interest for farm animal welfare as a public issue (e.g.
Krystallis et al., 2009; Verbeke, 2002; Verbeke, 2009) and as a product attribute (e.g. Ingenbleek et
al., 2006a; Verbeke and Viaene, 2000). The scientific topicality is reflected in the high number of
recent studies and the multitude of disciplines that cover the issue (Hewson, 2004). From the 687
hits (articles and review papers only) that appear in the ISI Web of Science (08/09/2010) for the
search term “farm animal welfare” (starting year 1955), 79.2 percent has been published from the
year 2000 on. An even higher percentage (83.3 percent) appears when it concerns the search term
“animal welfare AND consumer”. The institutional topicality, present on EU-level, is exemplified by
the following selection. The Amsterdam Treaty (1999) has introduced a protocol2 on the protection
and welfare of animals and officially recognised that animals are sentient beings. It further required
the European institutions and Member States to give full regard to the welfare requirements of
animals in formulating and implementing community legislation. The European Commission has
further financed the Welfare Quality® project (2004-2009), an integrated project within the 6th
Framework Programme that aimed to accommodate societal concerns and market demands, to
develop reliable on-farm monitoring systems, product information systems and practical speciesspecific strategies to improve animal welfare (www.welfarequality.net). The Community Action Plan
on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010 is another reflection of topicality on EU-level.
This plan aimed to realise the integration of animal welfare in European legislation. Also, funds are
given to projects dealing with a specific animal welfare problem, such as PIGCAS for the case of
2
The protocol reads as follows: “The high contracting parties, desiring to ensure improved protection and
respect for the welfare of animals as sentient beings, have agreed upon the following provision, which shall be
annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, in formulating and implementing the
Community’s agricultural, transport, internal market and research policies, the Community and the Member
States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or
administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural
traditions and regional heritage.”
4
General introduction
piglet castration. Finally the European Commission has devoted a Special Eurobarometer study on
the attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals (European Commission, 2005).
I have categorised the evolutions and events that account for the emerging (societal) relevance of
farm animal welfare under three main points: the rise of intensive animal production; changing
public attitudes and values; and some specific isolated events. Over the past century, Western
animal production has changed dramatically and has resulted in a profound change of the wider
agricultural panorama. The hunger experienced during and after two World Wars and the aim to
never feel hunger again led to a strong reorientation of agriculture towards productivity goals
(Boogaard et al., 2006). Farms underwent a process of reform, yielding larger-scaled and more
specialised units, a process that was necessary in order to survive economically (Winter et al.,
1998). This restructuring was supported by increased scientific research (to maximise production
and profitability), technological improvements (to increase mechanisation and motorisation), and
the development of more efficient logistic systems including refrigeration. The level of
intensification, specialisation and mechanisation was further expedited by the trade
internationalisation, increasing competition, decreasing margins, high land prices, low transport
costs, high labour costs, the availability of cheap animal feed and an increased demand for meat
caused by population growth and increased prosperity in Western societies. Meat changed from a
luxury product for the wealthy to a daily and accessibly staple food for everybody (Niesten et al.,
2003, p.178). The resulting increase in meat consumption for Belgium is presented in Figure 1.1.
60
kg carcass weight / capita / year
50
40
30
20
10
0
1950-1955
Beef & Veal
1965-1970
Pork
1985-1990
Chicken
1995-2000
Horsemeat, rabbit & game
Figure 1.1. Consumption of meat in Belgium per capita per year, in kg carcass weight, 1950-2000
(source: Niesten et al., 2003, p.178)
5
Part I
The focus on maximising productivity, production efficiency and profitability led to the development
of intensive animal rearing conditions (e.g. indoor housing to maximise production within the
minimum space) that rarely took animal welfare into account. Next to some benefits compared to
other systems (e.g. hygiene and health control compared to extensive outdoor systems) more
intensive production systems are also associated with some negative impacts on the animal’s
welfare (e.g. Tuyttens et al., 2008; Winters et al., 1998, see Table 1.1). This negative association is
especially vivid in the consumer perception point of view in a stigmatised way.
In addition to the intensification of animal production, some changes at consumer and citizen level
have contributed to the current significance of farm animal welfare. Prosperity in Western society
strongly increased during the second half of the past century. Food security was achieved, real
incomes raised, education levels increased and the population moved away from the countryside to
urban places. All this has positively contributed to an increased interest for animal welfare (Hughes,
1995; Seamer, 1998) and an increasing importance of qualitative product traits. Quality is a very
broad concept. From a consumer perspective, Grunert et al. (2000) defines four dimensions:
sensory characteristics, healthiness, convenience and process characteristics. This last dimension
fits in with the emergence of sustainability and ethical issues 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, biodiversity and a viable and profitable rural
livelihood for producers. Food security further triggered a reversal of the food chain, with a shift
from a supply orientation to a demand orientation. As such, public concern for, and interest in
animal welfare has its impact throughout the animal and meat production chain. This was also
uttered by Grunert (2006) who identified individuals’ concerns for animals and the environment as
one of four key areas of relevance to future patterns of livestock and meat production. This
tendency is already reflected in the consumption of organic food (Makatouni, 1999), the
rediscovery of a healthy and natural food diet (Miele, 1998) and a growing interest in a vegetarian
diet (Harper and Henson, 2001; VILT, 22 September 2010). Probably, part of the increased interest
in, and critical attitude towards the way our food is produced can be related to the fact that the
present generation of shoppers and meat consumers has not experienced the Wars and the related
food rationing (Eastwood, 1995), and to some recent food scares (see further). The present food
consumer is more conscious about the relation between food consumption on the one hand and
health and well-being on the other hand and associates naturally produced food with health
benefits. The Eurobarometer survey performed in 2005 (European Commission, 2006b) supports
the European citizens’ concerns for animal welfare in figures. The survey indicated that 82.3 percent
of Europeans evaluated the overall welfare of farm animals as being somewhere between moderate
and very bad, with 78.3 percent strongly believing that more should be done to improve the welfare
and protect the living conditions of farm animals in the EU.
6
General introduction
Table 1.1. Impacts of improvements in production efficiency on farm animal welfare (source:
Winter et al., 1998, p. 310)
Change
Likely negative impact on animal welfare
More housing of animals, including individual
Confinement and deprivation
housing
Higher stocking density (in terms of individuals per
Greater disease risk
unit land area or per housing area/volume)
Larger management units (in terms of number of
Greater disease risk; less individual care
animals)
Lower ratios of stockmen to animals
Problems may be missed
Less veterinary time per animal
Disease may not be treated
Fewer, larger and faster throughput abattoirs
Longer journeys, poorer care
Special markets (e.g. white veal, foie gras)
Confinement, anaemia, suffering
Further, more urbanised societies are frequently mentioned in literature as an important factor for
the rising importance of animal welfare (Harper and Henson, 2001; Hughes, 1995; Kendall et al.,
2006). In short, urbanisation has coincided with a lower familiarity with, and decreased practical
knowledge level of animal production practices. Consequently perceptions became more emotional
and empathy-driven (termed “sentimental anthropomorphism” by Taylor and Signal (2009)). In
many studies, pet ownership is also mentioned in this perspective, shifting the attitudes towards
animals from a more utilitarian vision to a more humanitarian approach. Further elaboration on this
will be provided in the discussion of the conceptual framework.
Finally a selection of specific events that have contributed to the significance of farm animal welfare
will be highlighted in brief. First, Ruth Harrisons’ Animal Machines (1964), in which the downsides of
intensive animal production (also termed factory farming or CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations) are stressed, has been very influential as an impulse for animal welfare related research
in many research domains. It has also been the direct cause for the Brambell’s report3 (1965), which
has been the prelude of the Five Freedoms (FAWC, 1993) (Table 1.2). Second, the public
requirements with respect to the minimum standards for animal welfare have changed because of
world-wide food scares and alarming signals about food from animal origin, and because of the
increased media-interest in these issues (Quintili and Grifoni, 2004). Food scares and food crises and
the way it is presented in the media, have strongly damaged the image of, and trust in animal
production and animal production practices among the public. A lowered confidence in production
systems further resulted from the increasing gap between consumer and producer, following on the
urbanisation (Kanis et al., 2003).
3
In the Brambell’s report, it was formulated that an animal should at least have sufficient freedom of
movement to be able without difficulty to turn around, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its limbs.
7
Part I
Table 1.2. The Five Freedoms as described by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (1993)
Freedom from hunger and thirst – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health
and vigour
Freedom from discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a
comfortable resting area
Freedom from pain, injury or disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
Freedom to express normal behaviour – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company
of the animal’s own kind
Freedom from fear and distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental
suffering
1.2.
Scope of the thesis
In this research, I will approach farm animal welfare mainly from the public’s perspective. Broadly
speaking, I will focus on three themes, mainly to provide a knowledge base that can be applied to
support a constructive dialogue, and to communicate and inform more effectively about farm
animal welfare to the public. The first theme covers the public conception of farm animal welfare.
The second theme deals with determinants of attitudes, perceptions and concerns towards farm
animal welfare. The third research theme investigates factors that impede or support an adequate
translation of attitude into behaviour or behavioural intention, captured in the thesis title as the
“ambivalence” between people’s sayings and doings. This term was used by Te Velde et al. (2002) in
the same context, and related to the discrepancies between perception and behaviour. All three
themes will be introduced hereunder for their relevance in the scope of this PhD dissertation. The
research is primarily focused on Flanders, the Northern Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, which is a
densely populated region, with a high density of intensive animal (mainly pork and poultry)
production. Farm animal welfare is approached as a general concept and applies to the region’s
economic most important non-aquatic production animals. One specific dwell on the general
approach is introduced, in terms of the extension to a specific and current welfare-related case, i.e.
piglet castration. The choice for piglet castration has multiple reasons. It became a hot topic during
the course of my PhD dissertation, with several campaigns from GAIA (a Belgian animal welfare
organisation), and a Belgian bill for a Royal decree that bans castration without anaesthesia, drawn
up by the then Minister of Public Health Laurette Onkelinx, following the advice of the National
Council of Animal Welfare. In addition, my research will reveal “pain caused by human intervention”
as one of the major public concerns in relation to farm animal welfare (see Chapter 3). Also this
topic is interesting to research from a public point of view for some more reasons. Flemish citizens
are only poorly aware of the practice, which necessitates information provision before attitudes can
be properly measured, but allows at the same time studying the impact of different types of
information provision. Also public acceptance is assigned a crucial role for a successful market
introduction of immunocastration, an alternative practice for physical or surgical piglet castration
that will be approached in more detail.
8
General introduction
1.2.1. Public conception
In this section, the relevance of clarifying the way the public perceives the concept of farm animal
welfare is highlighted, together with an overview of efforts done so far in conceptualising farm
animal welfare. “Animal welfare” is increasingly referred to as important by different stakeholders
along the food production chain (Verbeke, 2009), yet its meaning and conception differ depending
on who is using the concept (Hewson, 2003a). In a review paper from Fisher (2009), a summary of
different understandings of the concept of farm animal welfare is provided (Table 1.3).
Table 1.3. A summary of different understandings of animal welfare (source: Fisher, 2009)
Definition
The absence of, or freedom from, pain and suffering (anxiety, fear, pain and distress) and
sometimes the presence of positive states or pleasures (see Fraser and Duncan, 1998; Tannenbaum,
1991)
The absence of suffering
Fit, healthy, well and happy or feeling good (see Nordenfelt, 2006; Tannenbaum, 1991; Webster,
2005a)
Fit and happy or feeling good
Needs are fulfilled (Bracke et al., 1999)
A state of being, in which at least basic needs are met and suffering is minimised
Physical and mental well-being, including not being fearful, frustrated or deprived (Dawkins, 2006)
Animals are healthy and they have what they want
The ability to, or the degree to which the animal is able to, adapt or cope (Broom, 1991;
Tannenbaum, 1991)
The state of an animal as it attempts to cope with its environment
The ability to respond to changes (Korte et al., 2007)
A broad predictive physiological and behavioural capacity to anticipate environmental challenges
A natural state (Hewson, 2003b; Tannenbaum, 1991)
A state of complete mental and physical health, where the animal is in harmony with its
environment
The quality of an animal’s life (McMillan, 2000; Tannenbaum, 1991)
A state that includes some measure of a successful life
Humane interactions with animals (Banks, 1982; Kilgour, 1978)
The use of methods for handling and management that impose the least amount of stress or distress
The stance that humans have a responsibility or duty to care for or protect animals
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare)
The viewpoint that is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals provided
unnecessary suffering is avoided
An economic or socio-political issue (McInerney, 1991)
Animal welfare is ultimately an economic or socio-political issue, primarily a subjective matter of
human perceptions, a subset of human welfare since people’s preferences determine their actions
9
Part I
In general, literature distinguishes between three conceptions or perspectives, whether or not used
in combination. A first conception expresses animal welfare in terms of the body and the physical
environment (“if an animal is healthy and producing well, it is faring well”) (e.g. Broom, 1991;
Broom, 2001; Broom, 1986). A second conception relates animal welfare to the mind or to feelings
and emotions (“if an animal is feeling well, it is faring well”) (e.g. Dawkins, 2006; Duncan, 1996). The
third view focuses on living a natural life (“animals fare best if they can live according to their nature
and perform their full range of natural behaviours”) (e.g. Kiley-Worthington, 1989). Most properly,
the three conceptions should not be seen independently from each other but they are interrelated
(“animal welfare comprises the state of the animal’s body and mind, and the extent to which its
nature is satisfied”) (Appleby, 1999a; Duncan and Fraser, 1997; Fraser, 1995) (Figure 1.2).
Feeling well
Elimination of fear,
pain & suffering
Functioning well
Good health,
growth & survival
Natural living
Ability to move,
exercise & perform
natural behaviours
Figure 1.2. Conceptions of animal welfare (http://www.afac.ab.ca/insights/07summer/babel.pdf)
Nonetheless, Hewson (2003b) and Duncan (2005) indicate and illustrate that the different aspects
(body, mind and nature) of welfare sometimes are in conflict. Many of the conceptions, especially
the ones developed from an animal science perspective, are criticised for being too limited, too
expert-oriented and not sufficiently addressing the issues of actual public concern (Fraser, 2008;
Lund et al., 2006; Rushen, 2003; Rushen and Depassille, 1992), whereas animal welfare is, by
nature, a social concept that reflects societal values (Fisher, 2009; McInerney, 1991).
“although science has an important role in providing sound defensible
information on how animals respond to a specific practice, ultimately it is an
ethical decision by the general community that will determine the acceptable
standards for farm animals” (Boogaard et al., 2006, p.2)
Fisher (2009) suggests that the concept should be considered as a judgment to be undertaken by
combining varied understandings, and to acknowledge underlying values and assumptions, both
moral and scientific, rather than risking to exclude valid viewpoints through pursuing a prescriptive
definition. Peter Singer’s (1975) consequentialist/utilitarian and Tom Regan’s (1983) deontological
approach of animal welfare have been the offset of many moral, ethical and/or philosophical
discourses on animal welfare (e.g. Adams and Donovan, 1995; Nussbaum, 2006; Rollin, 1981;
10
General introduction
Sandøe and Simonsen, 1992). The multitude of research dedicated to the conceptualisation of
animal welfare has very recently resulted in some review articles summarising the efforts (e.g.
Carenzi and Verga, 2009; Fisher, 2009) and in several publications that criticise some of the existing
conceptions (e.g Degrazia, 1998; Haynes, 2008; Koch, 2009; Rushen, 2003). Fisher (2009) indicates
that the essential reason for defining a term or concept is to communicate. An accepted definition
could act as a focus for debate and function as a target for improving animal welfare. In addition,
Rushen (2003) stressed the relevancy of research into societal views on animal welfare, and their
values and norms, to shed light on the factors that steer the behaviour of people. Moreover it is
acknowledged that the concerns of the public dictate the need for animal welfare standards and
animal welfare legislations (Caporale et al., 2005; Edwards and Schneider, 2005).
In this perspective the goal of this PhD dissertation is to investigate the societal conception of farm
animal welfare, which is, compared to conceptions from other perspectives and despite its
accredited relevancy (Fraser, 2001; Rushen, 2003), not yet extensively covered in scientific
literature. The main effort done so far in this perspective relates to the Welfare Quality® project
(www.welfarequality.net), which presents a framework built upon consensus between different
stakeholders, among them also citizens. This conception involves four principles which are further
subdivided into twelve criteria (Table 1.4). Investigating public opinion, in particular with ethical
loaded concepts like animal welfare, is interesting, though very challenging. The debate is often
impeded by the criticism on the paradox between the sayings of citizens and the doings of
consumers (Dagevos and Sterrenberg, 2003; Honkanen and Olsen, 2009; Korzen and Lassen, 2010;
McEachern and Schröder, 2002) (see further). On top the public is poorly knowledgeable and aware
of animal production (Harper and Henson, 2001), which contributes to a discordance between the
conception of animal welfare at the producer and the public level (Lassen et al., 2006; Te Velde et
al., 2002). These arguments and discordance justify the need for a societal definition and
conception of animal welfare.
Table 1.4. Welfare Quality’s® operational definition of farm animal welfare with 12 criteria
aggregated into 4 principles (Botreau et al., 2008)
Principles
Good feeding
Good housing
Good health
Appropriate behaviour
Criteria
1. Absence of prolonged hunger
2. Absence of prolonged thirst
3. Comfort around resting
4. Thermal comfort
5. Ease of movement
6. Absence of injuries
7. Absence of disease
8. Absence of pain induced by management procedures
9. Expression of social behaviours
10. Expression of other behaviours
11. Good human-animal relationship
12. Absence of general fear
11
Part I
1.2.2. Ambivalence and attitude variety: need for a segmented and targeted approach
In this section I will motivate the importance of acknowledging differences in society with regard to
attitudes and reported pro-welfare behaviour4. The market for higher welfare products is rather
small. Only non-cage eggs have a considerable market share (86.2 percent in Belgium (VILT, 8 april
2009)). The market share of organic meat, for instance, is much smaller and estimated at 0.4
percent (Belga, 01/04/2010). As a consequence, the market for higher welfare animal products
should be considered a niche market that attracts consumers with a rather specific profile. A review
paper of Verbeke (2009) on stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare
indicates the need for appropriate market segmentation when analysing and addressing animal
welfare concerns. A segmented and targeted strategy of information provision is most likely to be
efficient and effective when it meets the specific needs of a target audience (Wilson, 1981). Salaün
and Flores (2001) support this and state that much of today’s information about food is ignored,
since much of it does not address its audiences’ needs and expectations. Thus, segmentation is a
necessary tool in order to understand how to make higher welfare food relevant to different
consumer profiles and how to position these products in a competitive food marketing
environment. In literature, very few efforts have been done to segment the market based on prowelfare behaviour. A British report ordered by Freedom Food (IGD, 2007) revealed four shopper
profiles based on the purchase frequency of higher welfare products, resulting in four groups that
were termed “no welfare” (36 percent), “little welfare” (20 percent), “some welfare” (34 percent),
and “high welfare” (10 percent). Most of the segmentation efforts however were based on
segmentation variables in a broader food context, among which a segment was identified with
higher interests in higher welfare products. Hansman (1999), in a Dutch research report, defined
four consumer segments based on general food consumption patterns: the “cooperating
consumer”, with a traditional food pattern; the “responsible consumer”, who feels highly
responsible for the environment, health and animal welfare, and who has mainly a vegetarian and
ecological consumption pattern; the “competitive consumer”, who likes to eat exclusive; and the
“rational consumer”, who is considered as a mainstreamer as he/she cannot be differentiated from
other consumers. Meuwissen and van der Lans (2004) identified six consumer segments in The
Netherlands: Environmentalists, Ecologists, Animal Friends, Health Concerned, Unpronounced and
Economists. The second-to-fourth of these groups showed a significantly higher willingness to pay
for pork produced with attention to animal welfare. Together with the Environmentalists, these
segments ranked animal welfare as one of the three most important product attributes. Grunert
and Valli (2001), in a pan-European study, defined four consumer segments based on the way in
which consumers subjectively link quality attributes of beef products to consequences and values. A
“concerned segment” (17 percent) was identified next to a “moderate”, “health conscious” and
“knowledgeable” segment. This concerned segment highly valued a fair treatment of animals
amongst other issues. Similarly, Nilsson et al. (2006) defined in a U.S. study “concerned shoppers”
4
I use the term ‘pro-welfare behaviour’ to refer to the purchase of higher welfare products, analogous to
‘sustainable behaviour’
12
General introduction
(43 percent) next to “attribute conscious” and “price conscious” shoppers based on a choice
experiment that included conventional and certified pork chops.
The importance of segmentation is further amplified by the opposition between individuals in their
role of consumer versus citizen. Despite the increased importance of ethical considerations, norms
and values in consumers’ food choices (Codron et al., 2006; Cohen et al., 2007; Honkanen and
Olsen, 2009; Robinson and Smith, 2003; Storstad and Bjørkhaug, 2003; Van Calker et al., 2005;
Verbeke et al., 2010), attitudes – measured in questionnaires and reflecting the citizens’ idealistic
opinions – still poorly match with actual consumer preferences and purchasing behaviour.
“Only some walk their talk” (Demeritt, 2005)
In many cases, consumers choose for cheap, convenience and tasty, are motivated by selfish shortterm interests and an immediate satisfaction of their needs. They are called individualistic, egoistic,
materialist, realistic and rational, profit maximising in their food choice, guided by costs and
benefits. Citizens have society-oriented long-term interests and put ahead issues like animal
welfare, environmental friendliness and justice. They are driven by morality and an idealistic
opinion. Yet, many researchers do not agree with the stated ambivalence between citizens and
consumers. Market figures and market shares of higher welfare animal products are considered a
poor reflection of public concerns, which is related to the specific characteristics of the food buying
decision process, the specificity of animal welfare as a product attribute, limitations of survey data
in measuring attitudes relating to ethical-loaded issues (hypothetical, self-selection and social
desirability bias), and diversity within the citizen and consumer population. Figure 1.3, depicted
from results within the Welfare Quality® project, reveals how nuancing a survey question unravels
the opposition between citizens and consumers.
13
Part I
100
90
80
70
%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
HU
IT
FR
Thinking of animal welfare in general
GB
NL
NO
SE
Thinking of animal welfare when buying
Figure 1.3. Citizen attitude versus consumer opinion. Percentage of respondents that agree on
statement “thinking of animal welfare in general” versus “thinking of animal welfare when
buying” (source: Welfare Quality® Conference Proceedings, 17/18 November 2005, Brussels,
Belgium, p.31)
1.2.3.
Piglet castration
In this section, the issue of boar taint, piglet castration and its alternatives will be introduced5. Boar
taint is the unpleasant odour or flavour that consumers may detect if pork meat from male pigs that
have reached puberty is cooked and/or heated. The accumulation of the compounds skatole (Vold,
1970; Walstra and Maarse, 1970) and androstenone (Patterson, 1968) in the fat tissue of male pigs
is identified as the major cause of the development of boar taint in pigs. Humans are most sensitive
to skatole (faecal odour and flavour). Elevated levels of androstenone (urine or sweat odour) are
more prevalent in entire male pigs. Despite being harmless for human health (Clarke et al., 2008),
the off-flavour strongly impairs the meat quality and is prohibited by food quality regulations in
most countries. In the vast majority of European countries, male piglets are surgically castrated
(most often without anaesthesia or analgesia) to avoid boar taint, and safeguard the product quality
(Figure 1.4).
5
This section is adapted from the introduction from: Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W. (2010). Consumer
reactions towards the possible use of a vaccine method to control boar taint versus physical piglet castration
with anaesthesia: A quantitative pan-European study. Animal, in press.
14
General introduction
100
90
% male pigs surgically castrated
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Ireland
UK
Portugal
Spain
Cyprus
Greece
Poland
Lithuania
Sweden
Slovakia
Slovenia
Denmark
Hungary
Switzerland
France
Finland
Belgium
Norway
Netherlands
Austria
Estonia
Germany
Latvia
Luxembourg
Italy
Czech Republic
0
Figure 1.4. Estimates of the percentage of male pigs (conventional production) surgically castrated
per country (source: Fredriksen et al. (2009))
Though surgical castration without anaesthesia is very effective in eliminating boar taint, it is very
much contested and subject to public concern because of its negative impact on the animal’s
welfare and integrity. As such it is very unlikely to be tenable as a future practice within the
European Union (de Roest et al., 2009). For instance, Norway (since 2002), Switzerland (since 2010)
and the organic farming sector in the Netherlands (since July 2007) have already banned surgical
castration without anaesthesia. In addition, market forces and marketing actions have emerged
such as large retail companies and well-established assurance schemes (e.g. Qualitätssicherung
scheme) refusing meat from pigs not given pain relief before castration. Recently, the largest
Belgian supermarket chain Colruyt even decided to sell only pork from non-surgically castrated but
vaccinated pigs from 2011 on.
The discussion on the practice and the public concern has been the direct reason for a review report
by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the welfare aspects of piglet castration (EFSA,
2004). Following on the report, the PIGCAS consortium (http://w3.rennes.inra.fr/pigcas) aimed to
provide information on piglet castration and the possible alternatives to support EU policy
development. A special issue of the journal Animal (2009, volume 11) has been devoted to some
results of this project. This has been the prelude of more scientific research for alternative methods
that should be equally efficient in eliminating boar taint, that enhance animal welfare and that are
economically feasible (for a review see von Borell et al. (2008)).
15
Part I
In general, three important alternatives are distinguished: immunocastration (also referred to as
vaccine method or immunovaccination), surgical castration with anaesthesia and/or analgesia; and
no castration (e.g. through sperm sexing, detection systems at the slaughter line, genetic control for
boar taint) (Zamaratskaia and Squires, 2009). The latter, i.e. no castration, has also been the specific
focus of ALCASDE, an EU-funded initiative (http://www.alcasde.eu/). In this dissertation, the focus
will be on immunocastration. This practice pertains to a two-shot vaccine that stimulates the pig’s
immune system to produce specific antibodies against gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)
(Adams, 2005; Zamaratskaia et al., 2008). This inhibits the function of the testicles and thus the
accumulation of the compounds skatole and androstenone. The moment for the first injection is
flexible, but should be at least four weeks before the second injection. The second injection is done
four to six weeks before slaughter (Mackinnon and Pearce, 2007) (Figure 1.5).
Figure 1.5. Vaccination timing of piglet castration (www.berengeur.com)
16
Conceptual framework
2. Conceptual framework
This section will discuss the conceptual framework that is proposed in this PhD dissertation to
reveal the determinants of public attitudes, perceptions and concerns towards farm animal welfare,
and some factors that influence the translation of attitudes and concerns into market place
behaviour. Research on the public conception of farm animal welfare is a general research
objective, and is as such extraneous to the framework (Figure 1.6). The framework is depicted from
existing literature and will be discussed and complemented with relevant information from
additional sources in literature within this section. First I will comment on Fishbein and Ajzen’s
Theory of Reasoned Action (1975), and the limitations it faces in being applied in the context of prowelfare behaviour. Second the structure suggested by Kendall and co-authors (2006) to explain
variation in attitude towards animal welfare from a stratification theory perspective will be
integrated and complemented with insights from other studies. Finally factors that influence (either
positively or negatively) the translation of welfare related attitudes in pro-welfare behaviour,
discussed in the FP6 project “Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food
choice” (EU-FAIR-CT98-3678) (Harper and Henson, 2001) will be discussed and extended.
THEORY OF REASONED ACTION
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)
(CITIZEN)
(CONSUMER)
ATTITUDE
BEHAVIOURAL INTENTION
Farm animal welfare:
attitudes, perceptions and
concerns
Attitude modifiers
Social structural variables
place-based variables
other social structural variables
Individual animal-related
experiential variables
(based on Kendall et al. (2006))
Ambivalence
Influencing factors
Perceived consumer effectiveness
Cost
Information
Availability
Dissociation
Product attribute importance
Animal welfare versus others
Altruistic versus Egoistic
(based on Harper and Henson (2001) and Miele (2001))
Figure 1.6. Conceptual framework used to discuss modifiers of public attitudes, perceptions and
concerns towards farm animal welfare, and factors that influence the relationship between
attitude and behavioural intention
17
Part I
2.1.
Theory of reasoned action
The theory of reasoned action assumes that given the assumptions people make, their intentions
are the result of a reasoned process, thus suggesting that cognition would seem to be implicated as
the primary determinant of behavioural intentions. Different sources already stressed that attitude
is not a good predictor of behaviour or behavioural intention in relation to animal welfare (Ajzen,
2001; Harper and Henson, 2001; Spaargaren, 2003; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). I will discuss in
brief some specificities related to the food buying decision process and to animal welfare as a
product attribute that hinder the cognitive process. In addition I will give some examples of
theories, mentioned in literature, that explain motives used by consumers to explain why their
behaviour does not follow from their attitudes. This is mainly used by humans as a motive to avoid
feelings of guilt, but does imply that one cannot simply consider a duality between consumers and
citizens. First the food buying decision process is a routine process. Everyday consumption practices
are typically driven by convenience, habit, value for money, personal health concerns, hedonism
and individual responses to social and institutional norms. They are associated with a direct needs
satisfaction and are likely to be resistant to change (Casimir and Dutilh, 2003; Vermeir and Verbeke,
2006). This has two implications in relation to the degree of pro-welfare behaviour. First, a routine
process is associated with low information processing and time expenditure. Given that animal
welfare is a credence attribute and that higher welfare products are limited available (see further),
buying higher welfare requires an active information and product search. Second, rational
consumers balance costs and benefits in a time perspective, where the present weighs
disproportionally much more than the future (Diederen, 2003). Related to the aim of a direct
satisfaction of the needs, a price premium that has to be paid at the supermarket’s cash desk, to
contribute to a higher level of animal welfare in the indefinable future, does not associate with the
idea of a direct needs’ satisfaction. This corresponds with Coleman (2007), who indicates that prowelfare behaviour should not only be related to consumption frequency of higher welfare products,
but also to the willingness to engage in community behaviours such as donating to animal welfare
groups. Moreover, there is no such thing as “the consumer” (Te Velde et al., 2002; Verbeke, 2009).
Segmentation is a prerequisite to approach the pro-welfare consumer and supports the search for
determinants of attitudes and of an adequate translation of attitudes in behavioural intention and
behaviour.
In order to deal with the ambivalence between attitude and behaviour, people use several
mechanisms, mainly to reduce the feelings of guilt that originate from using animals for food
purposes. Several authors refer to this as “cognitive dissonance” (Heleski et al., 2004; Mayfield et
al., 2007; McEachern and Schröder, 2002). The same is defined by Te Velde et al. (2002) as “coping
strategies” (~social psychology), as a combination of dissonance reduction and distancing devices.
Dissonance reduction is further divided into “adding consonants to behaviour”, “eliminating
dissonance”, “amplifying consonants” and “trivialising dissonance” (Festinger, 1964). Also four
distancing devices can be identified (Serpell, 1996): “detachment”, “shifting responsibility”,
“concealment” and “misrepresentation”.
18
Conceptual framework
2.2.
Modifiers of farm animal welfare attitude
The next section is used to elucidate the conceptual approach from Kendall et al. (2006) to
determinants of animal well-being6. Several reasons were present to motivate the choice for the
conceptual approach from this study. The study is performed under the assumption that attitudes
towards animal welfare are not a conscious part of citizens’ day-to-day thinking. In addition it is
framed based on findings from existing empirical studies and theoretical sources and it indicates
that different social groups think differently about animal welfare. These issues match with the
reasoning in this PhD dissertation. Kendall and co-authors make use of stratification theories to
conceptualise determinants of animal welfare. They further acknowledged that this is not the only
possible approach. In response, where possible and relevant, I will incorporate additional visions to
explain determinants. In this introductory part hypotheses will be formulated based on theories
from literature. Back coupling to results from previous consumer and citizen studies are restricted
to the results and discussion chapters only.
The stratification theory7 postulates that individuals’ attitudes are shaped by social structural
positions, i.e. members of the same group share similar attitudes that reflect their social positions.
Variation within social groups exists and is linked to differences in individualised experiences. Social
structural positions are subdivided in relation to urban versus rural living environment (place-based
variables), and positions including socio-economic status, gender, age, and other socio-demographic
variables (other social structural variables). In rural and farm settings greater use is made of animals
for food production. This suggests an impact on attitudes and behaviours that reflect that use
(Bourdieu, 1984, 1990; Giddens, 1986; Tilly, 1999). Proximity to place-based resources affects
everyday cultural practices, and place itself provides a structural context for maintaining those
practices. This suggests that rural and urban places provide not only different opportunities for
contact and relationships with animals, but also different cultural experiences that shape and
reinforce attitudes about animals. For the other social structural variables, the study applies the
underdog hypothesis (Elder et al., 1998; Griffith et al., 2002; Nibert, 1994). This hypothesis suggests
that those lower in the stratification hierarchy may have greater concern with animal welfare. It is
further recognised that individuals have their own life trajectory and experiences. Therefore,
distinct individual animal-related experiences are expected to also affect attitudes towards animal
welfare. I will separately discuss the different determinant variables, including also insights from
other studies.
6
Kendall and co-authors use the term ‘animal well-being’ to capture a broader meaning than animal welfare.
It is also not limited to attitudes towards farm animals but to animals as a whole. In order to avoid confusing
word usage, I will further speak about (farm) animal welfare.
7
References explaining the stratification theory are obtained from Kendall et al. (2006)
19
Part I
2.2.1.
Social structural variables – Place-related variables
Living environment in terms of rural or urban residence, together with rural experiences is indicated
as one of the most pronounced determinants of attitudes towards farm animal welfare. This is
related to differences in familiarity with, awareness of, and knowledge about animal production and
animal production practices. These concepts are affiliated to the involvement concept. Involvement
refers to personal relevance and importance attached to issues, based on inherent needs, values
and interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985). This is also illustrated in Te Velde et al. (2002), where differences
between consumers and farmers are discussed based on differences in convictions, norms, values,
knowledge and interests. In the same context, higher involvement results in a higher level of active
reasoning about a topic (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). This suggests that differences in familiarity,
awareness and knowledge involve a different vision towards farm animals and a different weight of
ratio versus emotion or empathy in attitude formation. Plous (1993) states that the dissociation
between the way people perceive animals and the way they treat them is maintained through
spatial distances. Farmers or rural inhabitants have a more direct reliance on animals for food,
family livelihood and protection. In this way they hold a more utilitarian vision. This utilitarian vision
appears in many different formulations in literature. Descartes, in his time, defined non-humans as
“nothing but complex automata, with no souls, minds or reasons”. Related terminology is found in
“objectification of the animals” (Hills, 1993), “instrumentality” (Hills, 1993), “commoditisation” (Te
Velde et al., 2002), “commodification” (Kaiser, 2005) and “counter-anthropomorphising” the
animals with increasing rural or farm experience (Paul and Podberscek, 2000). In different sources,
authors speak about a “domestic or ancient or social contract” between farmers and their animals
(e.g. MacArthur Clark, 2008; Oma, 2010; Safran Foer, 2009). All these visions relate to the specific
use of the animals for food production. Contrary, with the expansion of urbanisation (and the
intensification, involving farm animals disappearing from the landscape view), the sight of food
animal slaughter moved out of public view. In addition, pet keeping in the city replaced the more
utilitarian relationships people previously shared with animals (Jasper and Nelkin, 1992) and
triggered
a
more
humanitarian
vision
towards
animals
(anthropocentrism
versus
anthropomorphism). The relation of these different visions with affect and cognition is also
reflected in the distinction Hills (1993) makes between “instrumentality” and “empathy”, and in
Serpell’s model (2004) that distinguishes between two motivational dimensions: “Affect”
(emotional responses) and “Utility” (perceptions of animals’ instrumental value). Boogaard et al.
(2006) define emotional experiences with farming (measured as urbanisation degree and
connection to agriculture) and factual knowledge as determinants of the perception of farm animal
welfare.
In summary, it is expected that rural background is related to less concern about animal well-being.
Rural background is considered beyond geography and current residence, and is extended to
childhood residence, ties to farmers and rural lifestyle experiences.
20
Conceptual framework
2.2.2.
Social structural variables – Other variables
Regarding other social structural variables, Kendall et al. (2006) define assumptions based on the
underdog hypothesis and indicate females, lower socio-economic positions, younger people and
people without dependent children to be higher concerned about animal welfare.
The relationship between higher concerns for animal welfare among women from a social
perspective is related to the caretaking role of women in a family context that possibly extends to
animals, and from a higher likelihood of being engaged in household tasks that put them in contact
with animals. This might increase sensitivity to the needs of, and conditions surrounding animals.
Other explanations relate the higher concern among females to a higher health consciousness of
females (Beardsworth et al., 2002; Kubberod et al., 2002; Verbeke and Vackier, 2005), to a
moralistic, humanistic female view versus a utilitarian, dominionistic male view (Wells and Hepper,
1997), and to a higher level of empathy among females (Heleski et al., 2004; Paul and Podberscek,
2000).
The higher concern among younger people is related to the life-cycle stage, and is associated with
other social structural variables such as marriage, childbearing and employment. Wells and Hepper
(1997) associate younger people with more naturalistic and humanistic versus utilitarian.
The underdog hypothesis is further applied to associate a higher animal welfare concern for
individuals in lower income categories (Nibert, 1994; Uyeki and Holland, 2000) and those with less
education (Nibert, 1994; Peek et al., 1997), two variables that reflect socio-economic status.
Finally, family status in terms of marital status or presence of children is reported to determine
animal welfare related attitudes. People with children are thought to be foremost concerned for
children’s issues (Schlozman et al., 1995). This suggests that people without children may direct
more attention to other issues, such as concern for animals. The lower animal welfare concerns
among married people are associated to the tendency of higher incomes and greater wealth, and to
the higher adherence to conventional norms and values.
2.2.3. Individual animal-related experiential variables
Investigated factors that could explain differences within social structural groups in Kendall and coauthors’ study pertain to hunting, having a pet in the household, being vegetarian, cooking and food
shopping, and concerns about the environment and food. Non-hunting, having a pet in the
household, vegetarianism, less involvement in daily food shopping and cooking, food conscious
attitudes and behaviours, and concerns about the environment were related to greater concerns
with animal welfare. For this PhD dissertation, interest goes to hypothesised positive relationship
between concerns for farm animal welfare on the one hand, and having a pet in the household,
being vegetarian, and interest in information related to animal welfare as an ethical issue and as a
product attribute on the other hand.
21
Part I
2.3.
Factors influencing the ambivalence between attitude and behavioural
intention
In the next section I will elaborate on some specificities of the food purchasing process, and on
some barriers (based on Harper and Henson, 2001) that prevent consumers from an adequate
translation of their reported ethical preferences in actual food choice. These insights should
contribute to a better understanding of the so-called citizen-consumer ambivalence.
“De treurige constatering luidt dat de consument dubbelhartig is. Terwijl zijn rechterhand
een enquête invult over scharrelvlees vult zijn linkerhand de kar bij de kiloknaller, de Aldi
en de Lidl. Niet dierenwelzijn, het behoud van het landschap, betrokkenheid bij onze eigen
boeren of duurzaamheid bepalen ons aankoopbeleid, maar de prijs.” (Marc van Dinther,
“Liever goedkoop dan goed”. De Volkskrant, 26 april 2003: p.17)
The classical decision making process distinguishes between five steps: problem recognition,
information search, evaluation of the alternatives, choice and the consequences of the choice
(Engel et al., 1990). These stages, however, are not fully completed for every single purchase
decision. Dependent on the consumer knowledge of the product, the nature of the product and the
importance of the purchase, three types of purchase behaviour are distinguished: extended, limited
and routine purchase behaviour. Food is highly substitutable, low-priced, purchased repeatedly, and
is primarily satisfying basic physiological needs (Verbeke, 2005). As such food purchase decision
making typically belongs to the third category (Binnekamp et al., 2005). Correspondingly, foodrelated decisions are most often based on heuristics or follow peripheral routes of information
processing (Binnekamp and Ingenbleek, 2006; Frewer et al., 1997b; Verbeke, 2005). Animal welfare
is a credence attribute, which necessitates external information search, and imposes some
limitations that can help to explain the gap between citizens’ survey responses expressing high
interest in animal welfare issues and consumers actual food purchasing behaviour. This will be
discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs and pertains mainly to the challenge of
transferring the right information, in the right format, to the right audience. Present failure on these
issues is referred to by Verbeke (2005) as “information asymmetry” and by Prabha et al. (2007) as
“information inadequacy”. Information providers should tackle the reported information
unavailability in relation to animal welfare against a context of information overload, bounded
rationality of the consumer, the risk of rational ignorance, consumer confidence in information and
the fact that consumer are neither a uniform group, nor experts in the matter of animal welfare.
In addition, despite its increasing relevance as a product attribute (reflected in the inclusion of
ethical motives in the food choice questionnaire (Lindeman and Väänänen, 2000)), animal welfare is
counterbalanced by other, more important motives, as there are quality, safety, health,
convenience, price and taste (Bernués et al., 2003b; McCarthy et al., 2003; Nocella et al., 2010;
Verbeke and Viaene, 2000). These attributes typically relate to the product itself and its
performances in the meal. Related, McEachern and Schröder (2002) indicated that tangible quality
22
Conceptual framework
attributes are of high importance in any food purchasing situation, while intangible attributes are
only taken into account by the more involved consumer. The annual Consumer Behaviour Monitor
study executed in Belgium by the OIVO (Onderzoeks- en Informatiecentrum van de
Verbruikersorganisaties) confirms this, and reports in the synthesis of the 2009 report that price,
quality and freshness are the most important choice criteria for a food product. Taste, safety,
respect for the environment and for the animal’s welfare appear in 2009 as four important
elements for the consumer.
It is further important to distinguish between animal-centred (or altruistic) and human-centred (or
anthropocentric) concerns in relation to higher welfare products. Animal-centred concerns involve
that the interest for higher welfare products is mainly motivated by the interest and concerns for
the animal itself. To the contrast human-centred concerns involve that the consumer interest for
higher welfare products is in the main related to a perceived higher product quality and unique
sensory characteristics (Harper and Henson, 2001; Ingenbleek et al., 2006a; Miele, 2001), thus
beneficial for the consumer. Following on McEachern and Schröder (2002), who related ethical
motivations to altruistic concerns for other living things, it is hypothesised that animal-centred
concerns support a more adequate translation of attitudes in actual pro-welfare behaviour, as will
do human-centred concerns.
In the following, and partly related to the previous section, I will discuss the five barriers indicated
by Harper and Henson (2001) that prevent an adequate translation of attitudes into behaviour:
perceived consumer effectiveness; information; availability; cost; and dissociation.
2.3.1.
Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE)
Perceived consumer effectiveness is defined as “the evaluation of the self in the context of the
issue” (Berger and Corbin, 1992; Kim and Choi, 2005). More concrete, it refers to the extent to
which individuals believe that their actions make a difference in solving a problem (Ellen et al.,
1991). This construct has already been used in literature to explain more general concepts such as
green consumerism (e.g. Laskova, 2007; Shrum, 1995), sustainable food consumption (e.g. Vermeir
and Verbeke, 2006), societal responsible consumerism (e.g. Meulenberg, 2003) and proenvironmental behaviour (e.g. Nelson, 2004; Van de Velde et al., 2010). This PhD dissertation will
verify whether the PCE construct is also applicable in the context of pro-welfare behaviour, i.e. does
PCE positively influence the relation between animal welfare concerns and pro-welfare behaviour.
The PCE construct is to some extent affiliated with the question about who is responsible for animal
welfare. Interestingly stakeholders indifferently delegate the responsibility to other stakeholders
(Serpell, 1999; Sundrum, 2007), imposing strong limitations on an effective improvement of the
animal’s welfare. Animal protectionists, similar to retailers, delegate the responsibility to politicians
and commercial farmers. Consumers refer to politicians and retailers. Veterinarians delegate the
responsibility to farmers; and farmers delegate the responsibility to politicians, veterinarians and
consumers. The consumer reluctance to accept responsibility for animal welfare is also concluded
23
Part I
by Miele (1998), Dagevos and Sterrenberg (2003, p11) and Skarstad et al. (Skarstad et al., 2007).
This type of consumer behaviour, where consumers only want to act if the others also act, is
referred to as the “prisoner’s dilemma” (or in Dutch: “na-u-effect”) (Diederen, 2003). Consumers
want animal welfare to be arranged and expect available products to meet certain minimum
standards. This is reflected in the low market share of higher welfare products, and is critically
phrased by Diederen (2003) as: “the market gets the best out of products and the worst out of
people”. This closely matches with the discussion whether to consider animal welfare as a private or
a public good, and is in depth discussed by McInerney (2004).
“Considering [the ways pigs are raised] makes me say that I am not going to buy an awful
lot of that pork! But then again, it is hard to be a consumer, seeing a good offer, isn’t it?
They look the same – and if you have a large family it might not be enough. (…) They
shouldn’t produce all the ugly stuff. If they didn’t produce it, we weren’t forced to buy it!”
(Quote
from
focus
group
participant
in
a
Danish
study,
available
on:
http://www.ncrc.fi/files/5211/PP-lassen2.pdf)
2.3.2.
Information
Verbeke (2005) discusses, in a review paper on information in the food sector, some reasons that
hamper a rational decision making process, thus imposing limitations on Fishbein and Ajzen’s
Theory of Reasoned Action (1975), and on the neo-classical micro-economics that assume
individuals to be always aware of the full range of options, and to be capable of weighing up all the
pros and cons.
First reason mentioned pertains to the information availability. The public is poorly informed about
animal welfare conditions during rearing, transport and slaughter. In order for information provision
to be more effective, it will be important that trusted information is passed on to the persons who
are actually interested in the information, in the right format and through the right channel.
Consumers are not all alike and not all consumers are interested in animal welfare related
information. In this perspective, Verbeke (2005) suggests to segment consumers and to provide
targeted information, instead of overloading the whole population with information, with the risk to
induce consumer indifference or loss of confidence (see further). Information should also address
specific information needs and expectations. In this perspective, it is important to construct a
definition for farm animal welfare that incorporates the public view, and to gain insights in the
values that shape people’s beliefs about and attitudes towards farm animal welfare, acknowledging
the existing gap between consumers and producers. The latter is exemplified by Fraser (2007), who
indicates that it is more likely that the public will be favourable towards a non-intensive, outdoor
system that has high levels of parasitism and neo-natal mortality, compared to an intensive system
that achieves a high level of health and hygiene but prevents virtually all natural behaviour. A
similar example is given by Abeni and Bertoni (2009), applied on dairy production. The authors
stressed the positive public image about cows that graze in the pasture, while this actually involves
24
Conceptual framework
some problems with the five freedoms. A third example of the need for a good consumer
understanding is taken from Binnekamp and Ingenbleek (2006), who mentioned a low success of
the introduction of 56-days chickens. Consumers were not aware that in conventional systems,
chickens only lived for 42 days, and perceived 56 days as being too short. Information providers
should take into account the limited practical knowledge base and the limited consumer awareness
in relation to production practices. Also, consumers and citizens mainly obtain information on
animal welfare through mass media and advertising. Characteristic for mass media is the preference
to cover negative news items over positive news (“bad news hypothesis”). Although criticised, this is
mainly driven by the demand of the public and links with prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky,
1979) and the endowment effect (Kahneman et al., 1991, 1990). People remember the massive
slaughter of animals due to a food crisis or scandal (Niesten et al., 2003), pictures that create an
biased image of animal production among the lowly aware public. This negative perception is also
reflected in the more negative image people have of farmed (“industrial”) fish versus wild
(“natural”) fish (Verbeke et al., 2007b). Advertising on the other hand also contributes to the
information asymmetry by misrepresenting the sector making use of romantic and idyllic pictures
(Te Velde et al., 2002; van Bruchem, 2003). This induces consumer uncertainty and a loss of
consumer trust and confidence (Harper and Henson, 2001; Passantino et al., 2008). In this
perspective, Worsly and Lea (2003) revealed the honesty of food labels in general as one of the
major food concerns, and the importance of transparency is commonly acknowledged.
Second reason mentioned pertains to the consumer ability and willingness to process information.
The present society is an information society. The consumers are overwhelmed with information
and can not see the wood for the trees anymore. Also in relation to farm animal welfare, an
explosion of often vague, confusing and misleading schemes for welfare standards occurs (Dawkins,
2008; Lewis et al., 2008; Ransom, 2007; Thompson et al., 2007; Verbeke, 2009). Verbeke (2009,
p331) terms food labels as “information cue high density areas”, while van Bruchem (2003, p117)
indicates that supermarkets get the more and more the character of a library, and labels that of
books. Consumers are mainly interested in search attributes like price, product weight and expiry
date. They are only able to process a certain amount of information (“bounded rationality”). In this
perspective, the information overload often induces an inverse effect. Following transaction cost
theory, when the opportunity cost of processing information is too high compared with the
marginal benefits from information, consumers can just ignore the information (“rationally ignorant
consumer hypothesis”), and base their decision on heuristics (Mayfield et al., 2007). This rationally
ignorance also applies for animal food products in another context, namely that of averting feelings
of guilt (“what you don’t know, you can can’t be responsible for”) (LNV Consumentenplatform, 2005;
Sundrum, 2007).
25
Part I
2.3.3.
Availability
The barrier “availability” relates both to information and product availability. Information
availability mainly relates to information asymmetry. Product availability as a barrier relates to the
inconsistency between the interest in, and concern for higher welfare products and their
(perceived) availability, for example due to a low visibility at the point of purchase, and an
inadequate promotion (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). This barrier is further amplified by the low
consumer awareness about higher welfare products (European Commission, 2005; Vermeir and
Verbeke, 2006), the limited knowledge on, and confusion about labels indicating higher welfare
production standards.
2.3.4.
Cost
The importance of cost as a barrier for higher welfare foods is minimised by the public that claims a
positive willingness to pay for higher welfare products in survey studies. However, price still is a
strong determinant of consumers’ food choice. Interestingly, resulting from the annual Consumer
Behaviour Monitor study of OIVO, only few respondents were able to estimate the price of the food
products they buy. The notion of a high price for a food product was concluded to depend on the
comparison with other products from the same category available at the point of purchase, and is
very sensitive to promotions. As such, consumers should be considered more calculating, rather
than price conscious individuals. In this perspective, an important role is linked to the World Trade
Organisation (WTO), to governments, to supermarket policies and to the way of communication.
The WTO considers animal welfare a non-trade concern, meaning that countries cannot refuse
foreign meat, produced under lower standards of animal welfare (read: cheaper meat).
Governments could for instance subsidise farmers that produce against higher welfare standards.
Supermarkets from their side have the aim to appeal to as many consumers as possible. Not all
consumers are interested in higher welfare products, and as a consequence, the cheaper products
are also offered, and negatively influence the market share of higher welfare products (De Tavernier
et al., 2010). In addition, price-wars between supermarkets and the success of hard discounters
negatively contribute to the adoption of higher welfare animal food products. Finally,
communication can also make use of the consumers’ relative interpretation of price. Currently,
communication about higher welfare products mainly relates to the higher (quality) standards of
these products. However, given that individuals are more interested in avoiding a “bad” versus
seeking out a “good” (prospect theory), it could be expected that communicating about the low
standards of mainstream product would be a more effective marketing strategy as compared to
highlighting the benefits from higher welfare products (within the limits imposed by legislation on
comparative advertising). This nuance is also exemplified by Diederen (2003, p27-28), with regard to
the importance of the anchor point used. If the conventional meat is used as anchor point, then the
consumer has to pay a price premium to make the animal’s life better. Opposite, when the higher
welfare product is the anchor point, consumers can save through choosing the cheaper meat, but
this is at the expense of the animal.
26
Conceptual framework
2.3.5. Dissociation
Dissociation can be seen in two ways. First in relation to the population’s urbanisation, and second
in terms of detaching the food product from the animal. The present public is only lowly aware of
the animal production practices on farm. In addition, there is currently a high interest for television
programmes in relation to animals, though mainly in the role of companion, zoo or wild animals
rather than production animals. A more humanitarian reflection of animals has its impact on the
consumers’ perception towards production animals (Bayvel, 2005). The second interpretation
pertains to the detachment of the product from the animal (e.g. Hoogland et al., 2005; Skarstad et
al., 2007). The consumer does not want to be reminded to the animal when he or she buys meat
(termed “de-animalisation” (Bock et al., 2007; Buller and Cesar, 2007; Kennedy et al., 2004),
“concealment” (Te Velde et al., 2002, p214) or “pervasive ignorance of modern production
techniques” (Harper and Henson, 2001)). This is related to reducing feelings of guilt (Te Velde et al.,
2002), to the reluctance of bearing responsibility (Skarstad et al., 2007; Sundrum, 2007) and to a
certain degree of disgust (Hamilton, 2006; Kubberød et al., 2002). The latter is described by Hopkins
and Dacey (2008) as “yuck factor”, and is further exemplified in a review essay from Birke (1993),
where beef was considered “dead cattle” for vegetarians, while this association was not made by
meat-eaters (“most people consume meat only as long as they can distance themselves from the
nasty facts of its production”). This tendency is also noticeable in the increased share of processed
meat products (Eastwood, 1995), in the nomenclature and in commercialisation strategies (Buller
and Cesar, 2007), in which the live animal is no longer recognisable (Phan-Huy and Fawaz, 2003).
Specifically for Belgium, GfK consumption data illustrate that meat consumption becomes the more
and more dominated by meat mixtures, like minced meat, sausages, skewers, pita and gyros,
burgers, and cordon blues, accounting for 33.4 percent of the total fresh meat purchases in 2009
(VILT, 18/03/2010). In the UK meat industry, it is even a rule of thumb that pictures of the live
animal do not appear on the packaging of processed meat products (Hughes, 1995). In this
perspective it is also believed that eggs and milk are subject to a better perception as compared to
meat (Miele, 2001). All together, detaching the product from the animals hampers a conscious and
rational food buying behaviour (van Bruchem, 2003).
“Modern American society loves to watch television cooking shows – the creativity, the
sensuousness, the clever technique. But chances are, if a lamb were dragged in and killed at
the beginning of the program, most of the viewers would find themselves less interested in the
lamb chop recipes. They would be horrified or disgust to enjoy the rest of the program. And
yet, if the lamb’s flesh is brought in already killed and sliced, almost all sense of horror and
sympathy is muted enough to be nearly unfelt” (Hopkins and Dacey, 2008, p. 579-580)
27
Part I
3. Research objectives and hypotheses
The overall objective of this PhD-dissertation is to contribute to a better understanding of the public
conception of, and perception towards farm animal welfare. This is relevant for better aligning the
different stakeholders’ visions and to support a constructive dialogue along the animal production
chain. As such more effective policies that improve the welfare level of farm animals could be
developed and achieved. Also the findings should allow gaining insights in to how to educate,
communicate with, and inform the public in order to support demand-led welfare improvements.
Study results are mainly based on Flanders and for farm animal welfare as a general concept. Where
possible the research theme is narrowed to a specific and topical animal welfare case, namely piglet
castration.
More specifically, this research will try to meet this purpose by focusing on four research objectives:
(1) on the conception of farm animal welfare from a public’s point of view (Part II); (2) on revealing
determinants of the societal perception of farm animal welfare (Part III); (3) on getting a better
understanding of some influencing factors that contribute to the poor reflection of the public’s
interest in, and concern for animal welfare in actual food purchase behaviour (Part IV); (4) on
highlighting the issue of piglet castration and the role of the public in the search for alternatives.
Additionally, specific research objectives are included in the subsequent thesis chapters.
Furthermore, ten hypotheses are advanced in this research. Verification of these research
hypotheses will yield valuable insights for improved understandings of public perception of farm
animal welfare, and for more efficiently addressing the chain end users’ expectations in future
policies and information provisions.
H1:
Place-based variables induce differences in attitudes, perceptions and concerns with
respect to farm animal welfare, and are related to societal variation in familiarity,
awareness and practical knowledge levels. Rural residence (past and present) and
familiarity with animal production will associate with a more utilitarian interpretation of the
concept, and lower level of concerns about farm animal welfare.
H2:
Attitudes, perceptions and concerns in relation to farm animal welfare are influenced by
socio-demographic factors. Concerns will be higher (a) among females and (b) families
without children, and will be inversely related with (c) age, and (d) socio-economic status.
H3:
Attitudes, perceptions and concerns in relation to farm animal welfare are affected by
individual animal-related experiential variables. Higher concerns exist among (a)
vegetarians, (b) individuals with a pet and (c) individuals with a higher interest in animalwelfare related information.
28
Research objectives and hypotheses
H4:
Perceived consumer effectiveness influences the relationship between attitudes and
concerns for animal welfare and pro-welfare behaviour, i.e. individuals with high perceived
consumer effectiveness will be more likely to engage in pro-welfare behaviour.
H5:
Consumers/citizens are not satisfied with the availability of welfare related information and
the way it is provided.
H6:
The price premium for higher welfare products is a barrier to engage in pro-welfare
behaviour.
H7:
Higher welfare products are perceived to be too less available.
H8:
Consumers de-animalise animal food products. In this perspective, given that eggs are
derived animal products, egg consumption will be less affected by animal welfare concerns
as compared to chicken meat consumption.
H9:
A high reported attribute importance of animal welfare, relative to other product attributes,
associates positively with pro-welfare behaviour.
H10:
Consumer segments that differ in level of engagement in pro-welfare behaviour can be
identified on the Flemish market.
This last hypothesis is a general hypothesis which does not directly relate to a specific research
objective. It is incorporated in this dissertation for the importance of targeted marketing of higher
welfare products, especially in an open and global food market.
29
Part I
4. Research design and data sources
Information required to meet the research objectives and to test the hypotheses is gathered
through a combination of qualitative and quantitative research procedures, applied on both primary
and secondary data sources. The data for this dissertation stems from six studies that are executed
independently from each other, including different sets of respondents, and on different time
occasions. The studies, the survey questions relevant in the scope of this dissertation and the
applied data analysis procedures are considered in more detail in the methodology sections of the
forthcoming thesis chapters. I will briefly present the different studies in this section in
chronological order, with reference to the time period, the research procedure (sample selection
and data collection), the number of respondents, the sample characteristics and the context in
which the study was executed.
4.1.
Study 1: Secondary data sources
For my dissertation, I was able to use secondary data that were collected through the distribution of
postal questionnaires in three consecutive years (2000-2001-2002). Identical questionnaires were
developed to obtain insights in the self-reported impact of farm animal welfare issues on meat
consumption decisions. A convenience sampling procedure was used among individuals that are
responsible for food purchasing within their household, with age as single quota control variable. A
valid net response of 521 respondents was obtained with respectively n=179, n=185 and n=175
respondents in the consecutive years. The sample distribution in terms of gender, age, living
environment, family status and education level is presented in Table 1.5.
30
Research design and data sources
Table 1.5. Sample characteristics of the survey respondents within Study 1
Year
2000
2001
2002
Total
Valid response
179
185
157
521
Male
40.2
40.1
33.1
38
48.9
Female
59.8
59.9
66.9
62
51.1
Children in
Yes
48.6
63.9
50.4
54.5
40.4
household (%)
No
51.4
36.1
48.8
45.5
59.6
Age of children in
≤ 12 years
16.2
20
38.1
22.3
household (%)
12 to 18 years
11.7
16.2
16.5
14.5
> 18 years
72.1
63.8
45.4
63.1
Living environment
Urban
36.3
51.9
34.4
41.2
36.3
(%)
Rural
63.7
48.1
65.6
58.8
63.7
Education level (%)
≤ 18 years
50.3
36.1
47.1
44.3
> 18 years
49.7
63.9
52.9
55.7
<25 years
29.6
21.6
38.2
29.4
29.3
25-45 years
34.1
34.6
22.9
30.9
28.4
>45 years
36.3
43.8
38.9
39.7
42.4
Mean (years)
37.29
40.63
37.43
38.51
40.2
Gender (%)
Age categories (%)
Age
*
Flanders*
Source: FOD Economie, Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie, Dienst Demografie
(http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/index.jsp)
4.2.
Study 2: “Defining the concept farm animal welfare”
The first primary data for my dissertation was gathered within a research that was financed by the
Ministry of the Flemish Community – Department EWBL – Administratie Land- en Tuinbouw –
Afdeling Monitoring en Studie, for a period of six month (1st January – 30 June 2006)
(ALT/AMS/2005/1). The general aim of the project was to develop an interpretation for the concept
farm animal welfare from a public point of view. The study combined qualitative and quantitative
research techniques. The first part of the study consisted of four focus group discussions that were
organised in March 2006. The participants (29 in total) were selected based on different meat
consumption profiles and on gender. Findings from this qualitative stage were applied to construct
a questionnaire for the quantitative part of the study. Additional to the study’s aim, the
questionnaire covered the relative importance of animal welfare in the food purchasing process and
the interplay between information and animal welfare.
31
Part I
Postal and web-based questionnaires were distributed in April 2006, applying a combination of
convenience, snowball and stratified sampling. The sampling procedure yielded a gross response of
1,081 respondents and after eliminating incomplete or double questionnaires, a net response of
834 respondents, of which 609 (73 percent) and 225 (27 percent) from web-based and postal
questionnaires respectively. Of this sample, 204 respondents were farmers or farmers’ offspring
and will be used as a separate dataset (“farmer sample”). A quota sampling procedure was used to
select a sample of 459 respondents (“citizen sample”) that is representative of the Flemish adult
population with regard to gender, age, living environment (urban versus rural) and region (province
distribution) as control variables. Table 1.6 provides further socio-demographic details on both
samples.
Table 1.6. Sample characteristics of the survey respondents within Study 2
Citizen
Sample (n=459)
Gender (%)
Population
(n=204)
Men
48.5
49.3
64.5
Women
51.5
50.7
35.5
37.8 (14.1)
40.2
35.9 (13.4)
Age (years)
Mean (S.D.)
Living environment (%)
Urban
38.9
36.3
8.9
Rural
61.1
63.7
91.1
Flemish Brabant
16.8
17.0
11.9
Antwerp
21.7
27.7
20.6
Limburg
8.9
13.3
13.8
West-Flanders
25.2
19.0
15.6
East Flanders
27.5
23.0
38.1
≤ 18 years
32.3
38.6
> 18 years
67.7
61.4
6.1
100
Province (%)
Educational level (%)
Connection to agriculture (%)
*
Farmer
*
Source: FOD Economie, Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie, Dienst Demografie
(http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/index.jsp)
In the final stage of the project, stakeholder representatives and interest groups were contacted
and interviewed about their expert opinion on the resulting conception. In total, seven in depth
interviews were carried out. Three persons were recruited to represent the producer side, one
person represented the retail side, one represented animal welfare organisations and finally two
persons with a scientific background in animal welfare or veterinary sciences were interviewed.
32
Research design and data sources
4.3.
Study 3: “Farm animal welfare and consumer behaviour”
This data was gathered in the scope of a students’ project (Colman et al., 2007). The project had the
aim to compare the public’s evaluation of the welfare of the different farm animals and to
determine the impact animal welfare has on the purchase of different animal product categories
(dairy, beef, pork, eggs and chicken meat). Cross-sectional survey data were collected through selfadministered web-based questionnaires in Flanders during a five-week period in March and April
2007. Consumers were selected using a non-probability snowball sampling procedure, with the aim
to obtain a sample that matches with the age distribution of the adult population and that includes
a high degree of variation in other demographic variables. To account for sample deviations from
the age distribution of the population, weighing coefficients were applied during analyses. In total,
the sample comprised 469 valid consumer questionnaires. Sample characteristics are presented in
Table 1.7.
Table 1.7. Sample characteristics of the survey respondents within Study 3
Gender (%)
Population*
Male
39.6
49.3
Female
60.4
50.7
40.7 (13.5)
40.2
Age
Mean (SD)
Province (%)
Flemish Brabant
8.3
17.0
Antwerp
24.5
27.7
Limburg
2.5
13.3
West-Flanders
37.0
19.0
East-Flanders
27.7
23.0
Urban
39.6
36.3
Rural
60.4
63.7
Past living environment
Urban
41.4
(%)
Rural
58.6
Education (%)
≤18yrs
29.7
>18yrs
70.3
Yes
14.6
No
85.4
Living environment (%)
Vegetarian (%)
*
Sample (n=469)
Source: FOD Economie, Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie, Dienst Demografie
(http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/index.jsp)
33
Part I
4.4.
Study 4: “Surveying Flemish pig producers about their attitude towards
surgical castration without anaesthesia and its alternatives”
In the context of a master thesis (Verhille, 2008), 300 Flemish pig farmers were randomly selected
from the national SANITEL record, which includes the addresses and telephone numbers of the
Belgian pig producers. Four addresses were double, two were Dutch addresses and two were
incorrect, leaving 292 pig farmers that were contacted through a postal questionnaire from October
2007 until February 2008. If questionnaires had not been returned (a pre-stamped envelope was
provided) within two weeks, the farmers were contacted by telephone. In total, 160 completed
questionnaires were received and judged suitable for further analyses.
4.5.
Study 5: “Consumer perception towards immunocastration as alternative
practice for surgical castration of piglets”
Also within the context of a master thesis (Furniere, 2008), survey data were collected through selfadministered web-based questionnaires in Flanders during January and February 2008. Participants
were recruited through non-probability snowball-sampling. This involves that initial contact persons
were asked to complete the questionnaire, together with the request to send the web-link to their
acquaintances, and so on. This sampling method is an efficient way of gathering a substantial
amount of data in a short time’s notice with a limited budget, ideally for a preliminary qualitative
type of data collection. It should be noted that this sampling method does not yield a statistically
representative sample. Hence, findings mainly apply within the characteristics of the sample and
generalisation to the overall population is not appropriate. Nonetheless, the contact with
respondents was steered in such a way to obtain a wide diversity in gender, age, family size and
living environment (Table 1.8).
Table 1.8. Sample characteristics of the survey respondents within Study 5 (%, n=225)
Gender (%)
Male
55.0
Age
< 26 years
38.6
Female
45.0
categories
26 – 40 years
24.5
(%)
41 – 54 years
23.6
> 55 years
13.2
Rural
43.4
Urban
36.7
Neutral
19.9
Family size (%) 1
*
5.4
2
28.1
3
14.9
4
28.1
5+
23.5
Living
environment
*
Living environment was self-assessed by the respondents on a seven-point scale, ranging from “rural” (1) to
“urban” (7). Percentages in the table represent response categories 1, 2 and 3 for rural; 5, 6 and 7 for urban;
and response category 4 for neutral.
34
Research design and data sources
4.6.
Study
6:
Immunocastration
versus
surgical
castration
with
anaesthesia/analgesia
A large-scale consumer survey was performed in France, Germany and the Netherlands between
January 21 and February 4, 2008, and further in Belgium between November 19 and 24, 2009. The
study aimed to gain insights in the market acceptance of immunocastration and surgical castration
with anaesthesia or analgesia, as an alternative practice for the routine practice of surgical piglet
castration without anaesthesia. A total of 4,031 online interviews were conducted among pork
consumers (individuals who consume at least 2 or 3 times pork a month). Participants were
randomly recruited from online consumer panels in each country. In order to maximise the
representativeness of the data for the overall population, data were weighted per country to reflect
the demographics of pork consumers in terms of age, gender and education. The survey took
approximately 15 minutes in duration. The fieldwork was performed by Lieberman Research
Worldwide (LRW Inc.), an international market research company, and was financed by Pfizer Inc..
Sample characteristics are provided in Table 1.9.
Table 1.9. Sample characteristics of the survey respondents within Study 6
Total sample
Belgium
France
Germany
The Netherlands
(25.6%)
(24.6%)
(25.0%)
(24.9%)
Gender (%)
Male
49.6
52.7
45.7
49.6
50.4
Female
50.4
47.3
54.3
50.4
49.6
18-24 years
9.3
9.2
11.2
9.8
7.1
25-34 years
16.6
14.5
16.5
13.7
21.7
35-44 years
21.2
19.7
18.7
22.5
23.7
45-54 years
20.9
22.7
21.7
19.2
19.8
55-64 years
15.1
21.2
14.3
12.7
12.0
> 65 years
17.0
12.7
17.6
22.1
15.7
2.51 (1.17)
2.54 (1.17)
2.60 (1.19)
2.47 (1.11)
2.45 (1.18)
Age category (%)
Family size
Mean (SD)
35
Part I
5. Thesis outline
The dissertation consists of a compilation of papers that have been published, accepted or
submitted as contributions to international peer-reviewed journals or as conference proceedings,
cross-covering the scientific disciplines of agricultural and food marketing, animal, veterinary and
ethical sciences, sociology and consumer behaviour. The thesis includes five parts in total. Part II to
Part IV consists of ten chapters, corresponding with single research papers. Figure 1.7 presents the
positioning of the different parts relative to the conceptual framework. Each part covers relevant
literature and focuses on analysing specific parts of the framework, following the rationale
presented below.
PART I. General introduction
PART II. Public conception of farm animal welfare
THEORY OF REASONED ACTION
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)
(CITIZEN)
(CONSUMER)
ATTITUDE
BEHAVIOURAL INTENTION
PART III.
Farm animal welfare:
attitudes, perceptions and
concerns
Attitude modifiers
Social structural variables
place-based variables
other social structural
variables
Individual animal-related
experiential variables
PART IV.
Ambivalence: Influencing factors
Perceived consumer effectiveness
Cost
Information
Availability
Dissociation
Product attribute importance
Animal welfare versus others
Altruistic versus Egoistic
Part V. Discussion and conclusion
Figure 1.7. Outline of the thesis in relation to the conceptual framework
Important to notice, the different chapters have a scope that stretches beyond the research
objectives and research hypotheses formulated within this dissertation. The papers have been left
largely untouched in the result section, though in order to frame each chapter within the
dissertation and its research objectives and hypotheses, a short abstract will be provided at the
beginning of each chapter.
36
Thesis outline
Part II is an umbrella chapter in which a public conception of farm animal welfare is developed. The
development of the conception has been effectuated in two steps, corresponding to the two
chapters within this chapter. The first chapter combines the findings from secondary data sources
and primary data from qualitative focus group discussions (Chapter 1), and has been used as
preliminary work for the second chapter. There, a quantitative public survey has been used,
followed by in depth interviews with stakeholders (Chapter 2) to construct a model that represents
an integrated conception of farm animal welfare in a format that is comprehensible and
understandable for the public. Both chapters relate the importance of insights in the public
conception to the current information asymmetry that is a contributory cause of the low relative
market share of higher welfare animal products. Additionally this part has some points of contacts
with other parts. The findings from the first chapter also detail on different modifiers of public
attitudes and concerns in relation to farm animal welfare (Part III) and on the influencing factors of
the attitude-behaviour ambivalence (Part IV).
Part III compiles seven research papers in which societal differences in attitudes, perceptions and
concerns with regard to farm animal welfare are discussed in correspondence with the framework
of Kendall and co-authors (2006). The first three chapters detail on the discordance between both
chain’s end users, i.e. producers and citizens/consumers. This fits in with the framework of Kendall
and co-authors under place-based factors. The discordance is discussed applying the conception for
farm animal welfare developed within this dissertation (Chapter 3) and applying the Welfare
Quality® conception (Chapter 4). The latter also details on the impact of being a vegetarian, which is
considered an individual animal-related experiential variable in the conceptual framework. The next
three chapters are related to the specific case of piglet castration. Two chapters present the public
opinion, in which immunocastration is evaluated against the routine practice of surgical castration
without anaesthesia (Chapter 5) and against surgical castration with anaesthesia or analgesia as
alternative short term solution (Chapter 6). A third chapter details on the evaluation of Flemish pig
producers of different alternative methods to the routine practice (Chapter 7). Comparing the
findings from Chapters 5 and 6 with the findings from Chapter 7 further contributes to the
discussion on the producer-consumer discordance. Next, Chapter 8 discusses societal differences in
relation to concern for stocking density as a topical animal welfare theme. The final chapter of this
part attempts to segment and profile citizens based on public attitude toward farm animal welfare
and consumers’ relative importance attached to farm animal welfare as a product attribute during
food purchasing decisions (Chapter 9). Profiling variables are in correspondence with the framework
of Kendall and co-authors (2006) and are complemented with some other variables. This chapter
covers many research hypotheses. Next to the discussion on attitude modifiers, it also contributes
to a better understanding of different viewpoints within society, given that it combines a rather
concrete consumer-related measure (relative importance attached to farm animal welfare as a
product attribute) with a more abstract public opinion (attitude toward animal welfare). In addition,
the chapter provides a segmentation analysis, which has been discussed as a necessary tool to
understand how to make higher welfare products relevant to different consumers and how to
37
Part I
position these products in a competitive marketing environment. Finally, the chapter documents on
the balance between human- and animal-centred concerns in relation to animal welfare.
Part IV elaborates on some issues that impact positively or negatively on the relationship between
animal welfare concerns and stated pro-welfare behaviour. This part includes one research paper in
which survey respondents are grouped in five groups based on self-reported pro-welfare behaviour
regarding eggs and chicken meat and touches the different influencing factors on the attitudebehaviour ambivalence as described in the conceptual framework (Chapter 10).
Finally, Part V provides the general discussion and conclusions. The most important findings of this
doctoral research are discussed. Conclusions, implications and recommendations from the different
research parts are tied together.
38
PART II
Public conception of farm animal
welfare
Chapter 1 : Public conception – qualitative approach
Chapter
1
Public conception of farm animal
welfare – qualitative approach
Adapted from Vanhonacker, F., E. Van Poucke, F. A. M. Tuyttens, and W. Verbeke. 2010. Citizens’
views on farm animal welfare and related information provision: exploratory insights from Flanders,
Belgium. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 23(6): 551-569.
Abstract
This chapter combines the results of two independent empirical studies with Flemish citizens and
addresses the problem of a short fall of information provision about higher welfare products. The
specific objectives of this chapter are (1) to improve our understanding of how citizens
conceptualise farm animal welfare, (2) to analyse the variety in the claimed personal relevance of
animal welfare in the food purchasing decision process and (3) to find out people’s expectations in
relation to product information about animal welfare and the extent to which the current
information caters to these expectations. The first study consisted of a survey conducted in three
consecutive years (2000-2002, n=521) and was complemented with qualitative data from four focus
group discussions (2006, n=29). The resulting citizens’ conceptualisation of farm animal welfare
matched reasonably well with those in the scientific literature, although it was clearly influenced by
a lower level of practical experience and a higher weight of empathy. In general, respondents
indicated animal welfare as an important product attribute, although less important than primary
product attributes such as quality, health and safety. Moral issues rather than a perception of
higher quality were the main influence on preferences for higher welfare products. At present,
higher standards of animal welfare are mostly guaranteed within more general quality assurance
schemes. People’s decisions not to choose higher welfare products seemed to be related to the
perceptual disconnection between eating animal food products and the living producing animals
(dissociation). Respondents generally thought better information provision was required and the
present level of provision was strongly criticised. In combination, the findings of both studies help
inform the discussion about how citizens can be informed about animal welfare and the preferred
content, source and medium of such information. In summary, this chapter provides insights into
citizens’ semantic interpretation of the concept of animal welfare (what wordings they use) and the
range of relevance that animal welfare has for different groups that, in turn is useful in identifying
which segments can be targeted. This can contribute to a more effective valorisation of animal
welfare as a product attribute.
41
Part II
1. Introduction
Over the past century, Western animal production has changed dramatically due to a strong focus
on maximising productivity and profitability. This has led to the development of intensive animal
rearing conditions (e.g. indoor housing to maximise production within the minimum space) that
rarely took animal welfare into account and frequently compromised it (e.g. Tuyttens et al., 2008).
The increased recognition of these welfare problems (Brom et al., 2007; European Commission,
2006b) has coincided with the growing importance and increased complexity and sophistication of
socio-cultural production aspects (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006) and increased societal interest in,
and concerns about farm animal welfare. Nevertheless, these societal interest and concerns are
poorly reflected in the consumers’ market behaviour and high welfare products still have a
relatively small market share. Harper and Henson (2001) argue that low market shares for high
welfare products should not necessarily be interpreted as reflecting a lack of consumer concern.
They identified several barriers that impede the translation of citizen concerns into consumer
behaviour: these were lack of (appropriate) information, lack of available products, lack of belief in
personal influence, pervasive ignorance of modern production methods, separation of the food
product from the animal of origin (dissociation) and cost.
This chapter elaborates on the information issue. The specific purpose of this chapter consists of
three objectives that are adopted in order to identify ways of communicating animal welfare more
effectively to consumers and touches a wide range of hypotheses postulated in this dissertation.
The first objective was to understand the way in which the public (as citizens) conceptualises farm
animal welfare and the wordings they use (semantic meanings). Several attempts have already been
made to conceptualise farm animal welfare, although most of these have been based on points of
view of animal welfare scientists, without taking into account the public opinion. Scientific efforts to
include citizens’ perceptions and attitudes in the conceptualisation of farm animal welfare have
thus
far
been
limited
to
the
integrated
European
Welfare
Quality®
project
(www.welfarequality.net), in which 12 issues of concern (also termed “criteria”) were grouped into
four “principles” (Botreau et al., 2008; Botreau et al., 2007; Miele and Evans, 2005; Tuyttens et al.,
2010a; Veissier and Evans, 2007). We argue that attempts to effectively communicate information
about animal welfare (as a product attribute) to consumers are hindered by the absence of input of
public opinion into science-based definitions of welfare and by citizens’ limited awareness and
knowledge about the issues.
The second objective was to scrutinise the variety in the claimed personal relevance of animal
welfare concerns in relation to food purchasing decisions. In today’s society, there is a growing
demand for farm animals to have better living conditions (European Commission, 2005) and a
distinct segment of consumers who are attentive to animal welfare issues (Boogaard et al., 2006;
FAWC, 2006; Vanhonacker et al., 2007). The existence of a distinct market segment calls for a
42
Chapter 1 : Public conception – qualitative approach
targeted strategy of information provision, since information is most likely to be effective and
efficient when it meets the specific needs of a target audience (Verbeke, 2009).
The third and final objective was to learn more about citizens’ preferences and expectations for
information about animal welfare. At present, the general public is poorly informed about animal
welfare conditions during rearing, transport and slaughter. This is at least partly due to poor
communication. At the same time, consumers can easily get lost in the numerous, sometimes
competing labels that often cause confusion (Passantino et al., 2008; Verbeke and Viaene, 1999b).
Investigating societal informational expectations about animal welfare issues should provide
insights into the public’s preferences about content (what), source (who) and medium (how) of
information about animal welfare.
2. Material and methods
This chapter compiles data from a quantitative survey (Study 1) and qualitative focus group
discussions (Study 2) and is exploratory in nature. These two approaches are complementary.
Qualitative research techniques are very suitable for relatively unexplored and abstract or moral
themes and can illustrate underlying motivations and attitudes, which are not generally revealed
through closed survey questions (Malhotra and Peterson, 2005). The lack of a priori information
about how citizens conceptualise farm animal welfare means that qualitative research is highly
appropriate for exploring this relatively unexplored concept. The qualitative methods are also used
to deepen elements from the larger quantitative study. There are several advantages in combining
these two approaches. Qualitative research is often seen as having the disadvantage of drawing on
a limited number of participants and thus potentially being unrepresentative. Triangulating the
results between the two approaches can strengthen the robustness of the conclusions and make
them more acceptable in decision-making processes. Quantitative findings by contrast, can
statistically substantiate differences between groups of people. Thus, in this analysis the first
research objective was addressed solely through the qualitative results, while both research
methods were applied to address the second and third objective.
2.1.
Survey (Study 1)
Methodological aspects in terms of period, research procedure (sample selection and data
collection), number of respondents, sample description and the context in which the study is
performed can be found in the methodology section of this dissertation (Part I.4). The non-random
sampling procedure involves that the sample cannot be considered representative for the Flemish
population. Hence, results are only indicative and should not be generalised to the whole
population. The female majority reflects the selection of the main person responsible for food
purchases in the household. Age ranged from 17 to 86 years. Mean age was slightly below the
population mean of 40.2 years (source: FOD Economy) and different age categories were well
represented. The sample varied in terms of respondents’ living environment, educational level and
43
Part II
whether or not households had children. There was a slight overrepresentation of urban people,
higher educated people and families with children.
Two themes in the questionnaire were relevant and compatible with the aim of the present
chapter. First, respondents were probed about their basic expectations of animal food products.
They were asked about the importance they allocate in their choice of animal food products to
different product attributes (health, safety, quality, trustworthiness and origin) in relation to animal
welfare. The question reads “how important are the following product attributes for you, compared
to animal welfare, when making your choice for buying animal food products?”. The answers were
registered on five-point Likert scales that ranged from “much less important” (1) through “equally
important” (3) to “much more important” (5). In addition, respondents were asked how they
associated higher welfare products with other product attributes: “More attention for animal
welfare will yield products that are … (more acceptable; more authentic; more available; more
environmentally friendly; healthier; cheaper; more profitable for the producer; of better quality;
safer; tastier; more traditional; more trustworthy).” This question was scored on a five-point Likert
agreement scale that ranges from “disagree strongly” (1) through “neither disagree nor agree” (3)
to “agree strongly” (5). Both questions contributed to exploring the second objective within this
chapter.
Second, respondents were provided with a list of statements about the relation between
information and animal welfare and between animal welfare and claimed consumer behaviour.
Statements were rated on five-point Likert agreement scales. Statements were: “There is enough
information available about animal welfare,” “I believe the information provided about animal
welfare,” “I am rather suspicious of information provided about animal welfare,” “Animal welfare
should be monitored more strictly,” “Animal welfare should be guaranteed by means of a product
label” and “I am willing to pay more for higher welfare products.” These statements provided
information relevant to the third objective within this chapter. In addition to socio-demographical
variables, respondents were asked to indicate their meat consumption frequency on a six-point
scale that ranged from “never” (1) to “several times per day” (6).
Data were analysed using SPSS 15.0. The mean scores with standard deviations and frequencies
were shown in table format or bar diagrams. Bivariate analyses were done through correlations (in
the case of ratio-scaled variables) and comparisons of mean scores by means of independent t-tests
(in the case of categorical variables with two categories) and one-way ANOVA F-tests with
Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores (in the case of categorical
variables with more than two categories) were used to detect differences in attitudes and
perceptions between different socio-demographical groups. The critical p-value was fixed on 0.05.
44
Chapter 1 : Public conception – qualitative approach
2.2.
Focus group discussions (part of Study 2)
Focus group participants are often referred to as “prime witnesses,” people who are particularly
interesting because of their specific socio-demographic, attitudinal or behavioural profile. Four
focus group discussions were organised in March 2006. The participants (29 in total) were selected
based on different meat consumption profiles (primary criterion) and on gender (secondary
criterion) (Table 2.1). Group 1 (G1) was an all female group (n=7) who had recently lowered their
meat consumption, Group 2 (G2) consisted of eight females whose meat consumption had not
dropped recently, Group 3 (G3) were female vegetarians (n=7), and Group 4 (G4) were male
vegetarians (n=7). All the focus group participants were aged between 18 and 58 and were
responsible for the purchase of food for their household. The meat consumption profile was
deemed more important than gender in explaining variations in attitude towards animal welfare
and was thus used as the primary selection criterion. Given that a focus group should be
homogenous in terms of demographics and socio-economic characteristics (Malhotra and Peterson,
2005), we chose to keep the groups separate according to these selection variables. The choice of
two vegetarian groups was due to the expected higher awareness and involvement of vegetarians in
animal welfare issues (Hopkins and Dacey, 2008; Lea and Worsley, 2002). Females are generally
more concerned about animal welfare than men (Kendall et al., 2006) and women are more
frequently responsible for household food purchases. These factors led to an imbalance in the
gender representation (the secondary selection criterion) giving three female groups and one male
group.
The discussions were guided by a moderator who followed a structured topic list. Before starting
the discussion a short general introduction was given, explaining that the meeting was about citizen
perceptions towards farm animals and food (without specifying animal welfare) and the participants
introduced themselves to each other. Following Krueger (1988), participants were always asked to
recount their personal experiences in order to avoid stereotypes. The moderators tried to avoid
drifting into stereotyping when directing the flow of the discussions. The topic list followed a funnel
approach, starting with general questions and building towards more specific ones. The topic list
covered all three chapter objectives.
Respondents’ conceptualisation of animal welfare (chapter objective 1) was approached through
direct questioning as well as hidden issue questioning. Examples of direct questions in the topic
guide are “What do you understand by animal welfare? What influences good/bad animal welfare
for farm animals? What influences your image of animal welfare (i.e. which animal species and/or
production systems)? Are there differences between animal species? What are the welfare issues
for each animal species? Which animal species have better welfare than others and why? What are
the conditions for good welfare? What are the most important aspects to be fulfilled to guarantee
good welfare and why? How can animal welfare be improved?” The time spent discussing each
question varied according to how the discussion evolved. For the hidden issue questioning,
participants were asked to work in small groups of two or three. Each group was asked to think
45
Part II
about two imaginary countries, one where living conditions for farm animals were good and one
with bad conditions. They were asked to describe the animal welfare conditions in each country,
such as how the animals were kept and housed. Chapter objectives 2 and 3 were approached
through the direct questioning method and questions were strongly related to the survey questions
in the quantitative study (see above). Each group discussion lasted for approximately 2-2.5 hours.
The participants received a monetary incentive to participate. All the discussions were attended by
the authors and were audio-taped.
Table 2.1. Characteristics of the focus group participants
Number of
Meat consumption
participants
profile
1
7
Meat consumer
2
8
3
7
4
7
Group
Min. age
Max. age
(years)
(years)
Female
22
57
Female
21
58
Vegetarian
Female
18
34
Vegetarian
Male
23
32
Recently lowered meat
consumption
Gender
3. Results
3.1.
Citizens’ conceptualisation of farm animal welfare
For reasons discussed in the materials and methods section, this section is based solely on the
outcome of the focus group discussions. The direct and hidden questioning of these focus groups
led us to draw up a list of aspects that reflect how people think about or conceptualise farm animal
welfare. A full list of these aspects can be found in Table 2.2. Our descriptions of these aspects
attempt to stay loyal to the verbal formulations made by the participants. Where participants used
sentences or phrases to formulate these concepts, we sought to capture the formulation in a single
or a few words. Aspects with a very similar content that were differently formulated in different
groups were grouped together. Aspects that are incongruous with animal production were
reoriented (e.g. “…animals should die a natural death… (G3)” is captured in the aspect “lifespan”).
We then grouped these aspects into six dimensions, according to the context in which they were
raised. This was done to facilitate further discussion and comparisons with the main themes within
the literature. These six dimensions are discussed below. The order in which they are presented
does not reflect any relative importance between them. The first dimension involves aspects related
to feed: here a distinction can be made between aspects about the composition of the feed and
those relating to the way of feeding. A second dimension relates to the housing of farm animals and
can be subdivided into aspects that relate to barn design and those that highlight other
environmental factors. A third dimension relates to the health of the animal and consists of aspects
describing physical as well as psychological health. Fourthly, a dimension about the animal’s ability
46
Chapter 1 : Public conception – qualitative approach
to engage in natural behaviour can be distinguished. Fifth, aspects dealing with human-animal
relationships (management issues) are grouped together. Finally, a sixth dimension clusters aspects
related to the final stage of the animal’s life: “transport and slaughter.”
Table 2.2. List of aspects that reflect how people think about or conceptualise farm animal
welfare. The list is based on the focus group discussions, and aspects are arbitrarily assigned to a
dimension (in capitals), and possible sub-dimensions (in italic)
FEED
Feed composition
natural – varied (not monotonous) – nutritionally adequate – quality – healthy – tasty for the animal –
adjusted to the species – free of synthetics – free of antibiotics
Feeding regime
not too little – not too much – constant access to water – fixed schedule
HOUSING
Barn design
sufficient space (for locomotion) – group housing – not too many animals together – acceptable stocking
density – separate areas (sleeping area, feeding area, …) – shelter – floor type – hygiene
Environmental factors
outdoor access – choice of being inside or outside – fresh air – natural light – natural sounds
HEALTH
Physical health
no preventive treatments – individual medication for diseases – natural growth rate – avoiding injuries –
absence of pain – mutilations (castration, beak trimming) – being active
Psychological health
feeling good – absence of fear – absence of stress – absence of frustration – toys (distraction materials) –
not being bored
ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN NATURAL BEHAVIOUR
natural behaviour – social behaviour – maternal behaviour (leave the young with the mother) – natural
birth
HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP
respectful treatment – personal farmer-animal bond – favourable working conditions – individual
attention
TRANSPORT AND SLAUGHTER
minimal duration of transport – minimal distance of transport – loading procedure – unloading
procedure – number of transports per animal – adapting transport to the animal – feed/water during
transport – no early slaughter
47
Part II
3.2.
Personal relevance attached to animal welfare
3.2.1. Survey
On average, respondents in the survey sample considered animal welfare as a less important
product attribute than health, trustworthiness, quality and safety. Only origin was attributed a
lower importance and taste did not differ significantly from the importance of animal welfare (Table
2.3). For each of the product attributes there was a strong concentration of answers on the
midpoint of the scale (from 47.3 percent for health to 59.3 percent for safety). However, a distinct
group of respondents (about 10 percent in our sample, see Table 2.3) perceived animal welfare as
more important than primary product attributes such as quality, health and safety. This response
was influenced by place-based variables, given that rural inhabitants assigned a lower importance
to animal welfare relative to quality (p=0.030), taste (p<0.001) and origin (p=0.002). Regarding the
impact of other social structural variables, no relation with either gender or educational level was
found (p>0.05). The relative importance of animal welfare generally decreased with increasing age.
Households with children gave relatively less priority to animal welfare (p<0.05) than those without
children. Finally, a negative and significant correlation was found between the frequency of meat
consumption and the relative importance given to animal welfare (p<0.05).
Respondents positively associated higher welfare products with health, safety, quality and
trustworthiness. There were other positive associations for taste, acceptability, traditionality and
the authenticity of the product, environmental friendliness and hygiene. The most positive
association of higher welfare was with the product’s acceptability. By contrast, the sample
considered higher welfare products to be more expensive and less available and believed that they
were less profitable for the producer (Figure 2.1).
Table 2.3. Comparing animal welfare to other product attributes. Mean values with standard
deviations on five-point Likert scales are provided, together with the share of the sample that
attributes a higher importance (scores 1 and 2; % less important), an equal importance (score 3),
and a lower importance (scores 4 and 5; % more important) to animal welfare
Origin
Taste
Safety
Quality
Health
Trustworthy
Mean
2.77
2.99
3.17
3.25
3.49
3.31
SD
0.99
0.94
0.88
0.92
0.96
0.89
% less important
32.2
23.3
12.7
12.0
8.5
9.4
% equally important
51.4
54.0
59.3
56.3
47.3
55.5
% more important
13.4
22.7
28.0
31.8
44.2
35.0
48
Chapter 1 : Public conception – qualitative approach
acceptability
quality
health
environmental friendliness
safety
trustworthy
hygiene
taste
authenticity
traditionality
availability
profitability
price
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Figure 2.1. Association of higher welfare standards with other product attributes. Mean scores
above 3 correspond with positive associations, mean scores below 3 with negative associations
3.2.2. Focus group discussions
All four focus groups spontaneously expressed similar basic expectations regarding food, though
they differed slightly in their emphasis. They all attached a high importance to the quality of food,
which was mainly associated with the product’s health and safety. Taste, origin, availability and
price were mentioned as important decision criteria, with the latter mainly associated with pricequality ratio. In all the groups, the price aspect was not mentioned very quickly, though once cited,
a consensus emerged about its importance. In other respects there were quite wide variations
between groups, mainly between the vegetarian (G3, G4) and the non-vegetarian groups (G1, G2).
Vegetarians attached a higher value to sustainability issues (production method, environmental
impact) – although these issues were also mentioned by the non-vegetarian groups – and to
freshness, local production and seasonality. These latter three issues were strongly associated with
health. Vegetarians also highly valued socio-cultural product attributes such as environmental
friendliness, animal welfare and fair trade, whereas the two non-vegetarian groups attributed more
importance to the product’s appearance and trustworthiness. Basic expectations for meat products
were expressed as being higher than for other food products. The reasons for this were the (recent)
crises and scandals regarding meat production, the fact that meat is derived from living beings and
its limited shelf life.
There were differences between the vegetarian and non-vegetarian groups in the way that they
regarded the relation between animal welfare and other product attributes. The vegetarian groups
provided relatively homogenous responses, possibly due to shared values that influence their
attitude towards animal welfare. In general, vegetarians were convinced about the positive relation
49
Part II
of animal welfare with product quality and taste (“…you consume the stress of the animal, that can’t
be healthy (G3)…stress induces inferior pork quality (G3)…organic eggs are better (G4)…”). They saw
higher product quality as being subordinate to higher welfare conditions (“…I have no higher
expectations of the quality of the product (eggs) but I do for the hen (G4)…”). Some of the meat
consumers did not associate animal welfare with quality (“… animal welfare is unrelated to quality;
it is a separate aspect (G1)…quality is related to the processing and the treatment of the meat
(G1)...”). Frequent positive associations were made between animal welfare and health, taste and
safety, with all groups making reference to the use of antibiotics and hormones and concerns about
their residuals (“…less antibiotics and residuals (G2)…”). High welfare products were generally
thought be less widely available (“…the problem for consuming more is the limited availability
(G1)...”), carry a higher price and trustworthiness of the label/claim to be questionable. The
importance of price as a product attribute differed considerably both between and within the two
groups. Within groups this variation was mainly linked to age and correlated to socio-economic
status, with younger participants having a lower budget and feeling more constrained by the higher
product prices. Vegetarians gave a lower importance to price than the meat eating groups.
3.3.
Information and animal welfare
3.3.1.
Survey
In general, the majority of the sample (52.9 percent) considered the current level of welfare-related
information to be inadequate, while only one quarter was satisfied with it (Table 2.4). The
responses concerning the credibility and reliability of information were also quite negative,
although a substantial share of respondents (about 40 percent) neither agreed nor disagreed with
the statements about these two issues. Respondents strongly agreed on the need for stricter
welfare monitoring. A large majority of the sample (71 percent) thought labels have a positive role
to play as a communication tool about the level of animal welfare. Finally, 60 percent indicated a
willingness to pay more for higher welfare products.
Opinions did not differ strongly between socio-demographic groups. Females were slightly more in
favour of stricter welfare monitoring (p=0.026), the need for product label relating to welfare
standards (p=0.023) and showed more the willingness to pay for higher welfare products (p=0.004).
Households without children more strongly expressed the lack of available information (p=0.003)
and were a little more in favour of the need for stricter welfare monitoring (p=0.036). Age only
influenced respondents’ perceptions about the availability of information, with the youngest age
group (age 17 to 23 years) having a more negative opinion than the oldest age category (age above
54 years) (p=0.017). Educational level had no influence on any of the issue statements, while urban
people only differed from rural inhabitants in being more in favour of stricter monitoring of animal
welfare (p=0.001).
50
Chapter 1 : Public conception – qualitative approach
Table 2.4. Citizens’ view on information provision and monitoring in relation to animal welfare.
Mean value and standard deviation on five-point Likert agreement scales. Sample share
disagreeing (scores 1 and 2), answering neutral (score 3), and agreeing (scores 4 and 5)
There is sufficient information available about
animal welfare
I believe the information about animal welfare
I am rather suspicious about information
about animal welfare
Animal welfare should be monitored more
strictly
Animal welfare should be guaranteed by
means of a product label
I am willing to pay more for higher welfare
products
3.3.2.
Mean
SD
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
2.66
1.08
52.9
20.1
27.0
2.84
0.96
35.7
39.0
25.4
3.15
0.89
24.7
38.5
36.8
4.04
0.89
4.8
16.2
78.9
3.89
0.96
7.9
20.9
71.2
3.55
1.01
15.9
23.6
60.5
Focus group discussions
Participants in the focus groups generally thought that there was insufficient available information
about animal welfare when purchasing animal food products. Only a few respondents were content
with the present levels of information provided and saw no need for additional information (“… that
is none of my business (G2)…”). Even so, these respondents recognised the relevance of information
provision, given the substantial societal interest in animal welfare. The majority were receptive to
animal welfare related information and for some people it was a necessity: “…I would like to know
more about it (animal welfare), then I would deal even more consciously with my food (G2) …people
should be confronted with reality, now they are misled by advertising (G4)…”
Considering the source of the information, participants stressed the importance of objectivity and
expertise, with information being scientifically sound (i.e. credible and reliable) and straightforward
(i.e. simple and understandable). They preferred a neutral source (e.g. the government instead of
animal welfare organisations), recognising the potential influence of vested interests and their
tendency to highlight only one side of the story. Other potential information sources mentioned
were butchers, farmers, schools, advertising, educational and documentary television programs,
leaflets (although these were thought to have a limited impact) and labelling. Labels were seen as
an opportunity, though not in the way they are applied now (“…there is a proliferation of labels
(G3)… labels are often to comfort the consumers, who do not know what the label is actually about
(G3)…the meaning of labels should be more clear (G2)…”).
51
Part II
Participants were often confused about the actual meaning of animal welfare labels and thought
that they needed to be clear and reliable if they were to be effective or trustworthy. Participants
stressed that the content of a label should be understandable by everyone. Several ideas were
suggested about how a good label might be developed. These included an integrated approach (“…a
welfare label should be established based on the consultation of different interest groups like
producers, retailers, consumers, organisations related to vegetarianism and animal rights, the
government (G4)…”) and a demand for simplicity (“…is it not possible to work with classes like A to E
where A corresponds with the best welfare and E with the worst? (G3) solely two possibilities namely
good or bad animal welfare…. (G2)”). A simple and readily recognisable label was deemed
important as the population has a very different level of interest and origin of interest in higher
welfare products.
Some participants suggested that some shelves should only contain products from animals raised
under good welfare conditions, so that they would not have to search for welfare related
information. When asked who should be responsible for improving animal welfare, respondents
focused on those who ran current intensive production systems, agreeing that animal suffering is
mainly caused by mass production (“…the agricultural system is on the rocks (G2)…animal
production has evolved at the service of provenance (G2)…the more people that want to consume
meat the more meat that has to be produced (G3)…”). However, the majority of the participants
thought that responsibility could not be pinned entirely on farmers (“…taking care of animal welfare
is only possible on small farms (G4)…we have created a farmer that is industrial and no longer a
farmer (G1)…they have to fight to survive (G1)…it is not a matter of not being willing but of not
being able (G1)…”). Nonetheless, some participants – mainly vegetarians – thought that farmers
were overly focused on profits instead of their animals.
Focus groups also thought that consumers were partly responsible. Vegetarians in particular
emphasised the effects of contemporary lifestyles (“…mankind has a feeling of superiority, he wants
more and more (G2)…only buy what is necessary for a healthy life (G4)…eating no or fewer animal
products has an impact on mass production (G4)…”). Participants varied in their opinions over this
issue: some thought that consumers can influence the system by buying more animal friendly
products, while others did not see how they could have an impact given the lack of direct
involvement. Government was seen as having an important responsibility, especially in formulating
labels, monitoring welfare and disbursing subsidies. The participants agreed that the responsibility
did not lie solely with one actor, but that there is a need for more general awareness and change in
mentality.
52
Chapter 1 : Public conception – qualitative approach
4. Discussion and conclusion
This chapter has explored aspects of the increasing societal interest in farm animal welfare and has
focused on the short fall in information provision. Three specific objectives could be distinguished in
this chapter. First, it has analysed the way that Flemish citizens think about farm animal welfare:
how they conceptualise it and the terminology they use to describe it. This relates to the first
research objective of this dissertation. Second, it has investigated the claimed relevance of animal
welfare as a product attribute versus other attributes. It has also explored how this varies between
different social groups. In this perspective, it links with the second research objective of this
dissertation. Finally, it has provided insights into how citizens think welfare information should be
framed: in terms of content, source and medium. This ties up with this dissertation’s third research
objective. Combined, these study findings can help to support further development of
communication and marketing strategies.
Regardless of the lay status (in terms of practical knowledge and awareness about animal
production) of participants in the focus groups, the discussions provided a valuable (although
relatively informal) list of aspects that the participants associated with farm animal welfare. The list
showed much overlap with existing definitions provided in the literature. In fact, the four principles
from Welfare Quality® (good housing, good feeding, good health, appropriate behaviour) were
quite evident in the results, although the focus groups added two further dimensions, relating to
transport and slaughter and to human-animal relationships. Both these additional dimensions
received considerable attention during the focus group discussions and were discussed in a context
that was distinct from the other dimensions. In comparison, the four principles of Welfare Quality®
are designed to be applied both on farm and during transport and slaughter, and the human-animal
relationship is contained within the principle of “appropriate behaviour”. On the aspect level,
animal welfare measurements that require good knowledge of animal production and that are
often used in welfare assessments (e.g. lameness, mastitis...) were not incorporated in the citizens’
conceptualisation of farm animal welfare. In general, the list of aspects provided by the focus
groups seemed to some extent influenced by an idyllic image of the countryside and the position of
farm animals (e.g. Korthals, 2002; Te Velde et al., 2002) and by an anthropomorphic perspective
(McInerney, 2004; Rushen, 2003), views that are both fundamentally antithetical to current
patterns of intensive animal production. Finally, the impact of recent food crises and scandals that
undermined the public’s trust in animal production is still strong and was reflected in the presence
of aspects such as “free of synthetics/antibiotics” and “no preventive medication”. These issues
notwithstanding, the insights into the concerns of focus group members and the language they use
make a useful contribution in developing understanding about how to effectively communicate
about animal welfare.
Respondents to the survey gave a much higher priority to primary product attributes, such as
quality, health and safety than to socio-cultural aspects, such as animal welfare, environmental
53
Part II
friendliness, and fair trade. Theoretically, this corresponds with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943)
and empirically it corresponds with earlier findings (Heleski et al., 2004; Ingenbleek et al., 2006a;
Kanis et al., 2003; Verbeke and Viaene, 1999a). However, with the exception of a group that ignores
animal welfare as a product attribute, both the survey and focus group discussions revealed the
existence of a specific market segment that values animal welfare and considers it when choosing
animal food products. The present study shows that urban people, younger people and people
without children gave a relative higher importance to farm animal welfare as a product attribute.
People’s preference (or rejection) of higher welfare products was more closely associated with
moral issues than with quality or sensory ones. The main reasons for choosing animal welfare
products were the higher acceptability of higher welfare production methods and respect for
animals. By contrast those who did not have a preference for higher welfare products tended to
ignore the animal origin in order to avoid feelings of guilt (Hopkins and Dacey, 2008; Niesten et al.,
2003). In current marketing strategies, animal welfare is incorporated in broader quality assurance
schemes (Verbeke, 2009) rather than having a specific and dedicated ethical claim or label.
Respondents’ negative associations between higher welfare products with price and availability
matched findings in the literature (e.g. Harper and Henson, 2001; Harper and Makatouni, 2002).
Yet, the extent to which these negative associations inhibited claims of pro-welfare behaviour was
inversely related to the personal priority that individuals gave to animal welfare. Efforts to
communicate animal welfare issues with the public need to acknowledge the variety in people’s
interest in animal welfare and their engagement in pro-welfare behaviour (Wilson, 1981).
While people’s behaviour towards animal welfare varies, most citizens agree about the inadequacy
of animal welfare-related information on food products, both in terms of availability and the way in
which it is currently provided. They see the need for information that is credible and reliable and
that can be interpreted at glance. The public’s need for credible and reliable information led to
them expressing a preference for a source that is perceived as free from vested interests (such as
the government) to communicate welfare-related information. Ideally, such information should be
the result of an integrated approach, reflecting the general opinion that farm animal welfare is a
joint responsibility. Respondents favoured a product label that is focused specifically and solely on
animal welfare in a transparent format as the medium for communicating this information.
Although this study sheds some light on the public’s expectations on, and interests in information
related to animal welfare, practical implementation remains particularly challenging with respect to
unambiguously determining what “good animal welfare” is and what amount of information should
be communicated to the public and by whom.
In conclusion, the study findings provide valuable insights that might be applied to the development
of future communication and information provision about farm animal welfare. The results also
positively contribute to bridging the perceptual discordance between the views of the general
public and of welfare scientists and producers about what constitutes animal welfare and can thus
be valuable to support a constructive dialogue.
54
Chapter 2 : Public conception – quantitative approach
Chapter
2
Public conception of farm animal
welfare – quantitative approach
Adapted from Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, Z. Pieniak, G. Nijs, and F. A. M.
Tuyttens. 2010. The concept of farm animal welfare: citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in
Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics doi 10.1007/s10806-010-9299-6.
Abstract
The objective of this chapter is to develop a conception of farm animal welfare that starts from the
public’s perception and integrates the opinion of different stakeholder representatives, thus
following a fork-to-farm approach. It constitutes a continuation of the previous chapter. The
findings from the qualitative citizen focus group discussions were used to develop a quantitative
questionnaire. The questionnaire has been completed by a sample of 459 respondents that have
been selected to be representative of the Flemish (adult) citizen population in terms of gender, age,
living environment (rural versus urban) and region (province distribution). Exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses are applied to develop a conception of farm animal welfare starting
from an extended list of aspects that relate to animal production and associate with farm animal
welfare in the public perception. In depth interviews with stakeholder representatives were used to
match and adapt the structure of the animal welfare conception model. The resulting conception
revealed seven dimensions grouped in two different levels. Three dimensions were animal-based:
“Suffering and Stress”, “Ability to Engage in Natural Behaviour” and “Animal Health”. Four
dimensions were resource-based: “Housing and Barn Climate”, “Transport and Slaughter”, “Feed
and Water” and “Human-Animal Relationship”. This conception is distinct from earlier attempts
since it is based on public perceptions; it addresses the opinion of different stakeholders and it
distinguishes empirically between animal-based and resource-based dimensions in the conception
of farm animal welfare. The relevancy of a definition that incorporates the public perception is
supported by the present demand oriented economy, in which animal welfare is a non-trade
concern and mainly left to the market where consumers still mainly act as individuals who calculate
and weigh pros and cons.
55
Part II
1. Introduction
“Animal welfare” is increasingly referred to as an important goal by different stakeholders along the
food production chain (Verbeke, 2009), yet its meaning and conception differs depending on who is
using the concept, which hampers effective policy implementations. Many of the conceptions,
especially the ones developed from an animal science perspective, are criticised for being too
limited and not sufficiently addressing the issues of actual public concern (Fraser, 2008; Lund et al.,
2006; Rushen, 2003; Rushen and Depassille, 1992), whereas animal welfare is by nature a social
concept that reflects societal values (Fisher, 2009; McInerney, 1991). Fisher (2009) suggests that the
term should be considered as a judgment to be undertaken by combining varied understandings
and to acknowledge underlying values and assumptions, both moral and scientific, rather than
risking to exclude valid viewpoints through pursuing a prescriptive definition. In addition, Rushen
(2003) stressed the relevancy of research into societal views on animal welfare, as well as citizen
values and norms to shed light on the factors that steer the behaviour of people.
Fisher (2009) further indicates that the essential reason for defining a term is to communicate.
Considering the fact that animal welfare is to a large extent left to the market (MacArthur Clark,
2008; Sørensen and Fraser, 2010), the target audience for communication should be the public. In
this perspective, a definition for farm animal welfare should appeal to the public and should take
into account the public’s low practical knowledge base and awareness in relation to animal
production practices. An accepted societal definition could act as a focus for debate and a target for
improving and communicating about animal welfare. However, a societal conception of farm animal
welfare is, compared to conceptions from other perspectives and despite its accredited relevancy
(Fraser, 2001; Rushen, 2003), not yet extensively covered in scientific literature.
The present chapter acknowledges the importance that the chain end user can play in the debate
about animal welfare. Animal welfare is still considered a non-trade concern at WTO-level and the
responsibility is by many stakeholders delegated to this end user who can vote for or against a
product through purchasing it or not. As such, insights in how the public perceives the concept of
farm animal welfare are important and relevant, more so in the present information society, where
inadequate information gets lost in the abundance of information available. This study’s research
question is therefore formulated as how the scientific definitions for animal welfare translate in a
“popular” definition, necessary to support a constructive dialogue and an effective communication
to the public, both in their role as consumers and citizens. Consumers can contribute through the
purchase of higher welfare products. Therefore, animal welfare characteristics need to be simple
and definable, recognised and explicit and certifiable as product characteristics (McInerney, 2004).
With respect to the individual in his/her role as citizen, it is acknowledged that the concern of the
public dictates the need for animal welfare standards and animal welfare legislations (Caporale et
al., 2005; Edwards and Schneider, 2005; Garnier et al., 2003). In both cases, a good understanding
of the public’s conception of farm animal welfare is determinant.
56
Chapter 2 : Public conception – quantitative approach
The aim of this chapter is to translate the opinion of citizens with regard to farm animal welfare into
a structured concept that is supported by the different stakeholders and interests groups along the
food production chain. The study uses a more formal, transparent and quantitative methodological
approach as compared to previous studies. The consistency with existing conceptions will be
discussed, together with the applicability of our findings with respect to communication and how to
put into practice.
2. Material and methods
This study is a continuation of the citizen focus group discussions, considered in the previous
chapter. Together with a profound literature search the focus group discussions served as the basis
for the construction of a survey questionnaire. Data from this survey allowed conceptualising the
public view on farm animal welfare in a quantitative way. Finally the outcome of the quantitative
study was presented to, and discussed with representatives from different stakeholders and
interest groups who are active in the meat production chain in order to incorporate a wide vision
into our conception, following Fisher (2009). The finality of each part of the study is shown in Figure
2.2, and further methodological details on each part are provided in the next sections. All studies
have been performed in Flanders.
Focus group discussions
(Chapter 1)
56 aspects in 6 dimensions
Literature search and internal discussion
73 aspects
Input for confirmatory factor
analysis
Exploratory factor analysis
Construct validation
Confirmatory factor analysis
Quantitative public conception
of farm animal welfare
In depth interviews
Figure 2.2. Methodological summary
57
Part II
2.1.
Qualitative research –focus group discussions & literature search (Study 2)
Full details about the methodology and results of the focus group discussions have been reported in
Chapter 1. In brief, four focus group discussions with a total of 29 participants were performed in
March 2006. Analysing the focus group discussions involved transcribing, structuring and content
analysing the data. The main goal of the focus groups was to obtain a workable list of aspects that
are related to animal production and that were believed to associate with farm animal welfare in
the public perception, thus factors or production practices that people perceive as important for
animal welfare. In total 56 aspects were obtained and were arbitrarily classified in the following six
dimensions: feed and feeding / housing / animal health / engagement in natural behaviour /
human-animal relationship / transport and slaughter. To account for the limited number of
respondents involved in the focus group discussions, the list was modified and further extended to
73 aspects based on additional literature review and internal discussion among the scientists
involved in this study (Table 2.5). Retaining or rejection of aspects in the final citizens’ conception of
farm animal welfare was based on quantitative data analysing techniques.
Table 2.5. Full list of aspects used for framing the public conception of farm animal welfare.
Between brackets the aspect coding is given that will be used in the syntax of the confirmatory
factor analysis and in further reporting
Functional areas in barn (i30)
Disease (i31)
Lairage time (i32)
Feed on fixed moments (i33)
Foraging behaviour (i34)
Flooring type (i35)
Body care (i36)
Boredom (i37)
Freshness of feed (i38)
Stunning (i39)
Static groups (i40)
Transport of living animals (i41)
Outdoor access (i42)
Duration of transport (i43)
Stress (i44)
Mortality (i45)
Barn temperature (i46)
Hygiene in the barn (i47)
Play behaviour (i48)
Social behaviour (i49)
Taste of feed (i50)
Sexual behaviour (i51)
Shelter (i52)
Shockproof & calm transport (i53)
Space during transport (i54)
58
Respect for animals (i55)
Preventive medication (i56)
Having fun (i57)
Slaughter without pain&stress (i58)
Pain by human intervention (i59)
Pain by conspecifics (i60)
Farmer-animal bond (i61)
Handling of animals (i62)
Natural environment (i63)
Natural growth rate (i64)
Natural feed (i65)
Natural birth (i66)
Natural behaviour (i67)
Music in the barn (i68)
Maternal behaviour (i69)
Procedure of (un)loading (i70)
Mixing of groups during t&s (i71)
Curative medication (i72)
Technical noise (i73)
Air quality (i74)
Light regime (i75)
Life span (i76)
Ability to rest (i77)
Climate during transport (i78)
Design of slaughterhouse (i79)
Group housing (i80)
Hunger during transport (i81)
Size of livestock herd on farm (i82)
Group size (i83)
Growth hormones (i84)
Variation in feed (i85)
Genetic selection (i86)
Frustration (i87)
Frequency visual inspection (i88)
Explorative behaviour (i89)
Balanced feed (i90)
Thirst during transport (i91)
Daylight (i92)
Comfort (i93)
Pen size (i94)
Availability of water (i95)
Availability of feed (i96)
Skilled animal handlers (i97)
Fear (i98)
Distraction material (i99)
Number of transports (i100)
Stocking density (i101)
Attention for animals (i102)
Chapter 2 : Public conception – quantitative approach
2.2.
Quantitative research – survey (Study 2)
2.2.1.
Study design and subjects
Cross-sectional survey data were collected during April 2006. A quota sampling procedure was
followed with gender, age, living environment and province as quota control variables.
Questionnaires were distributed via web-links, mail and personal contact procedures and has
resulted in a sample of 459 respondents that closely reflects the Flemish adult (> 18 years)
population in terms of the quota control variables (see Table 1.6). With respect to gender, a
representative distribution relative to the population is obtained. The age of the respondents
ranged from 18 to 75 years, with a mean age of 37.8 (SD=14.1), which is slightly below the
population mean (40.2 years) (NIS 2002). Concerning urban versus rural living environment, a 35/65
ratio was aimed for. In comparison with census data, we obtained a small over-representation of
urban respondents. Finally, a small over-sampling of the provinces West- and East-Flanders (resp.
+6.2 and +4.7 percent) resulted at the expense of the provinces of Antwerp and Limburg (resp. -5.9
and -4.6 percent). With regard to the non-quota control variables, education and farming
background, a small over-sampling of higher education occurred, while a realistic percentage of
respondents with a farming background (around 6 percent of the population) were obtained.
2.2.2.
Survey
The analysis to conceptualise farm animal welfare from a public point of view was based on a single
question that had to be answered for each of the 73 aspects. Responses on the question “According
to your personal opinion, how important is this aspect in obtaining an acceptable level of farm
animal welfare” were registered on a five-point Likert scale with the following response categories:
“totally unimportant” (1), “unimportant” (2), “moderately important” (3), “important” (4), and
“very important” (5). In order to avoid item order bias, five different questionnaire versions were
used that differed in the presentation order of the aspects.
2.2.3.
Exploratory factor analysis
In order to prepare the data for a confirmatory factor analysis, the full list of aspects were factor
analysed using the principal components extraction method with varimax rotation. The purpose of
the initial exploratory factor analysis was to discover structures in the pattern of relationships
among the aspects. In particular, it aimed to discover if the observed variables (the 73 aspects) can
be explained largely or entirely by a smaller number of unobserved factors or components (referred
to as dimensions in this study). Thus the exploratory factor analysis indicates how responses to
individual animal welfare factors are correlated with one another. The selection of dimensions was
based on the Kaiser Criterion (Eigenvalues >1), while factor loadings were used to interpret the
meaning of the resulting dimensions and nominate them accordingly.
59
Part II
Assigning an aspect to a particular dimension was informed by a high factor loading on its respective
dimension. Given that the exploratory factor analysis was considered in this study to prepare the
data for a further confirmatory factor analysis, no aspects were excluded at this stage from further
analysis. Rather they were assigned by the authors to one of the resulting dimensions if the factor
loadings’ criterion failed. Exploratory factor analysis was performed using the statistical software
package SPSS 15.0.
2.2.4.
Confirmatory factor analysis and construct validity
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to investigate the discriminant and convergent validity of the
measurement model, which consists of a priori defined relationships between observed variables
(aspects) and their underlying latent constructs (dimensions). The postulated relationships between
the aspects were based on the outcome of the exploratory factor analysis and in accordance with
theoretical insights. Analyses were performed using the robust maximum likelihood procedure in
LISREL 8.72. With the use of structural equation modelling the examination of all the relationships
between items (aspects) and constructs (dimensions) was performed simultaneously, which is a
substantial advantage compared with single equation modelling (Bollen, 1989). To evaluate the fit
of the model, the χ²-value together with the degrees of freedom is reported, as well as three other
indices: the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI)
and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Values below 0.08 for RMSEA (Browne and Cudeck, 1993) and
above 0.90 for NNFI and CFI (Bollen, 1989) indicate an acceptable fit of the measurement model.
Confirmatory factor analysis was also performed to determine whether measures of a construct
actually converge the intended latent variable or share a high proportion of variance in common
(convergent validity) and whether the constructs were distinct from each other (discriminant
validity). In order to assess convergent validity examination of unidimensionality and reliability
estimates was performed (Hair et al., 2006).
2.3.
In depth interviews
In the final stage of this chapter, seven in depth interviews with stakeholder representatives and
interest groups were carried out. Three persons were recruited to represent the producer side, one
person represented the retail side, one represented animal welfare organisations, and finally two
persons with a scientific background in animal welfare or veterinary sciences were interviewed. In
the first part of the interview the interviewees were asked about their personal conception of farm
animal welfare, before confronting them with the outcome of the confirmatory factor analysis.
Thereafter, they were asked to comment on the public conception, both in terms of the resulting
dimensions and their aspects. This should allow incorporating also their vision into the conception.
60
Chapter 2 : Public conception – quantitative approach
3. Results
3.1.
Exploratory factor analysis
The exploratory factor analysis yielded a 12 factor solution (Table 2.6) explaining a total of 62.5
percent of the variance in the original data. On the first factor high loadings were related to aspects
that were associated with housing as well as with natural behaviour and the factor was termed
accordingly (dimension: housing and natural behaviour (H&NB)). The second factor included aspects
that were related to the process of transport and slaughter of animals (dimension: transport and
slaughter (T&S)). Three aspects (number of transports per animal; thirst during transport; mixing of
groups during transport and slaughter) that had a slightly higher factor loading on the dimension
H&NB, were deemed more appropriate under the dimension T&S and were accordingly attributed
to the latter dimension. Aspects that loaded high on the third factor were related to animal
suffering and stress (dimension: suffering and stress (S&S)). Aspects loading high on the fourth
factor could not be unambiguously categorised under a common nominative. As such we verified
whether the aspects had also high loadings on other factors. Accordingly, flooring type, static
groups, functional areas in the barn and air quality were allocated to the dimension H&NB, while
design of the slaughterhouse was allocated to the dimension T&S. The fifth factor mainly contained
aspects which have an affinity with the animals’ diet (dimension: feed). The sixth factor included
aspects that were related to the relationship between the persons taking care of the animals and
the animals themselves (dimension: human-animal relation (H-A)). Also the aspect frequency of
visual inspection, with an original highest loading on the undetermined fourth factor, was allocated
to this dimension. No further factors with a logical composition of aspects were found. Aspects that
were not attributed to one of the aforementioned dimensions based on the exploratory factor
analysis were: availability of water, barn temperature, music in the barn, genetic selection, feeding
on fixed moments, barn hygiene, growth hormones, preventive medication and curative
medication. In order not to exclude them from the confirmatory factor analysis these aspects were
arbitrarily assigned to one of the five aforementioned dimensions. Availability of water, feeding on
fixed moments and growth hormones were assigned to the dimension feed; barn temperature,
genetic selection, barn hygiene and music in the barn to the dimension H&NB; and preventive and
curative medication to the dimension S&S.
3.2.
Confirmatory factor analysis and construct validity
The conception of farm animal welfare in which the 73 aspects are categorised in five dimensions
(Model 1 (M1)) based on the exploratory factor analysis gave acceptable goodness of fit statistics in
confirmatory factor analysis (Table 2.7), though could be further optimised. Before optimising the
measurement model through elimination and/or reallocation of aspects based on the statistical
output of the confirmatory factor analysis, we verified the impact of separating the aspects related
to housing from the aspects related to natural behaviour. This separation matched better with
61
Part II
theoretical based conceptions from animal scientists where natural behaviour has been referred to
as a singular dimension (e.g. Fraser, 2008). Also this separation allowed to better distinguishing
between an animal-based and a resource-based dimension. Goodness of fit statistics further
improved, thus yielding a conception in six dimensions (M2) (Table 2.7).
Table 2.6. Output of the exploratory factor analysis on the full list of aspects. Only the factor
loadings above 0.30 are presented for the twelve factors with Eigenvalue above 1
Body care (i36)
Play behaviour (i48)
Natural behaviour (i67)
Outdoor access (i42)
Social behaviour (i49)
Explorative behaviour (i89)
Natural environment (i63)
Sexual behaviour (i51)
Having fun (i57)
Daylight (i92)
Group housing (i80)
Natural birth (i66)
Maternal behaviour (i69)
Distraction material (i99)
Foraging behaviour (i34)
Stocking density (i101)
Shelter (i52)
Pen size (i94)
Natural growth rate (i64)
Boredom (i37)
Technical noises (i73)
Light regime (i75)
Group size (i83)
Size of livestock herd (i82)
Ability to rest (i77)
Number of transports (i100)
Thirst during transport (i91)
Mixing of groups during t&s (i71)
Life span (i76)
Comfort (i93)
Handling of animals during t&s (i62)
Space during transport (i54)
Procedure of (un)loading (i70)
Stunning (i39)
Slaughter without pain or stress (i58)
Duration of transport (i43)
Shockproof and calm transport (i53)
Climate during transport (i78)
Lairage time (i32)
Transport of living animals (i41)
Hunger during transport (i81)
Disease (i31)
Stress (i44)
Fear (i98)
Frustration (i87)
Pain by human intervention (i59)
Pain by conspecifics (i60)
Mortality (i45)
Flooring type (i35)
Static groups (i40)
Design slaughterhouse (i79)
Functional areas in barn (i30)
62
1
.76
.76
.74
.72
.72
.70
.69
.68
.65
.63
.63
.62
.60
.59
.58
.54
.51
.51
.50
.50
.50
.49
.48
.45
.44
.44
.41
.40
.38
.38
.35
.40
.33
.30
.38
.45
.32
.37
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.33
.33
.34
.30
.38
.40
.31
.36
.43
.35
.34
.44
.44
.35
.41
.37
.36
.40
.30
.32
.36
.30
.32
.32
.67
.59
.59
.56
.52
.50
.47
.43
.41
.40
.39
.36
.42
.32
.41
.42
.47
3
.31
.37
.34
.31
.36
.40
.32
.30
.66
.65
.63
.59
.58
.52
.48
.35
.35
.38
.31
.55
.49
.48
.48
Chapter 2 : Public conception – quantitative approach
Frequency of visual inspection (i88)
Air quality (i74)
Natural feed (i65)
Variation in feed (i85)
Freshness of feed (i38)
Balanced feed (i90)
Attention for animals (i102)
Respect for animals (i55)
Farmer-animal bond (i61)
Skilled animal handlers (i97)
Availability of water (i95)
Barn temperature (i46)
Availability of feed (i96)
Music in the barn (i68)
Taste of feed (i50)
Genetic selection (i86)
Feed on fixed moments (i33)
Hygiene in the barn (i47)
Growth hormones (i84)
Preventive medication (i56)
Curative medication (i72)
.35
.49
.34
.45
.44
.39
.62
.61
.59
.55
.31
.66
.65
.53
.53
.40
.32
.63
.50
.46
.32
.64
.58
.46
.39
.32
.37
.39
.56
.35
.35
.78
.34
.57
.47
Table 2.7. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis: measurement model and goodness of fit
statistics for the consecutive models
Measurement model
M1
Housing & Natural Behaviour: i30 i34 i35 i36 i40 i42 i46 i47 i48 i49 i51 i52 i57 i63
i64 i66 i67 i68 i69 i73 i74 i75 i76 i77 i80 i82 i83 i86 i89 i92 i93 i94 i101
*
Goodness of fit statistics
χ²/df = 3.26
RMSEA = 0.070
Transport & Slaughter : i32 i39 i41 i43 i53 i54 i58 i62 i70 i71 i78 i79 i81 i91 i100
CFI = 0.98
Feed &Water: i33 i38 i50 i65 i84 i85 i90 i95 i96
NNFI = 0.98
Suffering & Stress: i31 i37 i44 i45 i56 i59 i60 i72 i87 i98 i99
Human-Animal relationship: i55 i61 i88 i97 i102
M2
Housing: i30 i35 i40 i42 i46 i47 i52 i68 i73 i74 i75 i77 i80 i82 i83 i93 i94 i101
χ²/df = 3.04
Natural Behaviour: i34 i36 i48 i49 i51 i57 i63 i64 i66 i67 i69 i76 i86 i89 i92
RMSEA = 0.067
Transport & Slaughter: i32 i39 i41 i43 i53 i54 i58 i62 i70 i71 i78 i79 i81 i91 i100
CFI = 0.98
Feed & Water: i33 i38 i50 i65 i84 i85 i90 i95 i96
NNFI = 0.98
Suffering & Stress: i31 i37 i44 i45 i56 i59 i60 i72 i87 i98 i99
Human-Animal relationship: i55 i61 i88 i97 i102
M3
Housing: i30 i35 i40 i42 i52 i73 i74 i75 i77 i80 i83 i93 i94 i101
χ²/df = 2.51
Natural Behaviour: i34 i36 i48 i49 i51 i57 i63 i64 i66 i67 i69 i89 i92
RMSEA = 0.057
Transport & Slaughter: i39 i41 i43 i53 i54 i58 i62 i70 i78 i79 i81 i91 i100
CFI = 0.98
Feed & Water: i38 i50 i85 i90 i95 i96
NNFI = 0.98
Suffering & Stress: i44 i45 i59 i60 i87 i98
Human-Animal relationship: i55 i61 i88 i97 i102
M4
Housing: i30 i35 i40 i42 i52 i73 i74 i75 i77 i80 i83 i93 i94 i101
χ²/df = 2.24
Natural Behaviour: i34 i36 i48 i49 i51 i57 i63 i64 i66 i67 i69 i89 i92
RMSEA = 0.052
Transport & Slaughter: i39 i41 i43 i53 i54 i58 i62 i70 i78 i79 i81 i91 i100
CFI = 0.98
Feed & Water: i38 i50 i85 i90 i95 i96
NNFI = 0.97
Suffering & Stress: i44 i45 i59 i60 i87 i98
Human-Animal relationship: i55 i61 i88 i97 i102
Animal Health: i31 i45 i47 i56 i72
*
Model fit improves if χ²/df and RMSEA decreases and CFI and NNFI increase
63
Part II
In the next step we sought to further improve the measurement model through elimination or
reallocation of aspects (M3). Considering the eliminated aspects in more detail we found several
aspects to have some affinity with each other, possibly due to a dimension that is not covered in the
previous models. In this perspective, disease, barn hygiene, preventive medication and curative
medication were grouped into a seventh dimension (dimension: animal health (AH)). Also the
aspect mortality that was originally allocated to the dimension S&S was placed in the animal health
dimension. The fit statistics for this model (M4) further improved in terms of a lower RMSEA and
χ²/df-value, thus supporting the introduction of a seventh dimension.
No further adjustments were made to the model (M4) based on the confirmatory factor analysis
outcome. Standardised factor loadings and reliability estimates are presented in Table 2.8. Almost
all individual aspect loadings on the dimensions were highly significant with values ranging from
0.57 to 0.83. Two aspect loadings were relatively low, particularly 0.48 (availability of water) and
0.37 (preventive medication). Nevertheless we decided to keep the aspects in the further analysis.
Availability of water matches with “absence of prolonged thirst”, which is specifically mentioned as
one of the 12 criteria under the Welfare Quality® conception (Botreau et al., 2008) and the use of
preventive medication associates with the negative perception citizens’ hold with respect to the use
of antibiotics in animal production. Further analysis has shown that including those aspects still
revealed good constructs. No cross-loadings of 0.4 or more appeared. Hence, all other aspects were
considered in the interpretation of the dimensions (Hair et al., 2006). Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficients were equal to or above the threshold value of 0.7 for satisfactory scales. Our
results herewith fulfil the criteria for convergent validity for internal constructs (Bagozzi et al., 1991;
Hair et al., 2006). Correlations between the dimensions are presented in Table 2.9. All correlations
were significant. However, the correlation matrix revealed two (bivariate) correlations above 0.80,
namely between housing & barn climate and ability to engage in natural behaviour; and between
housing & barn climate and transport and slaughter, suggesting that those dimensions are closely
related.
64
Chapter 2 : Public conception – quantitative approach
Table 2.8. Standardised factor loadings of the retained aspects to the final model (M4) with 4 environment-based and 3 animal-based dimensions
Ability to rest (i77)
Comfort ( i93)
Outdoor access ( i42)
Group housing (i80)
Light regime (i75)
Air quality (i74)
Group size (i83)
Shelter (i52)
Available space (i94)
Technical noise ( i73)
Stocking density (i101)
Functional areas in barn (i30)
Stable groups (i40)
Flooring type (i35)
Space during transport (i54)
Shockproof and calm transport (i53)
Duration of transport (i43)
Number of transports (i100)
Transport of living animals (i41)
Handling of animals (i62)
Procedure of (un)loading (i70)
Climate during transport (i78)
Thirst during transport (i91)
Slaughter without pain or stress (i58)
Hunger during transport (i81)
Design of slaughterhouse (i79)
Stunning (i39)
Attention for animals (i102)
Respect for animals (i55)
Farmer-animal bond (i61)
Frequency of visual inspection (i88)
Skilled animal handlers (i97)
Balanced feed (i90)
Freshness of feed (i38)
Availability of feed (i96)
Variation in feed (i85)
Taste of feed (i50)
Availability of water (i95)
Reliability estimates
Inter-item correlations
Housing &
Barn Climate
0.73
0.71
0.74
0.71
0.68
0.64
0.68
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.66
0.64
0.60
0.63
Environmental based dimensions
Transport & Human-Animal
Slaughter
Relationship
Feed &
Water
Play behaviour (i48)
Body care (i36)
Natural behaviour (i67)
Explorative behaviour (i89)
Social behaviour (i49)
Having fun (i57)
Natural environment (i63)
Maternal behaviour (i69)
Foraging behaviour (i34)
Sexual behaviour (i51)
Natural birth (i66)
Daylight (i92)
Natural growth rate (i64)
Disease (i31)
Mortality (i45)
Hygiene in the barn (i47)
Curative medication (i72)
Preventive medication (i56)
Frustration (i87)
Stress (i44)
Fear (i98)
Pain by conspecifics (i60)
Pain by human intervention (i59)
0.81
0.80
0.76
0.75
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.70
0.69
0.68
0.66
0.66
0.59
Animal based dimensions
Ability to Engage in
Animal Suffering
Animal Health
Natural Behaviour
and Stress
0.83
0.81
0.80
0.81
0.74
0.75
0.79
0.71
0.70
0.68
0.67
0.68
0.65
0.63
0.63
0.61
0.57
0.37
0.73
0.71
0.71
0.70
0.66
0.72
0.69
0.67
0.63
0.60
0.72
0.63
0.58
0.72
0.60
0.48
0.92
0.45
0.93
0.51
0.78
0.44
0.79
0.39
0.94
0.55
0.68
0.32
0.83
0.50
65
Part II
Table 2.9. Correlation matrix of the animal welfare dimensions
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. Animal Health
1.00
2. Animal Suffering & Stress
0.57
1.00
3. Ability to Engage in Natural Behaviour
0.39
0.64
1.00
4. Housing & Barn Climate
0.51
0.70
0.88
1.00
5. Feed & Water
0.59
0.50
0.59
0.65
1.00
6. Transport & Slaughter
0.57
0.73
0.78
0.83
0.63
1.00
7. Human-Animal Relationship
0.59
0.51
0.58
0.65
0.65
0.63
3.3.
7
1.00
In depth interviews
Expert opinions were gathered in order to fine tune the model and frame it in a way that it is
appropriate for the different stakeholders along the chain. The background of the interviewees was
well reflected in the way they approached animal welfare, and perceptions varied from “animal
welfare is economics” to “animal welfare should be determined starting from the animal”. The
following selected quotes more clearly reflect the opinions of the different stakeholders:
Producers:
“…the motivation to keep animals is not important, animals do not realise this anyway…what is
important is the way animals are reared…this should happen as good as possible…but you have to
be careful with anthropomorphism…”
“…for animal welfare in farm animals one should take into account the fact that it is related to
economic consequences, many people do not see this…animal welfare means that animals should be
treated in a good way…”
“…animal welfare is meeting the five freedoms in my opinion…”
Retail:
“…animal welfare is a general right of animals…it involves having respect for the animals…quality
demands respect…what is animal welfare?...the problem is that you cannot ask it to the animals…”
Animal welfare organisations:
“…a definition for animal welfare should start from the perception and preferences of the animal,
otherwise the issue of animal welfare does not really make sense…the ethical point of view should
not be neglected…”
66
Chapter 2 : Public conception – quantitative approach
Animal scientists:
“…animal welfare is a situation in which the animals feel well...a situation in which all primary
necessities of life are fulfilled…no hunger or thirst…as much natural behaviour as possible…no
pain…”
“…animal welfare means the absence of something negative…the welfare is damaged only if the
organism is aware of something negative…”
In general the different stakeholders reasonably well agreed with the structuring of the aspects into
the seven dimensions of Model 4. Some comments were raised in relation to the formulation of the
names of some dimensions. Based on these comments three dimensions were renamed. Housing
was changed to “Housing and Barn Climate”. The aspects indeed relate, next to housing
characteristics in general, also to the barn climate in particular. Feed was changed to “Feed and
Water” and natural behaviour was modified to “Ability to Engage in Natural Behaviour”. Suffering
and stress was also criticised by some interviewees, who suggested alternatives like “Absence of
Suffering and Stress” and “Suffering and Chronic Stress”. However we aimed to avoid suggestive
terminology like “absence of”. Next to chronic stress, acute stress can be baleful too (e.g. acute
fear, castration of piglets, tail docking, and beak trimming). Therefore, the original formulation was
kept. The other dimensions were debated less by stakeholders.
Next to the formulation of the dimension names, some comments were raised about the structuring
of the dimensions. It was argued that the seven dimensions could not be placed on the same level.
It was suggested to distinguish between resource- or environment-based dimensions (housing and
barn climate, transport and slaughter, feed and water, human-animal relationship) and animalbased dimensions (ability to engage in natural behaviour, animal suffering and stress, animal health)
(Figure 2.3). Animal-based dimensions are directly related to the animal’s welfare and are
determined by the resource-based dimensions.
67
Part II
Resource-based
dimensions
Animal-based
dimensions
Housing & Barn
climate
Suffering & Stress
Transport &
Slaughter
Animal Health
FARM
ANIMAL
WELFARE
Feed & Water
Ability to engage in
natural behaviour
Human-Animal
relationship
Figure 2.3. Final structure of farm animal welfare conception
The stakeholders were also asked to discuss the relevancy of the aspects in the public conception.
Within all dimensions, next to aspects that were commonly accepted, opinions differed for some
aspects depending on personal background and interpretation of the concept rather than on
scientific facts. Interviewees suggested aspects in some cases to be removed from a dimension or
suggested to incorporate new aspects in a dimension (see Table 2.10 for an overview). Suggested
new aspects were mainly specificities that could be understood by existing variables (e.g.
“possibility to separate at delivery” and “display nesting behaviour” resort under “maternal
behaviour” or “natural birth”; “design of transport vehicle” falls under “calm and shockproof
transport”; “escape possibilities” falls under “shelter”; etc.). Related to the personal interpretation,
most comments were raised concerning the dimension “ability to engage in natural behaviour”.
Still, only one aspect was debated by all stakeholder interviewees, namely “mechanical noise”. The
stakeholders argued that it should be replaced by “sudden, loud and strong noise”. However, this
term was included in Bartussek’s (1999) Animal Needs Index, where the importance of a stable
climate was stressed, among which is absence of “mechanical noise”. Research further showed that
continuous noise influences the acoustic behaviour of fowl (Huber and Fölsch, 1978) and that the
continuous noise of the ventilation system negatively impacts on the nursing of piglets (Algers and
Jensen, 1991).
68
Chapter 2 : Public conception – quantitative approach
Table 2.10. Aspects that were suggested to be removed or added by experts
Dimension
Housing & Barn
Climate
Aspect suggested to be removed (number of
stakeholders)
stocking density (1), comfort (3), group size
(1), group housing (1), outdoor access (1),
functional areas in the barn (2)
Aspects suggested to be added
dry, control on harmful components,
temperature
Ability to Engage
in Natural
Behaviour
day light (4), exploratory behaviour (1),
natural behaviour (4), natural birth (3),
natural growth rate (4), natural environment
(3), having fun (4), sexual behaviour (4),
social behaviour (1), play behaviour (1),
foraging behaviour (2)
stable environment, possibility to
separate at delivery, nesting behaviour,
control over own life, relational
autonomy
Feed & Water
variation in feed (3)
shape of the feed
Transport &
Slaughter
number of transports (4), thirst/hunger
during transport (1), duration of transport
(1), transport of living animals (3), stunning
(1)
ability to rest during transport, way of
stunning, design transport vehicle, age
at slaughter, market in function of
slaughter, comfort, protection, copying
natural environment during transport
Animal Health
mortality (1)
Suffering & Stress
fear (1), frustration (3), stress (1)
killing, separation of clinical ill animals,
euthanasia of terminal clinical ill animals
pain through disease, escaping
possibilities, behavioural abnormalities,
stunning before killing, pain by housing
and environment
Human-Animal
Relation
frequency of visual inspection (2), farmeranimal bond (2), skilled animal handlers (1)
calm handling of animals
4. Discussion and conclusion
Anticipating on the increasing relevancy of animal welfare as a concept on itself and as a part of the
broader sustainability concept (Boogaard et al., 2008) in terms of public concern (European
Commission, 2005) as well as in relation to consumer food purchasing behaviour (Grunert, 2006),
this study was conducted with the aim to develop and validate a public or citizen-driven conception
of farm animal welfare. Understandings of the public conception are necessary to actively involve
end users in the ongoing debate with the aim to optimise the balance of farm animal welfare and
economic output (Van Tichelen, 2009), to effectively communicate to the unaware society (Fisher,
2009) and to determine the need for new animal welfare legislation (Caporale et al., 2005; Garnier
et al., 2003). A proper conception of farm animal welfare from the public point of view can be used
as a structure and tool to inform the public in a transparent and understandable manner about
efforts, actions and policies undertaken to improve farm animals’ welfare (MacArthur Clark, 2008).
Similar to animal science based conceptions, this study has resulted in a complex and multidimensional conception of farm animal welfare (Fraser, 1995; Mason and Mendl, 1993). Seven
dimensions of farm animal welfare were distinguished that could be grouped in three animal-based
69
Part II
dimensions and four environment or resource-based dimensions. The three animal based
dimensions – termed “Suffering and Stress”, “Animal Health” and “Ability to Engage in Natural
Behaviour” – are affiliated with the three common perspectives on animal welfare described in
literature (“mind”, “body”, and “nature”, respectively) (Hewson, 2003b), though are interpreted
and given meaning by citizens against a background of lower familiarity, lower practical knowledge
and lower awareness about animal production (Buller, 2009).
In addition, four antecedent environment- or resource-based dimensions have been distinguished.
These are termed “Housing and Barn Climate”, “Transport and Slaughter”, “Feed and Water” and
“Human-Animal Relationship”. For each of these dimensions and for many of the aspects within the
dimensions, numerous studies are available that acknowledge the significant impact each of them
has on the welfare of the farm animals. These dimensions have also been picked up and translated
in several legislations that abandon practices proven to compromise good animal welfare. These
aspects and dimensions typically correspond with the resource-based welfare indicators or
parameters that are currently used in animal welfare assurance schemes. This approach however is
debated and different sources plead for bringing both animal-based and resource-based indicators
into account (Butterworth, 2009; Fraser, 2004; Hewson, 2003a; Van Tichelen, 2009; Webster,
2005b). Animal-based indicators are a direct reflection of the animal’s welfare. Although Welfare
Quality® gave preference to animal-based indicators of welfare, the Welfare Quality® list of 12
criteria and 4 principles contains both animal- and resource-based items. Our conception in two
levels, to the contrary, seems a more logic and correct structure. Further comparison between this
study’s conception with the Welfare Quality® conception, as an alternative conception based on
citizen consultation, shows that they match reasonably well and differ mainly in a nuanced structure
and categorisation. Taking into account only the terminology of the four dimensions of the Welfare
Quality® conception (see Table 1.4), they could be related to four of our dimensions (“Feed and
Water”, “Housing and Barn Climate”, “Animal Health” and “Ability to Engage in Natural Behaviour”)
and thus mixing animal- and environment-based dimensions.
Having a closer look into the 12 criteria constituting the four WQ dimensions, two additional
dimensions of this study’s conception could be retrieved. “Good human-animal relationship” is a
criterion under the principle “Appropriate Behaviour” and matches our dimension “Human-animal
relationship”. Furthermore, “Absence of pain induced by management procedures” and “Absence
of general fear”, criteria that resort under “Good health” and “Appropriate Behaviour” in WQ, are in
this study’s conception included in the dimension “Suffering and Stress”. Finally, the absence of
“Transport and Slaughter” in the WQ conception can also be explained, since the WQ conception is
designed to score the animal’s welfare either on farm or during transport and slaughter.
Our conception’s first goal was to map and validate the way in which the public perceives and
conceptualises farm animal welfare. In general, the public conception as obtained from this study
has much communalities with existing conceptions described in literature, though is couched in a
format that is more transparent and understandable for the public. Yet, it is supported by different
70
Chapter 2 : Public conception – quantitative approach
stakeholders and interest groups active in the meat production chain and thus answers to the need
for a conception that unites varied understandings (Fisher, 2009). These insights make it an
appropriate construct and tool to be applied in the context of communication and providing
information about animal welfare and animal production to the wider public, and to stimulate
dialogue and debate on how to improve farm animal welfare from a market-based point of
departure.
Correlations between the different dimensions were significant and correspond with the previously
reported interrelationships between the dimensions (Appleby, 1999b; Fraser et al., 1997; Hewson,
2003b). Very high correlations were found between “Housing and Barn Climate” on the one hand
and “Ability to Engage in Natural Behaviour” and “Transport and Slaughter” on the other hand. The
high dependence of the ability of farm animals to engage in natural behaviour on the housing as
projected by citizen opinions in this study is obvious. Nevertheless we favoured a split in order to
make abstraction between animal- and environment-based dimensions. This decision was
supported by a better model fit. The high correlation with transport and slaughter is also reflected
in the WQ conception, where the identified principles apply both on farm and during transport and
slaughter. However, citizen focus group discussions have shown the crucial importance of this final
stage in the farm animal’s life from the citizen perspective (Chapter 1), which justifies treating
transport and slaughter as a separate dimension. Discussions in the focus groups and debate in
literature are often related to whether or not humans have the right to end an animal’s life, to the
way the animals are transported, and to whether or not and how to stun animals before slaughter.
71
Part III
Public attitudes, perceptions and
concerns towards farm animal
welfare
&
attitude modifiers
Chapter 3 : Concept of farm animal welfare – citizens versus consumers
Chapter
3
Concept of farm animal welfare :
citizens versus farmers
Adapted from Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2008. Do citizens
and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116: 126136.
Abstract
Animal welfare is of increasing importance in animal production and consumption debates.
However, it is hypothesised that attitudes towards farm animal welfare differ between citizens and
farmers, which can impose problems to an effective implementation of welfare related policies.
Since the search for, and the realisation of improvements towards farm animal welfare is strongly
driven by citizen expectations, it is of utmost importance to better understand the perceptual
discordance that exists between citizens and farmers. A quantitative study was done in Flanders,
Belgium during 2006, including citizens as well as farmers, to obtain a detailed insight in the way the
multi-dimensional concept of farm animal welfare is valued. This allowed discriminating between
issues of agreement and disagreement. In general, a similar interpretation of farm animal welfare in
terms of animal welfare related aspects’ ranking was found. Differences were mainly related to
aspects dealing with the ability to engage in natural behaviour on the one hand and with production
process-related aspects on the other hand. Citizens evaluate the current state of animal welfare as
rather problematic, while farmers report a more satisfactory evaluation of the present condition of
farm animal welfare. Especially differing opinions regarding the ability to engage in natural
behaviour, together with aspects related to pain, stress and the availability of space seem to
contribute to the discordance between farmers and citizens in terms of evaluative beliefs.
75
Part III
1. Introduction
There is a general tendency in European society for an increasing influence of post-materialistic
values, in particular on product attribute evaluation and food choice decision-making. For animal
production, this entails that ecological and socio-cultural aspects occupy an increasingly important
role in the buying decision process of food and animal products (Boogaard et al., 2006). One of the
issues of growing citizen concern is farm animal welfare. Even though there is still a tendency to buy
the cheapest meat, animal welfare is considered a priority by an increasing number of European
citizens (European Commission, 2007). Hence, the buying behaviour does not simply reflect the
attitude towards animal welfare (Te Velde et al., 2002). In addition, an effective incorporation of
farm animal welfare as a product attribute in decision-making is hampered, partly because of
diverging perceptions and the lack of consensus among the different stakeholders with respect to
farm animal welfare (Lassen et al., 2006; Marie, 2006). This chapter will focus on the perceptions
and beliefs held by stakeholders at both ends of the chain, i.e. the farmer and the individual in his
role as citizen.
Perceptions are constructed according to their frames of reference, which are in turn influenced by
convictions (“opinions about the way things are”), values (“opinions about the way things should
be”), norms (“translations of these values into rules of conduct”), knowledge (“constructed from
experiences, facts, stories, and impressions”) and interests (“economic, social and moral interests”)
(Te Velde et al., 2002). Citizens have a rather negative overall perception of the current state of
farm animal welfare and are not satisfied with the amount and content of the information they
receive in relation to the welfare conditions and protection of farm animals. Farmers to the contrary
have a much more positive perception of the current state of farm animal welfare. This has been
demonstrated by Te Velde et al. (2002), who explained the opposite perceptions between citizens
and farmers based on a different interpretation of the components by which perception is
determined.
Regarding values, Te Velde et al. (2002) indicated that both farmers and citizens associate animal
welfare with issues such as physical health, an adequate amount of food and drinking water and
sufficient heating and protection. Citizens, however, tend to include two additional values: freedom
to move and freedom to fulfil natural desires (Lassen et al., 2006; Marie, 2006; Te Velde et al.,
2002). Furthermore, farmers’ norms are clearly related to factors that are important for optimising
production such as fast and efficient growth (Dockes and Kling-Eveillard, 2006; Lassen et al., 2006;
Te Velde et al., 2002). Citizens on the other hand remain vague in their formulation of norms and
just want that the translation of values into rules of conduct is arranged (Harper and Henson, 2001).
In addition, both stakeholder groups have different interests. Whereas individuals in their role as
consumers would be mainly interested in healthy, tasty and cheap food that is easily available,
individuals in their role as citizen also assign much importance to acceptable production methods,
thus including moral and ethical interests (Bennett et al., 2002; Brom, 2000). The farmers’ interests
76
Chapter 3 : Concept of farm animal welfare – citizens versus consumers
are more economically driven and centred on financial concerns and the need to make a living.
Other interests of farmers include the wish to supply high quality products, to have a satisfying job
and to establish a more positive image of agricultural and animal production. Also differences in
knowledge contribute to the discordant perception. Farmers rely on their daily experience and
practical knowledge of how their animals will optimally produce, which is something they positively
relate to animal welfare. However, they are rather indifferent towards possible other aspects of
animal welfare, for instance the ability to engage in natural behaviour (Marie, 2006; Milne et al.,
2007; Morgan-Davies et al., 2006; Te Velde et al., 2002). Due to an increasing dissociation of citizens
from farming practices as a consequence of agricultural intensification and growing urbanisation,
citizens’ knowledge of the circumstances in which meat livestock is produced is much more limited
(Frewer et al., 2005; Harper and Henson, 2001; Harper and Makatouni, 2002; Maria, 2006; Verbeke,
2005). Moreover, (negative) media coverage has a strong influence on citizens’ knowledge and
perceptions (Swinnen et al., 2005; Verbeke and Ward, 2001). This limited knowledge could also be
at the base of the vagueness of the norms formulated by citizens. Finally, the values and norms of
citizens seem to be based on the same set of convictions as those of farmers: animals are meant to
serve humans; meat is a substantial part of the human diet; keeping animals and killing them for
meat is legitimate; and farmers are there to provide food for the rest of the population (Te Velde et
al., 2002).
In the present chapter, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among Flemish citizens and farmers
in order to obtain a more detailed insight in the perceptual difference concerning the concept of
farm animal welfare between both stakeholder groups. Whereas perceptions can be analysed based
on a frame of reference including values, norms, convictions, interests and knowledge, we will focus
in the analysis of this study on the quantification of the values only, i.e. opinions about the ways
things should be. Differences in values will then be discussed based on the other components of the
frame of reference, as they are described in literature. The values will be assessed based on two
measures. For an extended list of farm animal welfare aspects (see Chapter 2) respondents were
asked to indicate firstly how important they feel the aspect is for the welfare of farm animals in
general, and secondly to what extent this aspect is believed to be problematic with respect to farm
animal welfare in current animal production practices in Flanders. Responses to both questions are
combined to identify the issues of highest and lowest potential conflict between citizens and
farmers.
2. Material and methods
2.1.
Study design and subjects
Cross-sectional survey data were collected through questionnaires in Flanders during April 2006,
after validation via a pre-test. Methodological details concerning the citizen sample are described in
the previous chapter (Chapter 2). Farmers were selected through purposive sampling. Respondents
77
Part III
were defined as a farmer if they or their parents had a farm. The choice for this definition is justified
by a pre-analysis that placed respondents who indicated to have themselves or their parents a farm,
but who are not a farmer themselves, very close to respondents indicating to be a farmer as
compared to the difference with the citizen sample. As a result, a more elaborate sample is
obtained, allowing analyses which are quantitatively more reliable. Since this population group is
hard to define based on socio-demographic characteristics, the representativeness of the farmer
sample can not be evaluated. Following Te Velde et al. (2002), who concluded that farmers’
perceptions of animal welfare are liable to a minor variation (since they are grounded on a
collective tradition with shared convictions, values, norms and interests and on knowledge that is
derived from comparable rearing, schooling and daily experience on the farm), the impact of this
definition of the farmer group on the reliability of the results is limited. Questionnaires were
distributed electronically through the use of websites frequently visited by farmers (www.vilt.be;
www.groenekring.be), yielding a sample of 204 farmers.
2.2.
Survey
The key questions were related to the perception of farm animal welfare in terms of values. The
values were pictured using an exhaustive list of 72 aspects concerning farm animal welfare. To
facilitate the discussion, aspects were assigned to one of the seven key dimensions of the
interpretation of farm animal welfare as described by Van Poucke et al. (2006) (Housing & Climate;
Transport & Slaughter; Feed & Water; Human-Animal Relationship; Animal Suffering and Stress;
Animal Health; Ability to Engage in Natural Behaviour) (Table 3.1)8. The decision to assign aspects to
a particular dimension was taken based on preliminary insights from focus group discussion, as well
as expert and scientist opinions involved in the field of animal welfare and behaviour. For each
aspect, both citizens and farmers were asked to indicate its perceived importance for obtaining an
acceptable level of farm animal welfare (“perceived importance”) and whether they believe the
aspect poses a potential problem with respect to animal welfare in present Flemish animal farming
(“evaluative belief”). The latter has been used frequently as a component of attitude, based on the
Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein, 1967) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991),
while the former can be considered as a weight for the relevance of each aspect in the
interpretation of farm animal welfare. Moreover, combined these measures are a good
representation of values within the frame of reference of perception. As both scores were probed
for in adjacent positions (physically in the questionnaire) and scored on the same type of scale (fivepoint Likert scale), they could be combined to assess a “gap” corresponding with the difference
between the perceived importance score and the evaluative belief score. As a result, a big positive
gap corresponds with a high perceived importance and a low evaluative belief, i.e. a strong
perceived potential improvement. Aspects with a small or negative gap represent either aspects
perceived as important for overall farm animal welfare but with a low potential of contributing to
8
This paper has been written before the conception using structural equation modelling was fully developed,
and explains why the categorisation differs slightly from the results discussed in the previous chapter.
78
Chapter 3 : Concept of farm animal welfare – citizens versus consumers
improving farm animal welfare in Flemish animal production; or, aspects perceived as not important
for welfare even if evaluated negatively; or, aspects scoring rather neutral on both questions. The
latter aspects often correspond to issues that are not well understood or ambiguous. Finally, as it is
the aim of the chapter to gain insight in the perceptual discordance between farmers and citizens,
comparison is made for each individual aspect between the gap at citizen level and the perceived
importance score at farmer level. This comparison is most suitable to reveal the aspects subject to
the highest tension, since it allows to uncover the aspects which are associated with important
problems at citizen level (big gap), but are only assigned limited importance by the farmer.
2.3.
Statistical analyses
Data were analysed using SPSS 12.0. Mean scores and standard deviations are presented in table
format. Bivariate analyses through correlation and comparison of mean scores, i.e. independent
samples t-tests were used to detect differences in perceived importance and evaluative belief
between farmers and citizens. Linear regression analyses were performed to assess relationships
between farmers’ and citizens’ responses.
3. Results
3.1.
Perceived importance of animal welfare aspects
For the citizen sample, mean perceived importance scores for the 72 aspects ranged from 3.14
(distraction material) to 4.56 (availability of water) (Table 3.1). At the top of the list, mainly aspects
emerge relating to the dimensions Feed & Water, Human-Animal Relationship and Animal Health,
together with some specific aspects from the dimensions Housing & Climate (stocking density,
available space and air quality), Animal Suffering & Stress (pain through human intervention and
stress), and Transport & Slaughter (slaughter without pain or stress). Among farmers, perceived
importance scores ranged from 2.40 (size of livestock herd on farm) to 4.35 (availability of water)
(Table 3.1). Farmers clearly considered aspects relating to the dimensions Feed & Water, Animal
Health and Human-Animal Relationship as the most important in obtaining an acceptable level of
farm animal welfare.
Results from the citizen and farmer samples are compared in Figure 3.1. A positive linear
relationship is found between perceived importance scores of farmers (Y) versus citizens (X)
(Y=1.09x-0.84; R²=0.55). The negative intercept indicates that, in general, citizens gave higher
perceived importance scores than farmers. This holds for most aspects, but particularly for aspects
relating to the dimension Ability to Engage in Natural Behaviour. In addition, singular aspects from
within Housing and Climate (stocking density (1), outdoor access (5), size of livestock herd on farm
(15)) and Transport and Slaughter (thirst (2) and hunger (13) during transport, stunning (5)) also
yield (relatively) large differences. Aspects where farmers’ scores are higher than citizens’ scores are
genetic selection (14), taste of feed (8), preventive medication (6), frequency of visual inspection (4)
79
Part III
and attention of farmer fro animals (3). Other aspects had rather similar mean importance scores,
and hence are close to the bisector in the graph. These are aspects within Feed and Water
(availability of water (1) and feed (3), freshness of feed (2), balanced feed (4)), Human-Animal
Relationship, Animal Health (with the exception of lifespan animal (5)), plus some singular aspects
within Housing and Climate (barn temperature (8), flooring type (11)) and Transport and Slaughter
(lairage time (12)). The correspondence between citizens’ and farmers’ opinions regarding the first
three dimensions (Feed and Water, Human-Animal Relationship, Animal Health) originates from the
particular aspects being perceived as top priorities for farm animal welfare both at citizen and
farmer level, while the similarity regarding the latter aspects is mainly due to an average perceived
importance at farmer level and a rather moderate score at citizen level. The positive slope close to
unity reflects a systematic and consistent pattern, indicating a quite similar view on most aspects’
relative importance in obtaining an acceptable level of farm animal welfare.
4.5
Perceived importance farmer
3
4
4
4
8
6 43
12
46 3
8
11
4
14 6
7 9 10
5
9
7
2
7
15
7 5
3 21
13
5 10 11
5
14
9 6
5
12
11
12
6
5
6
13
10
8
14
13
9
4
5
8
3.5
3
7
2.5
2
32 2
3
4
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
16
15
2
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
Perceived importance citizen
Figure 3.1. Mean scores of perceived importance of 72 aspects in obtaining an acceptable level of
farm animal welfare according to farmers (Y-axis) and citizens (X-axis). The line in the figure is the
bisector, indicating equal mean scores. Colours correspond to aspects classified in the same
dimensions. For the aspects corresponding with the numbers, please see Table 3.1. Mind that the
scales of the X and Y axes are not equal
80
Chapter 3 : Concept of farm animal welfare – citizens versus consumers
Table 3.1. Perceived importance* and evaluative belief** scores on 72 aspects related to animal welfare by citizens and farmers. Aspects are classified
per dimension and ranked based on citizens’ mean perceived importance score (5-point Likert scales)
PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE
CITIZEN
FARMER
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
I. HOUSING & CLIMATE (red)
Stocking density (1)
4.28 (0.74)
4.16 (0.73)
Air quality (2)
Available space (3)
4.16 (0.75)
Ability to rest (4)
4.05 (0.75)
4.02 (0.96)
Outdoor access (5)
3.99 (0.93)
Comfort (6)
Shelter (7)
3.94 (0.90)
3.84 (0.82)
Barn temperature (8)
Light regime (9)
3.74 (0.88)
Group housing (10)
3.71 (0.85)
Flooring type (11)
3.67 (0.89)
3.63 (0.94)
Group size (12)
Functional areas in barn (13)
3.53 (0.97)
Static groups (14)
3.43 (0.90)
Size of livestock herd on farm (15)
3.40 (1.11)
Technical noise (16)
3.22 (0.97)
II. ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN NATURAL BEHAVIOUR (green)
Daylight (1)
4.08 (0.85)
4.04 (0.90)
Natural growth rate (2)
Natural behaviour (3)
4.00 (0.88)
Body care (4)
3.89 (0.97)
Natural environment (5)
3.88 (0.96)
Explorative behaviour (6)
3.86 (0.92)
Social behaviour (7)
3.84 (0.90)
Natural birth (8)
3.81 (1.00)
Maternal behaviour (9)
3.80 (0.96)
3.72 (0.94)
Sexual behaviour (10)
Having fun (11)
3.67 (1.04)
Foraging behaviour (12)
3.64 (1.00)
3.58 (1.03)
Play behaviour (13)
Genetic selection (14)
3.30 (1.13)
III. ANIMAL HEALTH (blue)
Disease (1)
4.37 (0.71)
Hygiene in the barn (2)
4.29 (0.68)
Curative medication (3)
4.23 (0.66)
4.04 (0.91)
Mortality (4)
Life span (5)
3.64 (1.02)
Preventive medication (6)
3.36 (1.08)
EVALUATIVE BELIEF
CITIZEN
FARMER
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE
CITIZEN
FARMER
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
IV. TRANSPORT & SLAUGHTER (brown)
Slaughter without pain or stress (1)
4.30 (0.86)
3.75 (1.05)
Thirst during transport (2)
4.10 (0.89)
3.33 (1.05)
Handling of animals (3)
4.07 (0.84)
3.62 (0.95)
Duration of transport (4)
4.03 (0.86)
3.46 (1.02)
Stunning (5)
4.01 (1.08)
3.05 (1.36)
Procedure of (un)loading (6)
3.97 (0.80)
3.54 (0.92)
Space during transport (7)
3.97 (0.86)
3.30 (0.93)
Transport of living animals (8)
3.93 (0.89)
3.48 (0.90)
Shockproof and calm transport (9)
3.90 (0.86)
3.32 (0.90)
Climate during transport (10)
3.81 (0.88)
3.33 (0.95)
Number of transports (11)
3.79 (0.93)
3.07 (1.11)
Lairage time (12)
3.72 (0.97)
3.53 (1.06)
Hunger during transport (13)
3.66 (0.99)
2.88 (1.05)
Mixture of groups during t/s (14)
3.38 (1.09)
2.89 (1.16)
Design of slaughterhouse (15)
3.61 (0.96)
3.27 (1.01)
V. FEED & WATER (pink)
4.56 (0.62)
4.35 (0.81)
Availability of water (1)
3.22 (1.12)
2.54 (1.01)
3.47 (1.05)
Freshness of feed (2)
4.24 (0.73)
4.08 (0.79)
3.19 (1.14)
2.29 (1.09)
3.54 (1.07)
Availability of feed (3)
4.23 (0.68)
4.02 (0.86)
3.18 (1.04)
2.45 (1.05)
3.50 (0.98)
Balanced feed (4)
4.17 (0.71)
3.99 (0.86)
2.80 (1.11)
2.43 (1.06)
3.39 (1.04)
Variation in feed (5)
2.92 (1.12)
2.38 (1.08)
3.48 (1.07)
Natural feed (6)
3.88 (1.01)
3.04 (1.12)
2.93 (1.09)
2.43 (1.05)
3.46 (1.07)
Feed on fixed moments (7)
3.69 (0.89)
3.37 (1.03)
3.21 (0.95)
2.62 (1.02)
3.62 (0.90)
Taste of feed (8)
3.59 (0.90)
3.61 (0.98)
2.91 (1.18)
2.66 (1.08)
3.47 (1.10)
Growth hormones (9)
3.26 (1.55)
2.83 (1.55)
3.01 (1.07)
2.66 (1.03)
3.54 (0.96)
VI. ANIMAL SUFFERING & STRESS (purple)
2.91 (1.12)
2.72 (0.97)
3.58 (0.94)
Pain by human intervention (1)
4.23 (0.87)
3.59 (1.07)
2.94 (1.14)
2.66 (1.04)
3.61 (1.04)
Stress (2)
4.15 (0.86)
3.85 (0.90)
2.94 (1.06)
2.66 (1.03)
3.62 (0.95)
Fear (3)
4.04 (0.85)
3.57 (0.99)
2.91 (0.99)
2.66 (1.06)
3.62 (0.92)
Pain by conspecifics (4)
3.96 (0.79)
3.54 (0.91)
3.38 (1.20)
2.92 (1.04)
3.74 (1.01)
Frustration (5)
3.66 (0.96)
3.10 (1.03)
Boredom (6)
3.50 (1.02)
2.91 (1.03)
4.13 (0.79)
2.82 (1.03)
3.56 (1.03)
Distraction material (7)
3.14 (1.06)
2.64 (1.07)
4.17 (0.79)
2.91 (0.98)
3.74 (1.00)
VII. HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONSHIP (black)
4.10 (0.83)
2.98 (1.00)
3.66 (1.09)
Respect for animals (1)
4.39 (0.71)
4.25 (0.83)
3.83 (0.99)
2.86 (0.94)
3.56 (0.94)
Skilled animal handlers (2)
4.29 (0.70)
4.15 (0.80)
2.99 (1.26)
2.83 (1.05)
3.73 (0.99)
Attention for animals (3)
4.25 (0.74)
4.31 (0.82)
3.43 (1.09)
2.85 (1.04)
3.52 (1.05)
Frequency of visual inspection (4)
3.68 (0.86)
3.75 (0.95)
Farmer-animal bond (5)
3.59 (1.05)
3.34 (1.21)
*
Response to: “How important is this aspect, according to your personal opinion, in obtaining an acceptable level of farm animal welfare?”
**
Response to: “What is your personal opinion about this aspect, i.e. do you think that this aspect poses a potential problem for the animal welfare in present Flemish animal farming?”
3.53 (0.96)
3.81 (0.82)
3.69 (0.83)
3.62 (0.90)
2.79 (1.26)
3.62 (0.89)
3.30 (1.15)
3.75 (0.87)
3.34 (1.02)
3.11 (1.04)
3.49 (1.02)
2.96 (1.16)
3.12 (1.11)
3.03 (1.07)
2.40 (1.30)
2.56 (0.97)
2.11 (1.03)
2.52 (0.94)
2.29 (1.07)
2.77 (1.00)
2.46 (1.08)
2.63 (1.01)
2.82 (0.99)
3.10 (0.93)
2.77 (0.97)
2.77 (0.99)
2.91 (0.98)
2.72 (1.01)
2.67 (1.01)
3.00 (0.88)
2.80 (1.09)
2.91 (0.96)
3.44 (1.10)
3.45 (0.98)
3.52 (1.05)
3.70 (0.90)
3.44 (1.14)
3.70 (0.92)
3.40 (1.01)
3.74 (0.92)
3.69 (0.90)
3.62 (0.94)
3.53 (0.98)
3.71 (1.00)
3.65 (1.01)
3.71 (0.95)
3.92 (1.07)
3.76 (0.92)
EVALUATIVE BELIEF
CITIZEN
FARMER
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
2.36 (1.09)
2.37 (0.96)
2.28 (0.99)
2.46 (1.03)
2.66 (1.10)
2.51 (0.99)
2.24 (1.01)
2.47 (1.03)
2.44 (1.00)
2.58 (1.02)
2.71 (1.04)
2.68 (0.98)
2.67 (0.94)
2.77 (1.00)
2.70 (0.98)
3.47 (1.11)
3.27 (1.08)
3.35 (1.03)
3.46 (1.05)
3.55 (1.17)
3.51 (0.99)
3.38 (1.01)
3.54 (0.97)
3.40 (1.02)
3.50 (0.96)
3.61 (0.95)
3.47 (1.04)
3.59 (0.96)
3.29 (1.05)
3.41 (1.01)
3.27 (1.02)
3.03 (1.01)
3.28 (0.97)
2.92 (1.06)
3.95 (0.95)
3.91 (0.91)
4.02 (0.87)
3.93 (0.92)
2.61 (1.07)
3.34 (0.94)
3.11 (0.93)
2.18 (1.16)
3.68 (0.99)
3.90 (0.85)
3.99 (0.80)
3.29 (1.22)
2.43 (1.04)
2.22 (0.99)
2.55 (0.97)
2.69 (0.94)
2.57 (1.02)
2.47 (1.05)
2.82 (1.08)
3.56 (0.96)
3.31 (1.00)
3.47 (0.93)
3.46 (0.93)
3.39 (1.04)
3.40 (0.96)
3.60 (0.97)
2.92 (1.09)
2.79 (1.03)
3.08 (1.02)
3.07 (0.92)
2.97 (1.01)
4.00 (0.96)
3.55 (1.09)
3.98 (0.96)
3.91 (0.91)
3.84 (0.94)
81
Part III
3.2.
Evaluative beliefs of the aspects’ practice in Flemish animal production
Among citizens, evaluative belief scores for the 72 aspects ranged from 2.11 (stocking density) to
3.34 (feed on fixed moments), with only eight aspects receiving a mean score above the mid-point
score of 3 (Table 3.1). The aspects evaluated most positively mainly relate to the dimensions Feed &
Water (with the exception of growth hormones) and Human-Animal Relationship. The lowest
evaluative belief scores were found for aspects related to the availability of space (stocking density,
available space, space during transport and outdoor access), to the ability to engage in natural
behaviour and also to a high number of the aspects within Transport & Slaughter and Animal
Suffering & Stress. For farmers, evaluative beliefs are scored above the mid-point score for all
aspects and ranged from 3.27 (thirst during transport) to 4.02 (availability of feed) (Table 3.1).
Aspects related to Feed & Water (with the exception of growth hormones) and Human-Animal
Relationship are perceived as the least problematic by farmers.
Evaluative beliefs are compared between both stakeholder groups in Figure 3.2. A positive linear
relationship is found between evaluative belief scores of farmers (Y) and citizens (X) (Y= 0.56x +
2.09; R²=0.63). The positive intercept indicates that the current level of animal welfare is generally
evaluated much more positively by farmers as compared to citizens. The positive slope on the other
hand involves that, in general, a comparable ranking of the aspects is found for both samples, with a
broader range though in the scores attributed by the citizens (slope < 1).
4.2
4
Evaluative belief farmer
15
1
4
3.6
2
3
1
3.4
7
3
2
9
7
5
5
3.8
3
1
38
2 4
14 14
216
6
12 49 5
6 13
3
12 11 10
7 13
11
7
13 10
1 8
2 1 4 11
95
6
3 6 1 10 812
5
1 6 45 2 3
4
15
7
5
49 6
8
14
2
3.2
3
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
Evaluative belief citizen
Figure 3.2. Mean scores of evaluative belief of 72 aspects according to both farmers (Y-axis) and
citizens (X-axis). The line in the figure is the bisector, indicating equal scores. Colours correspond
to aspects classified in the same dimensions. For the aspects corresponding with the numbers,
please see Table 3.1. Mind that the scales of the X and Y axes are not equal
82
Chapter 3 : Concept of farm animal welfare – citizens versus consumers
3.3.
Discordance between citizens and farmers
Aspects with the highest potential discordance are characterised by a large positive gap at citizen
level (i.e. the perceived importance score largely exceeds the evaluative belief score) combined with
a relatively low perceived importance at farmer level. This combination is depicted for each of the
dimensions in Figure 3.3.
The aspects with the lowest discordance are situated in the lower right quadrant of the figures,
showing a small gap at citizen level and a high perceived importance at farmer level. The upper right
quadrant corresponds with aspects subject to a strong positive gap at citizen level but at the same
time to a high perceived importance at farmer level. The lower left quadrant is composed of aspects
causing no discordance at present. Finally, the aspects situated in the upper left quadrant
contribute in the highest degree to the perceptual discordance between citizens and farmers.
Hence, the degree of discordance diminishes from the upper left corner to the lower right corner of
the graph.
With regard to Housing & Climate, outdoor access (5) emerged as the aspect most susceptible to
conflict, whereas the wide positive gap corresponding with stocking density (1), amount of space (3)
and air quality (2) was at the same time subject to a strong perceived potential improvement in
farmers’ opinion. All other aspects show up as less susceptible to discordance and conflict. The
aspects within Engagement in Natural Behaviour were clustered around the centre of the map, with
the exception of genetic selection (14), which corresponds to a relatively high farmer perceived
importance and a small gap at citizen level. The least discordance was perceived for the dimensions
Animal Health and Human-Animal Relationship, where the aspects were subject to a moderate gap
at citizen level and a high perceived importance at farmer level. Also Feed & Water are only to a
relatively small degree susceptible to a perceptual conflict, with only growth hormones (9) located
more to the left part of the graph. Natural feed (6) on the other hand is located close to the centre
of the graph, similar to the aspects within Ability to Engage in Natural Behaviour. Regarding
Transport & Slaughter, big positive gaps are found for almost all aspects, with a polarisation of the
aspects in the upper right quadrant of the graph and slaughter without pain and stress (1) and space
(7), thirst (2) and handling of animals during transport (3) as the most susceptible to conflict. Finally,
with regard to Animal Suffering & Stress related aspects, pain caused by human intervention (1) and
stress (2) were located in the upper right quadrant, while the others aspects were less sensitive to
conflict.
83
Part III
2. 5
2. 5
1
2
2
3
2
5
1. 5
1
7
9
12 10
13
15
16
0. 5
1
11
2
31
5
4 6
8 9
10 11
1312
1. 5
6
4
8
7
0. 5
14
14
0
0
1. 5
2
2. 5
3
3. 5
4
1.5
4. 5
2
2. 5
3
3. 5
4
2. 5
2. 5
2
2
1
3
72
1
2
3
1. 5
4
1. 5
1
5
6
4
9 86
10
12
15
14
0. 5
0
5
11
13
1
0. 5
4. 5
A b il i t y t o Eng ag e i n N at ur al B ehavi o r
Ho usi ng & C l i mat e
0
1. 5
2
2. 5
3
3. 5
4
4. 5
1. 5
2
2. 5
A ni mal Heal t h
3
3. 5
2. 5
2.5
2
2
1. 5
1.5
1
6
9
1
4
4. 5
4
4. 5
T r ansp o rt & Sl aug ht er
0. 5
5
6
1
0.5
8
7
3
4
1
4 2
3
5
2
7
0
0
1. 5
2
2. 5
3
3. 5
4
1. 5
4. 5
2
2. 5
3
3.5
A ni mal Suf f er ing & St r ess
F eed & W at er
2. 5
2
2 1
1. 5
3
1
5
0. 5
4
0
1. 5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4. 5
Human- A ni mal R el at io nshi p
Figure 3.3. Discordance in perception between citizen and farmer, depicted for each dimension
separately. The X-axis corresponds with the perceived importance at farmer level; the Y-axis
corresponds with the gap (perceived importance – evaluative belief) at citizen level. For the
aspects corresponding with the numbers, see Table 3.1.
4. Discussion
In this chapter, the perception of the concept of farm animal welfare by both citizens and farmers is
quantified and compared in terms of values, i.e. opinions about the way things should be. These
values are based on the respondents’ perceived importance and evaluative beliefs of 72 aspects
that are considered relevant for the welfare of farm animals. These results and gathered insights
respond to a contemporary issue under concern and are in compliance with the goals of The
Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010 (European
84
Chapter 3 : Concept of farm animal welfare – citizens versus consumers
Commission, 2006a), where citizens’ perception of animal welfare and scientific research have been
identified as key issues for the improvement of farm animal welfare. The results will be discussed
and explained within the scope of the components of the frame of reference of perception, namely
values, norms, knowledge, interests and convictions. In general, a rather analogous interpretation
of the concept of farm animal welfare by citizens and farmers was found, given the roughly similar
ranking of the perceived importance scores of these aspects. However, citizens generally attributed
higher absolute importance scores to the aspects as compared to farmers. Possibly, acquiescence
bias is at the base of this. This type of response bias corresponds with a tendency to report a
positive connotation and especially occurs in the case of opinion or attitudinal questions, rather
than factual or knowledge-based questions (Watson, 1992). It could be assumed that citizens mainly
answered to this particular question from a perceptual perspective, while the farmer grounded his
answer possibly more on expertise and knowledge. However, one should be careful to take only
knowledge into account as an explanatory factor for the observed differences, as has been criticised
by Hansen et al. (2003) and referred to as the knowledge deficit model. Probably, also the need for
a clean conscience, expressed as a citizen’s interest, contributes to the systematic higher perceived
importance scores among the citizen sample. Aspects with low differences in mean value between
citizens and farmers pertain either to the aspects perceived as the most important by both groups
or to aspects which require a practical knowledge base of farm animal rearing conditions. The
former may be due to a ceiling effect, since mean scores are close to the upper value of the scale.
Examples are the majority of the aspects within the dimensions of Feed & Water, Animal Health and
Human-Animal Relationship. The latter category confirms the more fine-grained perception of the
farmer, which is in accordance with the findings from Beekman et al. (2002), Te Velde et al. (2002)
and Verbeke (2002). The exception on the overall similarity in interpretation is found in aspects
related to the ability to engage in natural behaviour. These aspects received a very high perceived
importance score by citizens and yielded a relatively strong difference with the respective farmers’
importance scores, even though also at farmer level a relatively high score was found. The
difference regarding the ability to engage in natural behaviour is in correspondence with the two
additional values that citizens include within their frame of reference as described in previous
studies: freedom to move and freedom to fulfil natural desires (Lassen et al., 2006; Marie, 2006;
Milne et al., 2007; Morgan-Davies et al., 2006; Te Velde et al., 2002). Also, from a farmers’
perspective, animal welfare is judged positive, since a fast growth and a satisfactory food
conversion – two issues farmers relate to good animal welfare – are strived for and are usually also
realised. Moreover, a switch towards a production system that gives more consideration to the
ability to engage in natural behaviour involves huge investments and may jeopardise the economic
performance and continuity of their farm. Te Velde et al. (2002) also mentioned that farmers
consider this as returning to more traditional ways of farming, with worse working conditions as a
consequence.
Concerning the evaluative beliefs, several discordant beliefs between citizens and farmers were
detected. As a result of the norms expressed by the farmers, no problems were perceived for any of
85
Part III
the aspects, since they relate animal welfare primarily to health. Hence, if an animal eats well, it will
grow fast, which means that it is healthy and that the welfare is good. A much more negative
picture emerged from the citizen sample. Only the evaluation of issues relating to feed and water,
together with the relationship between the farmer and his animals were judged positively by the
citizens. Aspects related to availability of space, ability to engage in natural behaviour, transport &
slaughter and suffering & stress were evaluated most negatively at citizen level.
Summing up on the discordance between farmers’ and citizens’ perception of the concept of farm
animal welfare, five categories of aspects covering a similar issue have been distinguished based on
a qualitative interpretation of the findings. The first two categories include aspects that occupy a
similar location in the upper right quadrant of the graph, and pertain to aspects dealing with space
(category 1) and pain and stress (category 2). These are typically aspects whose perception towards
animal welfare has become more negative with an increasing intensification of animal production,
at least at the citizens’ level. Farmers do attach importance to these aspects, but see little
opportunity for alleviating problems relating to these aspects without serious economic drawbacks,
hence causing a conflict between interests and values at the farmers’ level. The third category is
composed of aspects related to the ability to engage in natural behaviour, indicating citizen concern
and limited farmers’ perceived importance. Consequently, these are issues that face a high
susceptibility to debate. The fourth category is composed of the three dimensions Feed & Water,
Animal Health and Human-Animal Relationship and does not yield perceptual discordance between
citizens and farmers. Finally, the fifth category relates to aspects that are of relatively high
importance to farmers, and subject to a small gap at citizen level. Seen the aspects that belong to
this category (e.g. flooring type, barn temperature, lairage time, static groups, mixture of groups
during transport & slaughter, …) together with citizens’ dissociation from agriculture, this position is
most likely resulting from the difficulties citizens perceive in estimating the true impact of these
specific aspects on farm animal welfare.
It is important to stress that the composition of these categories and their interpretation may
change over time. The components of the frame of reference explaining the perception of the
concept of farm animal welfare can be assumed to be more stable over time among farmers (Te
Velde et al., 2002) and even though a change at farmer level will be harder to realise e.g. through
training and extension services, once established, it is likely to be more permanent. The gap at
citizen level on the other hand can be expected to be more susceptible to fluctuation, dependent on
for example the amount and tonality of news coverage or information provision; on the content of
the information (positive versus negative); on a shift in citizen interests; and on an increasing citizen
consciousness and knowledge about the issue. It is also important to notice that the results only
focus on differences between farmers and citizens as an aggregate group. Also within each group,
perceptions are likely to differ due to differences in values, interests, knowledge, norms and
convictions. Examples are vegetarian individuals within the citizen group (see Chapter 4) and
organic farmers within the farmer group (Van Huik and Bock, 2006).
86
Chapter 3 : Concept of farm animal welfare – citizens versus consumers
5. Conclusion
This chapter provides a quantification of the similarities and differences between aspects relating to
farm animal welfare as valued by farmers and citizens and has tried to explain the findings based on
differences in values, interests, knowledge, norms and convictions, constituting the frame of
reference of the perception towards farm animal welfare.
The interpretation of the complex and multi-dimensional concept of farm animal welfare has
proven to be quite compatible from a citizen and farmer perspective. The main differences are
found in the importance attached to animals’ ability to engage in natural behaviour and in aspects
which require some basic understanding about production conditions and the way farm animals are
reared. Furthermore, citizens evaluated the current state of farm animal welfare rather negative
with mean evaluative belief scores for almost all aspects below the mid-point of the scale, while a
much more positive image was present among farmers. Discordance between citizen and farmer
perception appeared to be the highest for aspects related to natural behaviour, pain, stress and
availability of space.
The findings from the present study can be considered useful to anticipating societal debates
relating to farm animal welfare and can be valorised for diminishing the perceptual gap between
livestock producers and citizens. Furthermore, these insights could offer business and market
opportunities for stakeholders by means of for instance product differentiation based on prominent
aspects in the perception of animal welfare at citizen level, or by paying particular attention to
aspects scoring high in terms of citizen concern, both in adapting animal production practices and in
developing comprehensive marketing strategies for animal food products.
87
Chapter 4 : WQ® definition – opinion of citizens, farmers and vegetarians
Chapter
4
Welfare Quality® definition :
opinion of citizens, farmers and
vegetarians
Adapted from Tuyttens, F. A. M., F. Vanhonacker, E. Van Poucke, and W. Verbeke. 2010.
Quantitative verification of the correspondence between the Welfare Quality® operational
definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians.
Livestock Science 131: 108-114.
Abstract
This chapter constitutes an extension on the previous chapter. It investigates the impact of placebased variables on the interpretation of the operational definition of farm animal welfare as
developed in the Welfare Quality® project, more specific with regard to the importance allocated to
the twelve criteria and the four principles within the definition. Additional to place-based variables,
the possible impact from other attitude modifiers incorporated in the dissertation’s conceptual
framework are discussed. Vegetarians and females gave consistently higher importance scores to all
12 criteria as compared to farmers, citizens and males, respectively, particularly for the criteria
belonging to the principle “appropriate behaviour”. Farmers allocated more weight to “good
feeding” than did vegetarians or citizens. These differences confirm that farmers view animal
welfare more in terms of biological functioning (instead of affective states or natural living) as
compared to other citizens and to vegetarians in particular.
89
Part III
1. Introduction
The Welfare Quality® project (an EU-funded integrated project in which the development of a
standardised system for assessing farm animal welfare and to convey this information into food
products has been among the main aims, www.welfarequality.net) has identified 12 areas of
concern in relation to farm animal welfare (also termed “criteria”), grouped into four “principles”,
by combining analyses of citizen perceptions and attitudes with existing knowledge from animal
welfare science (Botreau et al., 2007; Veissier and Evans, 2007) (see Table 1.4). If the public is to
have confidence in these animal welfare monitoring protocols, they ought to concord with the
public conceptions of animal welfare and fully address public concerns over animal welfare (Fraser,
2006). The operational definition (and accompanying measures) used by scientists ought to reflect
the socially constructed meaning of the term farm animal welfare (Fraser, 2003; Stafleu et al., 1996;
Tannenbaum, 1991). The objective of this chapter, therefore, was to verify whether importance
allocated to the 12 criteria and the relative weights for the four principles differs between citizens,
farmers and vegetarians and between other social structural variables (age, gender, rural versus
urban residence, being a parent, level of education).
2. Material and methods
2.1.
Survey
Details about the sampling procedure and the general questionnaire have been reported in previous
chapters and correspond with Study 2 discussed in the methodology section of this dissertation
(Part I.4). In brief, a total of 1,081 adult respondents filled in a questionnaire distributed via weblinks, email and a more targeted approach through a personal contact procedure during 2006 in
Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium. A total of 247 returned but incomplete
questionnaires were discarded. Of the remaining sample, 72 respondents were vegetarian, and 204
respondents were farmers or farmer’s offspring (termed “farmers” from now onwards). As 30
percent of these “farmers” stated farming as profession, it seems that the remaining 70 percent of
this stakeholder group were farmer’s offspring. A quota sampling procedure was used to select a
sample of 459 respondents (termed “citizens” from now onwards) that is representative of the
Flemish adult population with regard to gender, age, living environment (rural versus urban) and
province. These three stakeholder groups were not mutually exclusive. For example, the citizen
sample also included some farmers and vegetarians, in accordance with these groups’ share in the
overall population.
The present chapter reports on the responses given to two specific questions of the survey which
allow verification whether these three different stakeholder groups allocate similar relative
importance to the 12 criteria and four principles as derived by Welfare Quality® to form an overall
welfare assessment. In the first question, respondents were asked to give a score between 1 (“not
90
Chapter 4 : WQ® definition – opinion of citizens, farmers and vegetarians
at all important to the welfare of farm animals”) and 10 (“extremely important to the welfare of
farm animals”) to each of the 12 criteria defined by Welfare Quality® (Table 1.4). In the second
question, respondents were asked to allocate a total of 100 points between the four principles for
the welfare of farm animals as defined by Welfare Quality®. These four principles are: “good
feeding”, “good housing”, “good health” and “appropriate behaviour”. As allocating 100 points
across a large number of aspects might overtax the respondents, we opted not to use this method
for determining the relative importance of the 12 criteria.
In the questionnaire the 12 criteria were not organised into the four Welfare Quality® principles.
The criteria and principles were listed separately for the first and second question, respectively.
Questions and items were presented in a standardised format and a fixed order to all participants.
2.2.
Statistical analyses
Data were analysed using SPSS 15.0. Differences between types of respondents (citizens, farmers
and vegetarians) for criteria importance scores and principle relative weights were assessed using
one-way ANOVA F-tests with Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores.
Pairwise comparison of mean scores allocated to the 12 Welfare Quality® criteria (66 comparisons
in total) and the four Welfare Quality® principles (6 comparisons in total) was done using pairedsamples t-tests for each type of respondent separately. Bivariate analyses through comparison of
mean scores, including independent samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA F-tests, were used to
assess the effect of various social structural variables on the importance allocated to the different
components of farm animal welfare.
3. Results
3.1.
Importance of the 12 Welfare Quality® criteria
With all average scores well above the neutral point of the scale (µ=5.5), all 12 criteria were judged
rather important to extremely important for farm animal welfare by all three types of respondents
(citizen, farmer or vegetarian) (Table 3.2). Nevertheless, there were many differences in the scores
given to the various welfare criteria between these types of respondents. Vegetarians gave
consistently higher scores than farmers, and the citizens’ scores were between the other two
groups. The difference between vegetarians and farmers was most pronounced for the four criteria
(criteria 9-12) of the welfare principle “appropriate behaviour”, followed by those belonging to the
“good housing” principle (criteria 6-8).
Citizens allocated significantly more importance to three criteria (“absence of disease”, “absence of
pain induced by management procedures” and “absence of prolonged thirst”) compared to any
other criteria. Farmers allocated greatest importance to “absence of disease” and “absence of
prolonged thirst” and the least importance to “expression of other behaviours”. Vegetarians
91
Part III
allocated greatest importance to “absence of pain induced by management procedures”, “absence
of prolonged thirst”, “absence of injuries” and “absence of general fear”. They allocated the least
importance (although still very high) to “thermal comfort” and “good human-animal relation”.
Intriguingly, all types of respondents seemed to allocate a lot of importance to criteria that were
phrased as “Absence of...” as compared to the other criteria that are phrased positively.
Contrary to differences found between citizens and farmers, the scores allocated by rural
respondents did not differ significantly from those of urban residents. Regarding other social
structural variables, female respondents allocated more importance to all 12 criteria (and those
belonging to the “appropriate behaviour” principle in particular) than males (largest p=0.022).
Respondents with children tended to give higher scores to most criteria as compared to
respondents without children, although the difference was significant only for criteria 1, 3-5 and 810 (p<0.05). Education level did not associate with the scores, except for criterion 11: respondents
with a lower level of education allocated more importance to “human-animal relations” than
respondents with a higher level of education (|t|= 3.79, p<0.001).
3.2.
Relative weights of the four Welfare Quality® principles
The relative weights allocated to the four welfare principles differed between types of respondents
(citizen, farmer or vegetarian). Vegetarians gave relatively more weight to “good housing” and
“appropriate behaviour” but relatively less weight to “good feeding” and “good health” as
compared to farmers and citizens (Table 3.3). Farmers allocated more weight to “good feeding”
than did citizens or vegetarians.
Citizens and farmers allocated most weight to “good health”, followed by “good feeding”, “good
housing” and “appropriate behaviour”. Vegetarians allocated more weight to “good housing” and
“good health” than to “good feeding” and “appropriate behaviour”.
Young respondents (18-23 years old) allocated relatively more weight to “good housing” than
respondents aged between 38-53 years (|t|=3.57; p=0.004) and >54 years (|t|=3.86, p=0.005), but
less weight to “good feeding” than respondents aged between 38-53 years (|t|=3.95, p=0.001) and
>54 years (|t|=3.16, p=0.002). Weights for “good feeding” were also lower for respondents
between 24-37 years old compared with respondents between 38-53 years (|t|=3.53, p=0.006) and
>54 years of age (|t|=3.40, p=0.016). Rural respondents tended to allocate more weight to “good
feeding” than urban respondents (|t|=1.75, p=0.081). Respondents with children allocated more
weight to “good feeding” (|t|=5.81, p<0.001) and less weight to “appropriate behaviour” (|t|=2.33,
p=0.020) and “good housing” (|t|=4.19, p<0.001) than respondents without children. Level of
education was not significantly associated with the relative weights allocated to the four principles.
92
Chapter 4 : WQ® definition – opinion of citizens, farmers and vegetarians
Table 3.2. Structure of the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal welfare with 12 criteria aggregated into four principles. For each of
the 12 criteria the mean weights (for the different animal types) derived by Welfare Quality® are presented (WQ weight) as well as the mean (+SD)
importance score (on a scale from 1 to 10) allocated by adult Flemish citizens, farmers and vegetarians. Significant differences between these types of
respondents (rows) are indicated by a different letter (x, y, z) in superscript before the score. Within type of respondent (columns), importance scores
without a common superscript (a-n) after the number differ significantly (p<0.05)
Welfare Quality®
Principles
Criteria
Survey
WQ weight*
Citizen
8.5 (1.7)a
Farmer
Good
1. Absence of prolonged hunger
0.41
x
x
y
feeding
2. Absence of prolonged thirst
0.59
x
x
y
Good
3. Comfort around resting
0.34
x
x
y
housing
4. Thermal comfort
0.31
x
y
z
8.7 (1.5)dg
5. Ease of movement
0.35
x
y
z
9.4 (0.9)ak
Good
6. Absence of injuries
0.32
x
y
z
9.7 (0.7)b
health
7. Absence of disease
0.39
x
y
x
8. Absence of pain induced by management procedures
0.29
x
y
z
9.8 (0.5)e
9. Expression of social behaviours
0.26
x
y
z
9.1 (1.1)fc
Appropriate
10. Expression of other behaviours
0.22
x
y
6.3 (2.0)h
z
8.9 (1.2)gj
behaviour
11. Good human-animal relationship
0.23
x
x
7.1 (2.2)ln
y
12. Absence of general fear
0.29
x
y
9.0 (1.5)b
7.8 (1.6)c
7.3 (1.8)d
8.1 (1.6)e
8.8 (1.4)f
9.0 (1.4)b
9.0 (1.5)b
7.7 (1.8)c
7.2 (1.8)d
7.7 (2.0)c
8.4 (1.8)a
8.0 (2.1)a
Vegetarian
8.6 (1.9)bjk
7.4 (1.7)clm
6.8 (1.8)d
7.2 (1.8)en
8.1 (1.8)a
8.6 (1.6)fj
8.3 (1.7)gk
6.7 (2.0)d
7.5 (2.1)im
9.4 (1.1)a
9.7 (0.6)be
9.1 (1.3)cj
9.3 (1.2)ack
8.7 (1.6)hg
z
9.6 (0.7)ib
* based on the Shapley values reported in Botreau et al. (2008)
93
Part III
Table 3.3. Average (+SD) relative weights (scored as %) allocated by adult Flemish citizens,
farmers and vegetarians to the four principles of animal welfare as defined by Welfare Quality®.
Significant differences between types of respondents (rows) are indicated by a different letter (xz) in superscript before the figure. Within type of respondent (columns), significant differences
are indicated by a different superscript (a-d) after the figure
Principles
Good feeding
Good housing
Good health
Appropriate behaviour
Citizen
x
27.6 (10.2)a
x
24.4 (9.5)b
x
31.0 (11.3)c
x
17.7 (10.9)d
Farmer
y
30.7 (13.6)a
x
23.6 (11.3)b
x
30.8 (15.1)a
x
15.5 (12.0)c
Vegetarian
z
22.8 (5.8)a
y
28.3 (7.5)b
y
26.2 (6.9)b
y
22.7 (8.7)a
4. Discussion and conclusion
The importance scores and relative weights allocated to the 12 welfare criteria and the four welfare
principles defined by Welfare Quality® differed between Flemish citizens, farmers and vegetarians.
Overall, farmers gave lower importance scores to the 12 welfare criteria as compared to citizens,
and much lower scores than vegetarians. The magnitude of the differences, however, varied
depending on the criterion. The absolute difference between farmers versus citizens/vegetarians
was highest for criteria such as “expression of social behaviour”, “expression of other behaviours”,
“ease of movement” and “absence of general fear” and lowest for criteria such as “absence of
disease”, “absence of prolonged thirst” and “absence of prolonged hunger”. Similar differences in
perception of farm animal welfare between farmers and consumers/citizens have been
documented previously (Lassen et al., 2006; Marie, 2006; Te Velde et al., 2002). People involved in
animal production are known to have a much more positive perception of the current state of farm
animal welfare and to view the welfare of farm animals more in terms of biological functioning
(instead of affective states or natural living) as compared to other citizens (European Commission,
2005; Kendall et al., 2006). Farmers attribute more importance to criteria that have a direct
economic impact, such as animal health and feeding. In the present study, vegetarians allocated
significantly higher scores to all criteria compared with farmers, and to all but one criterion
(“absence of disease”) compared to citizens. The allocation of weights to the four principles
revealed that vegetarians allocated relatively more weight to “good housing” and “appropriate
behaviour” and less weight to “good feeding” and “good health” than the other respondent groups.
Vegetarians have previously been reported to attribute a lot of importance to animal welfare
relative to other aspects of food and food production and to have a more negative view on the
current state of animal welfare in Flemish animal production. Objections to the suffering and killing
of animals kept for meat production are among the main motivations for being vegetarian (Hopkins
and Dacey, 2008). Based on the focus group discussions presented in Chapter 1, it was reported that
94
Chapter 4 : WQ® definition – opinion of citizens, farmers and vegetarians
vegetarians in general highly value socio-cultural product attributes like environmental friendliness,
animal welfare and fair trade.
A better understanding of these differences in opinion about what constitutes the concept of
animal welfare may be beneficial for facilitating a constructive dialogue and improving the
communication between farmers, vegetarians and other citizens. This study further illustrates that
the concept of animal welfare has a different meaning to different people, depending on placebased variables such as stakeholder type and rural versus urban residence, and other social
structural variables such as age, gender, being a parent, and – to a lesser degree – level of
education. This variation underlines the relevance of a segmented and targeted market approach
for higher welfare products.
95
Chapter 5 : Piglet castration – Flemish citizen sample
Chapter
5
Piglet castration – Flemish citizen
sample
Adapted from Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, and F. Tuyttens. 2009. Belgian consumers’ attitudes
towards surgical castration and immunocastration of piglets. Animal Welfare, 18, 371-380.
Abstract
In the next three chapters, the thesis scope will be narrowed to piglet castration, as an animal
welfare related topic. In order to fit in with the discussion about the impact of place-based variables
on public attitudes, perceptions and concerns, the topic is approached from both the public
(Chapters 5 and 6) and the producers’ view (Chapter 7). Male piglets are surgically castrated in the
large majority of European countries in order to avoid the development of boar taint and a
corresponding degraded meat quality. This practice is strongly debated for its negative impact on
the piglet’s welfare, integrity and health, and has induced the search for more humane alternatives.
Immunocastration is one such alternative and involves the injection of vaccine that inhibits the
production of the hormones responsible for boar taint. This practice shows satisfactory results in
terms of meat quality and production parameters, though uncertainty about consumer acceptance
is often put forward as one of the key factors for a successful market adoption. This chapter focuses
on the consumer awareness of piglet castration and their attitude towards immunocastration
relative to the routine practice of surgical castration without anaesthesia by means of a web-based
questionnaire among 225 Flemish citizens. About 40 percent indicates to be aware of the routine
practice of piglet castration. This limited awareness is accompanied by a modest level of concern
about castration, especially as compared to food safety issues and other pork production systemrelated animal welfare issues. Sixty percent of the sample had a general appreciation in favour of
immunocastration as compared to surgical castration without anaesthesia. Informing consumers
about possible benefits and/or risks from immunocastration did not have a major impact in terms of
shifting their attitudes. Immunocastration did not emerge as a problem in terms of consumer
acceptance, although special attention should be addressed to consumers’ perception of price, food
safety and taste of the meat from immunocastrated pigs.
97
Part III
1. Introduction
Background information about the problem of boar taint and the range of available and/or inquired
practices to avoid the development of boar taint has already been discussed in the general
introduction of this dissertation and will not be repeated here. The focus of this chapter will be on
immunocastration and will be approached from the side of the chain end user. Presently,
immunocastration is practiced in several countries including among others Australia, New Zealand,
Brazil, Russia, Switzerland and several Latin-American and Asian countries, while (at the time of this
specific study) also a positive opinion on an initial marketing authorisation application for the
vaccine ImprovacTM on the EU market has been granted beginning 2009 by the EU Committee for
Medicinal Products for Veterinary use9. Next to its advantages in terms of animal welfare,
immunocastrated pigs have been shown to have a more favourable feed conversion (Cronin et al.,
2003; Dunshea et al., 2001; Jaros et al., 2005; Turkstra et al., 2002) and a higher percentage of lean
meat (Jaros et al., 2005) as compared to surgically castrated pigs and reduced sexual and aggressive
behaviour as compared to entire males (Cronin et al., 2003; Velarde et al., 2008). Drawbacks include
the costs of vaccination (vaccine and labour), the chance of self-injection and uncertainties
regarding consumer/market acceptance of the method (Font i Furnols et al., 2008; Prunier and
Bonneau, 2006; Prunier et al., 2006). Nonetheless, estimations indicate that the vaccination costs
can be compensated by the benefits from an increased feed efficiency (de Roest et al., 2009). Also,
specific injection devices have been developed that reduce the chance on self-injection in addition
to the development of anti-vaccines.
Although the consequences of immunocastration on production performance and animal behaviour
have been investigated in several studies (for a review see Prunier et al., 2006), little research has
been conducted on consumer acceptance. In a study by Font I Furnols et al. (2008) the focus was on
the sensory evaluation and acceptability of meat from immunocastrated pigs in Spain, concluding
that Spanish consumers were not able to distinguish between cooked pork from immunocastrated
pigs, surgically castrated pigs and female pigs. Despite this favourable result in terms of sensory
evaluation, these findings do neither provide any insights in consumers’ buying intention and
behaviour nor do they reveal any insights in terms of consumers’ beliefs and attitudes, which can be
expected to be antecedents of behavioural intentions. To the authors’ knowledge, the only studies
that have dealt with consumer issues, apart from sensory studies, are a study in Australia (Hennessy
and Newbold, 2004), a study in Sweden (Lagerkvist et al., 2006), a study in Norway (Fredriksen et
al., 2010), and two studies in Switzerland (Giffin et al., 2008; Huber-Eicher and Spring, 2008).
Considering the relatively high animal welfare standards and divergence in public interest in farm
animal welfare and ethical issues across countries, generalisation of findings from these studies to
other European countries remains quite speculative.
9
Presently, the vaccine has already been registered, and is thus available on the market (see next chapter)
98
Chapter 5 : Piglet castration – Flemish citizen sample
Hennessy and Newbold (2004) found through qualitative focus group discussion with Australian
female responsibles for food purchases that immunocastration was strongly accepted, despite a
limited awareness about the practice. The practice was associated with a natural process and was
perceived as a favourable alternative for surgical castration without anaesthesia. Lagerkvist et al.
(2006) also found immunocastration to be a socially acceptable alternative, based on willingness to
pay estimates from a choice experiment with Swedish consumers. They found that animal welfare
concerns dominated aversion against biotechnology or perceived food safety risks, while animal
welfare concerns were subordinate to sensory quality concerns. Regarding the two Swiss studies,
conflicting results appeared. The study of Giffin et al. (2008), which was based on 971 on-line
interviews about pork consumers’ acceptance, revealed that two out of three consumers
considered immunocastration more acceptable than surgical castration. Huber-Eicher and Spring’s
(2008) study in contrast revealed a low acceptance of meat from immunocastrated animals among
800 Swiss consumers, with 56 percent indicating a negative willingness to buy this meat. Surgical
castration under anaesthesia/analgesia was preferred since it was most transparent to the
consumer and it eliminated reliably the risk of boar taint. Within the PIGCAS project, where the
consumer voice is represented by consumer organisations, a similar preference for castration under
anaesthesia was found (von Borell et al., 2008).
The objective of the present chapter was to investigate the awareness, concern, attitude and selfreported willingness to pay of Flemish consumers concerning immunocastration in pig production
and pork from immunocastrated pigs. Given that this research topic is largely unexplored and that
no primary data as such is yet available in Flanders, this research is organised and designed as a
preliminary qualitative study. It provides insights into the degree to which it is justified to consider
consumer acceptance as a key issue for the implementation of immunocastration. More specifically,
issues on which this practice scores favourable or disadvantageous, as perceived by consumers, are
reported. Additionally, the impact of communication messages informing consumers about the
benefits and/or risks from immunocastration is explored.
2. Material and methods
Methodological details in relation to the research approach and the sampling procedure are
discussed in Part I.4, and apply to Study 5.
2.1.
Survey
The questionnaire started with some general questions about animal welfare and pig production.
First respondents were provided with an extended and diversified list of issues and handlings (27 in
total) that are related to the pig production chain. A large number of the issues and handlings dealt
with characteristics of the pig production system that have an impact on the animal’s welfare,
among them piglet castration. These issues and handlings were selected from an exhaustive list of
issues/handlings that play a role in the citizen’s interpretation of the concept of farm animal welfare
99
Part III
(see Chapter 2). The selection of issues was organised in such a way that each of the seven
dimensions constituting the citizens’ (perceptual) interpretation of the concept of farm animal
welfare as described was represented by at least one item. These dimensions were: Animal Health;
Engagement in Natural Behaviour; Feed and Water; Housing and Climate; Human-Animal
Relationship; Suffering and Stress; and Transport and Slaughter. Another group of issues involved
meat product characteristics like taste and price of the pork as well as food safety related matters
such as hormones, residuals and food safety itself. Further issues pertained to singular issues and
handlings (e.g. quality of the information, environmental impact …). For each of the issues and
handlings respondents were asked to express their level of concern on a seven-point Likert scale
that ranged from “not at all concerned” (1) to “very concerned” (7). Second, respondents were
asked if they were aware of piglet castration in Flemish pig production and if “yes”, to formulate the
reason for this practice using an open-ended question. In this introductory part, nothing explicitly
was asked about immunocastration.
Following on the general part, the respondents were provided with printed information about
immunocastration. The information message included three components. The first component
included a general description of why castration was performed, how it is currently practised
(surgical castration without anaesthesia) and a short explanation of immunocastration. The second
component consisted of a description of the advantages of immunocastration. Benefits mentioned
in the message referred to a reduction of pain and stress as compared to surgical castration, a
reduction of aggression and sexual behaviour as compared to entire males, a better feed conversion
ratio as compared to barrows and sows and the reassurance that such meat is safe for the
consumer. In the third component the major downsides/risks associated with immunocastration
were given, in terms of the danger of self-injection, the costs associated with injecting the pigs, the
fact that the vaccine has not been registered yet by the EU, and the uncertainty about consumer
acceptance (Table 3.4). Whereas the first component of the message was provided to all
respondents, the second and third message component was only presented to subsamples of the
overall sample. In total, four different types of questionnaires were distributed. In a first message
condition, only the general part was provided. The subsample that received this first version
functioned as the control group in the study (below this subsample is referred to as “control”). In
the second condition, benefits were shown together with the control message (“benefits”). In the
third condition, the downsides were given together with the control message (“risks”). Finally, the
fourth message condition provided the full picture, i.e. it contained the general part and both the
possible benefits and risks from immunocastration relative to surgical castration without
anaesthesia (“full info”). Message conditions were assigned randomly to the survey participants.
After exposure to the previously described message conditions questions were asked specifically
about attitudes and self-reported willingness to pay related to immunocastration and meat from
immunocastrated pigs. First, respondents were probed for their general attitude towards
immunocastration as an alternative for the present practice of surgical castration. The
measurement scale was a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from “much worse (than surgical
100
Chapter 5 : Piglet castration – Flemish citizen sample
castration)” (1) to “much better” (7). Second, immunocastration was evaluated against surgical
castration on a list of process characteristics and pork attributes, applying the same seven-point
scale. Third, consumers were asked to report their willingness to pay for meat from
immunocastrated pigs for different levels of price premiums on a seven-point probability scale,
ranging from “very unlikely” (1) to “very likely” (7).
Table 3.4. Message conditions tested in the survey: message content and number of respondents
(n) exposed to each message
Message condition
Control
Message content
n
Why are male piglets castrated? – To avoid boar taint
Current method of castration – Surgical castration
58
Potential alternative – Immunocastration
Benefits from
Control +
immunocastration
53
Pain and stress reduction
Reduction of level of aggression and sexual behaviour
Better growth performance
No risks for food safety
Risks from
Control +
immunocastration
Danger of self injection
Extra costs (labour and vaccine)
57
Vaccine not yet authorised
Uncertainty about consumer acceptance
Full content message
2.2.
Control + Benefits + Risks
57
Statistical analyses
Data were analysed using SPSS 15.0. Frequencies, means and standard deviations are presented in
table format. Factor analysis using principal components and varimax rotation is applied to analyse
the association between consumers’ reported concerns about issues and handlings related to the
pig production chain. A factor analysis is useful to identify common underlying dimensions (factors)
that consist of items (in this case concerns) that are strongly interrelated (Hair et al., 2006). The
selection of factors was based on Eigenvalues (>1 as threshold), while factor loadings were used to
interpret the meaning of the resulting factors. Cronbach’s alpha was used to decide upon internal
reliability consistency. Threshold value for a satisfactory construct is 0.6, which denotes that the
different items measure one single construct and therefore may be aggregated. Aggregation was
done through averaging the scores across issues assigned to a specific factor. Bivariate analyses
through comparison of mean scores, including independent samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA Ftests with Bonferonni and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores, were used to assess
the impact of the different message conditions on interval scaled variables related to consumer
attitudes and self-reported willingness to pay.
101
Part III
3. Results
3.1.
Consumer awareness of piglet castration
Half of the respondents reported to be aware of the fact that male piglets are castrated. This group
is further termed as the “aware group”, the other half as the “unaware group”. From the aware
group, 78 percent was able to report that the reason for this practice was related to the quality of
meat, with the large majority referring to the odour of the meat and 27 respondents (12 percent)
explicitly mentioning boar taint. Taking together the 50 percent indicating to be aware of piglet
castration and the 78 percent denoting the correct reason, it can be concluded that about 40
percent of our sample was well-informed on the topic. Incomplete and/or wrong answers most
frequently pertained to the idea that castration was done primarily in order to reduce the level of
aggression, to control reproduction and to avoid energy use from reproduction and leave more
energy for growth and other production parameters.
3.2.
Consumer concerns about pig production practices
Factor analysing the concern scores related to issues and handlings in pig production yielded a four
factor solution based on Eigenvalues > 1. Concerns that either did not load high (no loadings above
0.5) on any of the retained factors or that had loadings on multiple factors were excluded from the
analysis (Table 3.5). Total variance explained was 74.0 percent. The first factor comprised
production system-related animal welfare concerns and explained the major part of the variance in
the original data. At least one issue from each of the seven dimensions that constitute the citizen’s
interpretation of farm animal welfare (see Chapter 2) was strongly correlated to this factor. The
second factor corresponded with food safety concerns. Together with the item food safety itself,
concern related to hormones and residues of medication was categorised in this factor.
Interestingly also concern about genetic modification correlated significantly with the food safety
factor. Next, concern for some specific mutilations – among them piglet castration – was ranked as
a third factor, separate from the factor dealing with other production system-related animal welfare
concerns. Yet it is noteworthy that concern about castration also correlated with the factor of
animal welfare concerns (factor loading of 0.416), thus not perceived as completely unrelated to the
other production system-related animal welfare concerns. The fourth factor (Eigenvalue just above
the threshold) consisted of concern related to the end product’s price and taste, two important
product attributes, which reflect pork meat concerns.
Mean values for the factors indicated the highest concern for food safety issues, followed by animal
welfare and pork meat concerns. Concern about animal mutilations was attributed a mean score
around the scale’s mid-point. Differences in the factors’ mean values between the aware and
unaware group were not significant (p > 0.05).
102
Chapter 5 : Piglet castration – Flemish citizen sample
Regarding the concern scores for the individual issues and handlings, it was noticed that Flemish
consumers were suspicious about the use of hormones and residuals and about food safety in
general (Table 3.5). Also the pork meat’s taste was attributed a high concern score. The lowest
mean concern score – though still on the positive side of the scale – was reported for piglet
castration, followed by the two other animal mutilations incorporated in the study.
Table 3.5. Factor analysis: Flemish consumer concerns related to pig production. Factor loadings
from principal component analysis. The right column reports the mean concern score and
standard deviation (SD) for the total sample (n=225)
Factor 1
0.828
0.776
0.776
0.775
0.756
0.744
0.730
0.719
0.698
0.695
0.682
0.669
0.639
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Mean (SD)
5.12 (1.48)
5.27 (1.56)
5.04 (1.50)
4.96 (1.65)
5.06 (1.54)
5.11 (1.54)
4.94 (1.69)
5.00 (1.72)
5.38 (1.55)
4.61 (1.65)
5.56 (1.44)
4.77 (1.59)
5.32 (1.60)
5.48 (1.60)
5.56 (1.64)
5.55 (1.61)
4.56 (1.71)
4.17 (1.77)
4.15 (1.76)
4.14 (1.73)
4.74 (1.61)
5.37 (1.55)
Space availability
Slaughter without pain and stress
Barn climate
Conditions transport
Stress
Animal welfare
Contact farmer-animal
Skills of farmer
Mortality
Way of housing
Disease
Natural Behaviour
Feed
Residuals of medication
0.871
Use of hormones
0.862
Food safety
0.741
Genetic modification
0.726
Tail docking
0.839
Tooth resection
0.834
Castration
0.777
Price of the meat
0.817
Taste of the meat
0.681
Eigenvalue*
11.2
2.7
1.3
1.1
Explained variance (%)
34.9
16.3
14.1
8.7
Cronbach’s alpha
0.96
0.83
0.92
0.63
Mean (SD)_Total sample
5.10 (1.28) 5.31 (1.40) 4.17 (1.63) 5.05 (1.35)
Mean (SD)_Aware group
5.05 (1.29) 5.21 (1.54) 4.28 (1.73) 4.95 (1.45)
Mean (SD)_Unaware group
5.14 (1.23) 5.40 (1.24) 4.03 (1.50) 5.15 (1.24)
*
Only factors with Eigenvalue above 1 are reported; Items not included because of low or dual
factor loadings: Import of foreign meat (mean=4.63; SD=1.69); Environmental impact (mean=4.88;
SD=1.62); Quality of information (mean=4.83. SD=1.59); Intensive character (mean=4.54; SD=1.54);
Growth rate (mean=4.35; SD=1.53)
103
Part III
3.3.
Impact of the information message related to immunocastration
Message condition did not have a significant impact on the respondents’ general attitude towards
immunocastration (Table 3.6) nor on their self-reported willingness to pay for meat from
immunocastrated pigs (p > 0.1). Conversely some significant effects of message condition were
found regarding more specific aspects of immunocastration versus surgical castration (Table 3.6).
However, these differences did not provide a consistent and coherent picture. For instance, the
message condition where only risks were communicated yielded a better comparative evaluation
for immunocastration in terms of farm profitability and farmer’s profit, despite the fact that
immunocastration was identified with possible extra costs. Thus, it is doubtful whether these
differences were due to the message condition or due to differences in the characteristics of the
respondents exposed to a particular message condition.
Table 3.6. Consumer evaluation of immunocastration relative to surgical castration. Figures are
mean values on a seven-point scale, that ranges from “much worse (than surgical castration)” (1)
to “much better” (7). Mean values are presented for the full sample and for the different message
conditions
Sample mean
General attitude tw IC
ANOVA
Message condition
(SD)
Control
Benefits
Risks
Full info
F-test p-
n=225
n=58
n=53
n=57
n=57
value
4.77 (1.44)
4.95
4.58
4.98
4.55
0.240
a
3.85
4.57
b
4.30
0.019
a,b
Avoiding boar taint
4.23 (1.18)
Meat quality (sensory)
4.06 (1.11)
3.91
3.81
4.27
4.21
0.090
4.08 (1.23)
a
a
4.65
b
4.32
<0.001
4.64
b
4.05
0.063
Profit per pig
Type of labour for farmer
Farm profitability
4.33 (1.20)
4.10 (1.17)
4.15
3.64
a
4.40
a
3.84
a,b
a
4.21
a
4.65
b
3.98
0.001
a
3.29
4.31
b
3.82
<0.001
3.92
Food safety
3.82 (1.22)
Animal welfare
5.44 (1.31)
5.45
5.53
5.33
5.45
0.889
Consumer acceptance
4.83 (1.35)
5.06
4.48
5.11
4.64
0.041*
Work load for farmer
4.17 (1.32)
4.31
3.88
4.55
3.93
0.025*
Competitivity of sector
4.16 (1.16)
4.11
3.98
4.51
4.02
0.069
Affordability for consumer
3.69 (1.02)
3.51
3.58
3.95
3.71
0.128
*
3.80
3.65
Despite significant one-way ANOVA F-tests, Bonferroni and/or Dunnett’s T3 post hoc tests did
not indicate significant differences between the mean scores
104
Chapter 5 : Piglet castration – Flemish citizen sample
3.4.
Consumer attitude towards immunocastration
Given that message condition did not affect general attitude or stated willingness to pay towards
immunocastration, the data were merged for further analyses. In general respondents evaluated
immunocastration slightly better than surgical castration, with 60 percent of the sample indicating
to prefer immunocastration over surgical castration (i.e. score > 4) (Figure 3.4). The respondents
believed that immunocastration was superior to surgical castration for what concerns animal
welfare
(Table
3.6).
Also
respondents
indicated
higher
consumer
acceptability
for
immunocastration. Further evaluations significantly in favour of immunocastration in consumer’s
perception pertained to the type of labour for the farmer and the avoidance of boar taint. In
contrast, food safety and price were evaluated more negatively for immunocastration compared
with surgical castration. Work load for the farmer, competitivity of the sector, farm profitability,
profit per pig and meat quality were not pronounced in favour of either one of the practices (i.e.
mean value did not significantly differ from the scale’s mid-point). The respondents’ answers were
mainly characterised by a high number of respondents positioning themselves in the middle of the
scale. Such answering behaviour reflects either that people judge both methods truly equivalent or
that they express uncertainty and/or unawareness. In particular, more than half of the sample (52.8
percent) positioned themselves at the scale’s mid-point for the issue attribute of sensory meat
quality.
30
Percentage of sample
25
25
24.1
19.5
20
13.6
15
10.9
10
5.5
5
1.4
0
IC much
worse
worse
somewhat
worse
neither
better nor
worse
somewhat
better
better
IC much
better
Figure 3.4. General attitude of consumers towards immunocastration (IC) relative to attitude
towards the traditional practice of surgical castration. Answers are registered on a seven-point
scale ranging from immunocastration perceived as “much worse” to “much better”
3.5.
Self-reported willingness to pay for pork from immunocastrated pigs
Self-reported willingness to pay for meat from immunocastrated pigs was assessed for different
levels of price premiums as compared to conventional pork, ranging from an equal price to the
double. Respondents stated to prefer meat from immunocastrated pigs if the meat is offered at the
same price (positive reported likelihood of purchase) (Figure 3.5). On average, also a price premium
105
Part III
of five percent still corroborates with a positive probability of buying meat from immunocastrated
pigs (i.e. μ > 4). Further price premiums result in a negative purchase probability (i.e. μ < 4).
0%
5%
10%
Level of price
premium
20%
50%
100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Figure 3.5. Self-reported willingness to pay (WTP) a price premium (expressed as percentage over
the price conventional pork) for meat from immunocastrated pigs. Self-reported WTP is measured
on a seven-point scale ranging from “very unlikely to buy” (1) to “very likely to buy” (7)
4. Discussion and conclusion
Research related to alternatives for surgical castration of male piglets without anaesthesia is
presently very topical in various research fields. This interest originates from the debate that
surgical castration currently faces, a debate that is also kept alive by animal welfare organisations
(e.g. “Pigs in Pain” campaign by GAIA in Flanders). From the different alternatives currently
available and/or under development, this chapter has focused on immunocastration. Motivations
underlying this choice pertain to the fact that a vaccine is already available and used in several
countries, and authorisation of the vaccine on the EU market was expected in 2009 (at the time of
the study). Thus, immunocastration can be seen as a possible solution in the short term. Also, no
surgery is needed, yielding positive implications for the animal’s welfare, integrity and health. In
addition, this method gives promising results in terms of animal growth and feed efficiency (e.g.
Cronin et al., 2003; Dunshea et al., 2001; Jaros et al., 2005; Prunier et al., 2006; Turkstra et al.,
2002).
Successful implementation of novel methods and practices, such as immunocastration is often
believed to depend upon consumer acceptance (Frewer et al., 1997a). So far consumer studies
about immunocastration have focussed more on sensory issues (e.g. Font i Furnols et al., 2008)
instead of attitudes, perceptions and purchasing behaviour. In this context, an exploratory research
design was constructed with consumers’ awareness, attitudes, perceptions and beliefs as central
106
Chapter 5 : Piglet castration – Flemish citizen sample
themes. The data collection method used allowed to collect a substantial amount of data in a
limited amount of time, but also implied that the sample does not statistically represent the total
Flemish population.
A first important finding was the low awareness about piglet castration among the survey
participants. The low awareness corresponds with the alienation of consumers and citizens from
animal production and animal production practices (Harper and Henson, 2001). Due to an (ever)
increasing degree of urbanisation and industrialisation of animal production, consumers and citizen
become the less and less aware of how animals are actually reared (De Tavernier et al., 2010). As
such, opinions are strongly shaped by perceptions and (often distorted) external information rather
than on facts and real experiences. Increasing awareness – thus decreasing the distance between
perception and reality - however is not simply an issue of providing additional information. A
considerable amount of people for instance consumes meat, ignoring the fact that the meat
originates from an animal raised for human. Also, buying food is most often a routine process in
which people do not extensively search for information. This is amplified by the present information
era in which consumers are overloaded with information (Verbeke, 2005). In addition, large
standard deviations for the reported concerns reflect a substantial degree of heterogeneity in the
population regarding the impact of animal welfare, which is also impacting on attitude formation
and food purchasing behaviour. As such communication efforts should be well-considered and
passed on to the right target audiences.
In addition to the limited awareness, the survey participants expressed a moderate concern about
piglet castration, especially as compared to other production system-related animal welfare
concerns. Moreover castration, together with the other animal mutilations incorporated in the
survey, emerged as a separate factor in the factor analysis, apart from other welfare related
concerns. This suggests that people perceive these issues as different from other common welfarerelated practices in pig production. The highest concerns in our sample pertained to food safety
issues. The use of hormones and residues of medication worries consumers and reflects that the
different scandals and crises that have hit Flemish animal production are still prominent in
consumers’ minds. Also the categorisation of genetic modification as part of the food safety factor
reflects the wariness about potential safety implications of biotech in animal production (Frewer et
al., 1997a). These findings suggest that consumers are extremely vigilant about animal production
practices that may impact (real or perceived) end product safety.
The second main finding was that in the present study consumer acceptance of immunocastration
does not seem to be a problem. Immunocastration was significantly better accepted than surgical
castration. This degree of acceptability seemed to be largely related to the improvement the
method has in terms of animal welfare. As a consequence, the uncertainty expressed in some
literature towards the acceptance of immunocastration at the consumer level cannot be confirmed
in this study. Nonetheless, one should bear in mind that consumer acceptance is not equal to actual
consumer behaviour. Reasons that explain the possible discordance between acceptance and actual
107
Part III
purchasing behaviour relate to animal welfare not being a priority product attribute in the
consumer decision-making process of pork, since this attribute is traded off against other quality
characteristics like price, taste, safety and healthiness (Verbeke and Viaene, 2000). This will be
further detailed in Part III of this dissertation. In general, animal welfare is of secondary importance
and influences purchasing choices only when other criteria are fulfilled (Harper and Henson, 2001;
Ingenbleek et al., 2006a). In this sample meat from immunocastrated pigs was expected to be more
expensive and less safe than pork from surgically castrated pigs, while the respondents’
expectations about taste did not differ between meat from immunocastrated or surgically castrated
pigs. These findings probably explain why the favourable attitude expressed by our respondents
towards immunocastration is not translated into a strong self-reported willingness to pay.
It is important to emphasise that these results reflect consumer perceptions at the time the survey
took place, meaning that they can shift and fluctuate over time. As a consequence, if meat from
immunocastrated pigs is about to be introduced, it will be important to pay attention and clearly
communicate about the impact on price, food safety and taste. It will be especially important to
avoid negative and/or incorrect information about these issues, given disproportionally large
impacts of possible negative publicity related to food safety issues (Verbeke and Vackier, 2004;
Verbeke and Ward, 2001).
Finally, the communication experiment in which the impact of an information message was tested
on consumers’ attitude and behaviour towards immunocastration resulted in non-significant
effects. There could be several reasons for this outcome. First, the message was a merely rational
message, which requires a substantial degree of active and rational information processing from the
recipient audience. Possibly an emotional message or a message providing images or a video would
have triggered a higher impact. Second, as the questionnaires were completed on-line outside the
control of an interviewer, we do not have any information on the extent to which the message was
effectively read by the respondents. Given the rather low awareness and concern about piglet
castration in our sample, one can expect a low degree of issue involvement. Typically, low issue
involvement results in a low level of active reasoning and a low level of conscious information
processing (Mittal and Lee, 1989; Verbeke and Vackier, 2004). Consumer involvement is also
important for the formation of beliefs, attitudes and intentions (Verbeke and Vackier, 2004). The
reported low involvement implies that attitudes and beliefs are not strongly shaped and can shift in
either direction depending on the individual, the context and the information received. This
illustrates the importance of avoiding incorrect and negative publicity and of encouraging
communication that can shift consumers’ beliefs and attitudes in a favourable direction, especially
on the product attributes that strongly impact on consumer purchase behaviour and where
uncertainty is present at consumer level.
108
Chapter 6 : Piglet castration – European citizens
Chapter
6
Piglet castration – European
citizens
Adapted from Vanhonacker, F. , and W. Verbeke. 2011. Consumer response to the possible use of a
vaccine method to control boar taint versus physical piglet castration with anaesthesia: a
quantitative study in four EU countries. Animal, in press.
Abstract
This chapter further investigates the topic of piglet castration from the consumer side. Opposite to
the previous chapter, this chapter is based on a European sample and measures consumer attitudes
towards immunocastration relative to physical castration with anaesthesia or analgesia. This
chapter is further complemented with a segmentation analysis. This large-scale quantitative crosscountry study (n=4,031) involving representative samples of consumers in France, Germany, the
Netherlands and Belgium does not support the reserved attitude of stakeholders who fear potential
low market acceptance for immunocastration as alternative practice. The vaccine method was
actually preferred by the majority of consumers surveyed (69.6 percent of the participants) and it
was perceived as equally effective in terms of avoiding boar taint. 43.8 percent of the consumers
reported an intention to seek out pork from pigs where the vaccine had been used to control boar
taint, whereas 33.7 percent reported an intention to avoid pork from pigs physically castrated with
anaesthesia. Consumers’ favourable dispositions towards the vaccine method were independent of
dominant ethics-, health- or price-orientations when purchasing pork.
109
Part III
1. Introduction
This chapter concentrates on the vaccine method (synonym of immunocastration or
immunovaccination), more specifically on the consumer acceptance of the method as opposed to
physical castration with anaesthesia or analgesia. Both are possible solutions for the contested
current practice of physical castration without anaesthesia. The vaccine (ImprovacTM, Pfizer GmbH)
has recently been registered and is thus available on the market. The vaccine method has been
associated with higher daily weight gain, better feed conversion and a higher percentage of lean
meat (Prunier et al., 2006). In addition, von Borell et al. (2009) reported a positive effect on welfare
in relation to pain during and after castration for immunocastration, and Baumgartner et al. (2010)
concluded that the behaviour of vaccinated male pigs does not create additional problems during
the fattening period, when compared with physically castrated pigs. With regard to economic
implications, de Roest et al. (2009) concluded that the improvement in feed efficiency may
compensate almost entirely for the cost of the vaccination and it is noted that the vaccine is sold
with the claim of providing a positive economic return to pig farmers. The benefits in terms of the
animal’s welfare, though poorly investigated (von Borell et al., 2009), are widely recognised.
Recently, Fàbrega et al. (2010) confirmed improved welfare aspects such as reduced aggression and
reduced mounting behaviour.
The pig industry however is rather reserved towards the vaccine method, because of uncertainties
regarding marketplace and consumer acceptance of the method. Alleged reasons for concern relate
to the possible perception of a (false) link with a hormone treatment (de Roest et al., 2009; Heinritzi
et al., 2006; Prunier and Bonneau, 2006), which is a very sensitive issue among European meat
consumers (Verbeke et al., 2007a; Verbeke et al., 1999). Clinical research has shown that the
consumption of meat from vaccinated pigs does not involve any risk to human health, which would
also be anticipated from the protein composition and immunological mode of action (Clarke et al.,
2008).
A positive consumer perception is a key determinant for the applicability of a new method (Frewer,
1999; Huber-Eicher and Spring, 2008), especially in a demand-driven market and economy. As
discussed before, consumer acceptance is put forward as the key for market success of the vaccine
method. Several studies already concentrated on investigating consumer acceptance and
perception of boar meat, mainly through sensory experiments with experts, lay consumers or a
combination of both (see Allison et al. (2009) and Heid and Hamm (2009) for a review). The studies
that also investigated consumer perceptions of pork from vaccinated pigs (e.g. Font I Furnols et al.
(2008)) indicated that pork meat from vaccinated pigs was experienced at least equally good as pork
meat from castrated and/or female pigs. In contrast, pork meat from entire boars was most often
evaluated worse than meat from vaccinated or castrated pigs. Hence, there appears to be no
increased likelihood of dissatisfying consumers in terms of sensory properties of the meat
compared to the current practice. The present challenge that will be addressed in this chapter is to
110
Chapter 6 : Piglet castration – European citizens
investigate the likelihood that EU consumers would not be willing to accept or purchase pork from
immunised pigs for reasons of a perceived food safety risk (e.g. fear for residuals among Norwegian
consumers as reported by Fredriksen et al. (2010)). Few studies have concentrated on such prepurchase attitudes and decision processes, and the available studies pertain to survey approaches
on a single country level, e.g. Hennessy and Newbold (2004) (Australia), Lagerkvist et al. (2006) and
Liljenstolpe (2008) (Sweden), Giffin et al. (2008) and Huber-Eicher and Spring (2008) (Switzerland),
Fredriksen et al. (2010) (Norway), Vanhonacker et al. (2009) (Belgium, see Chapter 5), and
Fredriksen et al. (2010) (Norway).
The lack of cross-national comparisons and analyses in previous studies is a major limitation in an
international economic context. The PIGCAS project followed an international approach, though
results were based on a limited number of representatives of the different stakeholders, a
shortcoming that has been acknowledged by the project consortium (Fredriksen et al., 2009). The
consumers’ opinion was investigated through interviewing consumer organisations, which does not
necessarily coincide with individual consumers’ views. Except for the Swiss study by Huber-Eicher
and Spring (2008), Liljenstolpe (2008) (who did not specifically address the vaccine method) and
Fredriksen et al. (2010) in Norway (who used the term “medical castration” and presented the use
of anaesthesia as the standard procedure), previous studies mostly provided reassurance to the pig
industry, denoting a favourable consumer attitude with regard to the vaccine method. In Chapter 5
this favourable attitude was linked mainly to a better perception score on animal welfare and a
higher consumer acceptance, in spite of some uncertainty among consumers related to price.
Several studies have pointed towards the importance that communication and information
provision about the method will play on the consumer acceptance of the method (Heid and Hamm,
2009; Spring et al., 2009). Given that consumers are only scarcely aware of piglet castration, and
only few consumers ever heard of the vaccine method, large-scale surveys need to inform
participants before attitudes can be measured. As such, differences between the findings of
different studies are probably partly related to the design of the study including the ex-ante
information provision to participants. In this perspective, there is a need for cross-country studies
that evaluate the consumers’ acceptance of the vaccine method, their (non-)preference for the
method over physical castration with anaesthesia (as the most feasible alternative short-term
solution at the present moment), and their likelihood to actively seek out or avoid pork produced
with this method.
The specific objective of the present chapter was to investigate consumer response, preference and
purchasing intention in four member states of the European Union: Belgium (BE), France (FR),
Germany (DE) and the Netherlands (NL). The study herewith focuses on a cluster of four
neighbouring West-European which are important players in terms of pig production, pork
consumption and intra EU or international pork trade. Possible differences between and within
countries will be presented and discussed. This chapter tackles the key issue that dominates the
present (anno 2010) debate about the vaccine method, namely the uncertainty towards the prepurchase consumer acceptance or rejection of meat from vaccinated pigs. Covering different
111
Part III
countries matches with international business goals, market organisations and trade economies and
rules out a possible framing effect from comparing methodologically different national studies.
2. Material and methods
Methodological details in terms of research approach and sampling procedure are provided under
Part I section 4, and apply to Study 6.
2.1.
Measurement and scaling
Participants were asked to complete a self-administered, structured, electronic questionnaire,
which consisted of two parts, separated from each other by information provision on boar taint, on
physical castration with anaesthesia and on the vaccine method as alternative methods to eliminate
boar taint. In the first part of the questionnaire, next to some general questions related to the
socio-demographic profile of the respondents, pork consumption frequency and product attribute
importance in the purchase decision process of pork was assessed. Response categories for
consumption frequency were “more than once a week”, “once a week” and “two to three times a
month”. Perceived product attribute importance was measured for price, taste, health, animal
welfare and environmental friendly production. The selection of these five attributes was informed
by previous studies (Grunert et al., 2004; Vanhonacker and Verbeke, 2009; Verbeke, 2009; Verbeke
and Viaene, 1999a) and by the possible perceived relation between the vaccine method and each of
these attributes in consumers’ perception. The importance of “reasonably priced”, “tastes good”,
“is healthy for your diet”, “animal was treated as humanely as possible” and “production of meat is
done in an environmental friendly way” was measured on a seven-point Likert interval scale that
ranged from “not at all important” (1) to “extremely important” (7).
In order to account for country-specific and individual-specific scale use, the raw data were centred
by individual. As such, the respondent’s original score was replaced by a relative individual score
that ranges from -1 to +1. These relative product importance scores will be used to identify market
segments in our sample and to investigate how possible market segments with different purchase
motives differ in terms of acceptance of, preference for, and purchasing intention in relation to pork
from vaccinated versus physically castrated pigs. Before the second part of the survey, participants
were informed by means of a textual message about boar taint, and the two alternative methods
(of interest in this study) to avoid the development of boar taint, i.e. physical castration with
anaesthesia and the vaccine method (Table 3.7).
After exposure to the information, participants were asked about their (aided) awareness of boar
taint and the two alternative methods. Response categories were “I have never heard of it”, “I have
heard of it but do not know much about it” and “I have heard of it and know about this issue”. Next,
acceptance of the two methods was measured on a seven-point scale that ranged from “completely
112
Chapter 6 : Piglet castration – European citizens
unacceptable” (1) to “completely acceptable” (7). Respondents’ confidence in the efficiency of the
method with regard to eliminating boar taint was measured on a five point scale, ranging from “not
at all confident” (1) to “very confident” (5). A five point scale was also used to measure the
respondents’ likelihood of seeking out or avoiding pork produced using either method, where 1
corresponded with “definitely avoid” and 5 with “definitely seek out”. The scale’s midpoint was
anchored with “neither seek out nor avoid”. This variable will be analysed as a categorical variable.
Willingness to pay a moderate price premium for pork raised with either method was registered on
a seven-point scale that ranged from “definitely would not pay a slight premium” (1) to “definitely
would pay a slight premium” (7). Willingness to pay for pork from the vaccine method (physical
castration method) was only registered for people who had expressed a preference for the vaccine
method (physical castration method).
Finally, two questions directly opposed the two alternative methods one to another. First,
respondents were asked to indicate their preference on a seven-point scale that ranged from
“strongly prefer the physical castration method” (1) to “strongly prefer the vaccine method” (7),
with “neutral” being the scale’s midpoint (4). Second, they had to indicate their choice between the
following four response categories relating to purchasing intention: “I will try to only eat pork
produced using the vaccine method”, “I am happy to eat pork produced using either method”, “I
will try to only eat pork produced using the physical castration method”, and “I will not eat pork
using either method (i.e. I will no longer eat pork)”.
2.2.
Statistical analyses
Data were analysed using SPSS 15.0. Descriptive analyses were used to report and discuss the
responses on the different questions on country-level. Hierarchical clustering with Ward’s method
and squared Euclidean distance was performed using the product attribute importance scores on
taste, price, health and ethics (animal welfare and environmental friendly) as segmentation
variables, followed by a K-Means cluster analysis with initial cluster centres that resulted from the
hierarchical procedure. The optimal number of clusters (so-called segments) was based on an
increase in distance indices, together with a split-run procedure. Cross-tabulations with chi-square
statistics are used to profile the segments in terms of socio-demographics and pork consumption
frequency. Possible differences in terms of preference and acceptance measures between market
segments and different socio-demographic consumer groups were analysed through bivariate
analyses (one-way ANOVA and independent samples t-tests).
113
Part III
Table 3.7. Textual information provided to participants
Boar taint
In sexually maturing male pigs, the developing testes can give rise to the accumulation of certain
substances in the meat. These substances are released during cooking and can give meat an
unpleasant flavour and odour described as sweat or urine. This characteristic is referred to as boar
taint. Unfortunately, as much as 75% of the population is sensitive to boar taint, making tainted
meat inedible. Currently, pork producers follow different procedures to ensure boar taint is not
present in the pork before reaching the stores for purchase.
Physical castration with anaesthesia
Using this method, male piglets are physically castrated by the farmer within the first week of birth.
Once their scrotum is cut with a scalpel, their testes are pulled out and cut off. To improve animal
welfare, the technique of using anaesthesia during castration is under evaluation such as the use of
a gas for inhalation anaesthesia or the injection of a local anaesthetic into the testes. Throughout
this survey, please assume that anaesthesia is always used during physical castration.
• Castrated male pigs eliminates 99%+ of boar taint (unpleasant favour/odour) in the meat
• Castrated pigs are less aggressive and easier to manage on the farm than non-castrated pigs
• Nevertheless, the open wound could become a source of infection or disease, which may lead
to death
• Pain and stress from physical castration may be reduced by using anaesthesia during
castration, but may return once the anaesthesia wears off
• The anaesthesia does not leave any detectable residue in the meat
• Castration early in life reduces the efficiency of the male pig’s metabolism, which means that
castrated pigs will eat more food and produce more environmental waste
• Meat produced from castrated pigs tends to have more fat in the meat
Vaccine against boar taint
As an alternative to physical castration, male pigs can be given a vaccine to prevent boar taint. The
vaccine works by stimulating the pig’s own immune system to create antibodies which temporarily
limit the function of testes, preventing the accumulation of the substances that cause boar taint.
This product is an injected vaccine, and is not a hormone or a drug.
• This vaccine eliminates 99%+ of boar taint (unpleasant flavour/odor) in the meat
• At the time of use, this vaccine will be approved by the [country] authorities
• In eight years’ experience with the product in Australia and New Zealand, the vaccine has
performed well and there have been no safety concerns
• The vaccine does not leave any detectable residue in the meat
• This method has no pain, stress or health consequences associated with it
• Since the pigs are vaccinated late in life, this method allows the male pig to spend most of its
life growing and maturing naturally, eating less food and producing less environmental waste
than pigs that use other methods for the removal of boar taint
• The meat from vaccinated pigs tends to be leaner than the meat from pigs that use other
methods for the removal of boar taint
• To use this method, farmers will need to change their current operating procedures and
follow strict quality controls to ensure every male pig is properly vaccinated
• In addition, farmers will need to use special safety vaccinators to minimise the risk of
accidental self-injection
114
Chapter 6 : Piglet castration – European citizens
3. Results
3.1.
Descriptive analyses
Consumers’ aided awareness of boar taint and the methods to eliminate its development was very
limited (Table 3.8). More than half of the sample indicated to have never heard of boar taint. The
low level of awareness with regards to boar taint was most evident in France and Belgium. The
vaccine method was completely unknown to a large majority of the sample and less known than the
physical castration method. French and German consumers were the least aware of both methods.
Overall, once consumers were made aware of the two alternative methods, the acceptance score
for the vaccine method surpassed the acceptability of the physical castration method. Differences in
absolute acceptance scores between both methods were most pronounced in Belgium, France and
the Netherlands. German responses were characterised by a higher number of neutral answers on
both questions. For both methods a similar degree of confidence was expressed with regard to
eliminating boar taint. Absolute confidence scores were slightly in favour of the physical method in
Germany, while the opposite was found in all other countries. Mean confidence scores were in the
range of 3.2 to 3.5 on the five-point scale, thus on the positive side but with a high share of neutral
responses (39.4% and 39.2% for physical castration and the vaccine method, respectively), which is
in line with the reported unawareness about boar taint and both presented methods to prevent it.
Similar results were found for the degree of seeking out or avoiding pork from either method. While
consumers in all countries were strongly in favour of the vaccine method, this was the least
pronounced in Germany. Responses to the question about preference for one method over the
other were characterised by a relatively high share of the German sample preferring physical
castration (18.2%) or taking a neutral position (20.7%). Except by German consumers, a negative
willingness to pay a price premium for pork from physically castrated pigs was expressed (absolute
score below 4; significantly in Belgium). Small positive willingness to pay figures were found with
respect to the vaccine method (absolute scores above 4; significantly in France, Germany and The
Netherlands).
Directly probing for the respondent’s preference for one method over another resulted in a clear
preference for the vaccine method. About 70 percent of the total sample expressed a preference
for the vaccine method, while about 12 percent favoured the physical castration method. Finally,
about half of the sample reported the intention to eat only pork from vaccinated pigs. A minority of
between 11.6 percent in Germany and 3.8 percent in the Netherlands reported an intention to eat
only pork from physical castrated pigs.
115
Part III
3.2.
Segmentation analysis
Consumer preferences do not stop at the country’s borders. Therefore, a cross-country
segmentation analysis on the total sample has been performed in order to provide a more realistic
and economically relevant picture of the market structure. Following the clustering procedure as
described in the analysis section, a three-cluster solution came out as most optimal. The respective
size of the clusters and the scores on the segmentation variables are reported in Table 3.9.
Segment 1 (59.1 percent of the sample) can be typified as ethics-oriented consumers or citizens.
The relative importance of the ethical attributes was the highest in this segment as compared to the
other segments and these attributes were rated equally important as price and health. Taste
received the highest relative importance score within this segment as compared to other attributes,
but was the lowest as compared to the other segments. Given the high reported importance of
ethical issues relative to other segments, and the contrast with market shares of meat with
enhanced ethical characteristics, it can realistically be assumed that individuals belonging to this
segment have reflected a citizen rather than consumer opinion (Krystallis et al., 2009; Vanhonacker
et al., 2008). The second segment (21.7 percent of the sample) is strongly taste and price oriented,
and reports a very low relative importance attached to ethical issues. Compared to both other
segments a healthy diet is deemed relatively more important. Consumers belonging to the third
segment (19.2 percent of the sample) focus solely on taste and price. Especially the minor
importance of health is remarkable in this segment. The relative importance attached to ethical
issues by segment 3 corresponded with the sample’s average.
When the absolute scores of the segmentation variables were considered, mean scores for
perceived importance of taste did not differ between the three segments (F=0.99, p=0.371); taste
was considered the most important product attribute across all consumer segments. In segment 1,
each of the four attributes was deemed very important, with reasonably prices receiving the lowest
score in absolute terms. Segment 2 attributed very high importance to both taste and a reasonable
price. A healthy diet, though perceived as important, was somewhat subordinate to both taste and
price. Ethical issues were unimportant to this segment. Segment 3 differs from segment 2 because
of its low rating on perceived importance of health. In this segment, taste and price appeared to be
the most relevant attributes taken into account. Based on these profiles, the segments will further
be referred as (1) “average, ethics-oriented”, (2) “low-ethics, health-oriented” and (3) “priceoriented”.
Differences in country-distribution were mainly related to segment 2 and 3 (χ²= 99.94, p<0.001)
(Table 3.10). Segment 2 was characterised by a higher share of Dutch and a lower share of Germans
and French. The opposite was found for segment 3. Males were slightly overrepresented in segment
2 and 3; females in segment 1 (χ²=32.02, p<0.001). With regard to age, differences were mainly
related to the youngest (< 35 years) versus the oldest age categories (> 55 years). The youngest
belonged more to segment 2 and less to segment 1. The oldest on the other hand were found more
116
Chapter 6 : Piglet castration – European citizens
in segment 1 and less in the two other segments. In terms of pork consumption frequency, the
highest consumption frequency was found in segments 2 and 3 (χ²=27.04, p<0.001). Nevertheless,
all respondents consumed pork regularly given that this variable was an inclusion criterion.
Table 3.9. Profile of consumer segments on segmentation variables; relative (sum across
attributes equals 4) and absolute importance scores
Segmentation variables/
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Sample mean*
Reasonably priced
0.96
1.15
1.24
1.05
Good taste
1.08
1.22
1.27
1.15
Healthful
0.98
1.01
0.63
0.92
Ethical
0.98
0.62
0.86
0.88
Reasonably priced
5.73a (1.19)
6.10b (0.97)
6.22c (1.00)
5.91 (1.13)
Good taste
6.40 (0.84)
6.42 (0.80)
6.37 (0.85)
6.40 (0.83)
Attributes
Relative scores
Absolute scores**
c
Healthful
5.85 (1.03)
c
Ethical
Segment size
Name
*
**
b
5.38 (1.07)
a
a
5.25 (1.44)
b
3.25 (1.08)
5.86 (0.95)
3.31 (1.03)
4.42 (1.42)
5.03 (1.50)
n
2,386
873
772
4,031
%
59.1
21.7
19.2
Average,
Low ethics,
Price-oriented
Ethics-oriented
Health-oriented
a-c
Reference value; Scale: 1= not at all important, 7= extremely important; Scores in a row with different
superscript are significantly different at p<0.05 (one-way ANOVA F-tests with Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3
post hoc comparison of mean scores)
117
Part III
Table 3.8. Descriptive analyses for the different countries
Pooled sample
(n=4,031)
BE
(n=1,031)
FR
(n=993)
DE
(n=1,006)
NL
(n=1,001)
53.7
35.0
11.3
58.2
30.8
11.1
64.9
26.2
8.9
44.4
45.2
10.3
48.5
33.1
18.4
44.5
34.6
20.9
59.4
19.6
21.0
86.8
11.2
2.0
85.3
11.6
3.1
3.74 (1.74)
5.38 (1.61)
Test statistic
p-value
47.1
38.0
14.9
χ²=63.01
<0.001
52.7
33.5
13.8
37.7
44.6
17.7
χ²=169.56
<0.001
90.0
8.5
1.4
90.8
7.8
1.4
81.0
17.1
1.9
χ²=65.02
<0.001
3.84b (1.78)
5.62c (1.51)
3.48a (1.72)
5.39b (1.66)
3.91b (1.71)
4.83a (1.70)
3.71b (1.70)
5.69c (1.40)
F=11.78
F=62.09
<0.001
<0.001
3.32 (0.96)
3.45 (0.90)
3.25a (0.99)
3.40a (0.98)
3.17a (0.97)
3.40a (0.92)
3.60b (0.97)
3.53b (0.92)
3.24a (0.90)
3.47ab (0.78)
F=42.67
F=4.69
<0.001
0.003
15.4
50.9
33.7
16.6
52.7
30.7
13.8
50.8
37.0
20.5
47.0
32.5
10.5
55.0
34.5
χ²=48.49
<0.001
43.8
44.4
11.8
42.6
48.6
8.8
44.9
41.0
14.1
34.5
55.0
10.5
42.0
51.6
6.4
χ²=103.58
<0.001
3.85 (1.92)
4.47 (1.87)
3.25a (2.03)
4.03a (1.94)
3.80ab (2.00)
4.39b (1.93)
4.27b (1.75)
4.88c (1.67)
3.76ab (1.80)
4.62bc (1.80)
F=6.44
F=25.61
<0.001
<0.001
5.50 (1.71)
11.9
18.5
69.6
5.55 (1.72)
11.1
17.4
71.5
5.59 (1.72)
11.7
16.8
71.5
5.10 (1.81)
18.2
20.7
61.1
5.77 (1.50)
6.5
19.0
74.5
F=28.33
χ²=78.22
<0.001
<0.001
50.1
36.3
7.5
6.0
51.9
37.6
5.7
4.7
52.4
31.7
9.0
7.0
46.1
35.7
11.6
6.5
49.8
40.3
3.8
6.0
χ²=69.05
<0.001
Awareness boar taint (%)
Never heard of it
Heard of, but don’t know much about
Heard of and know a lot about
Awareness physical castration (%)
Never heard of it
Heard of, but don’t know much about
Heard of and know a lot about
Awareness vaccine method (%)
Never heard of it
Heard of, but don’t know much about
Heard of and know a lot about
Acceptance (7-pt scale; Mean (SD))
Physical castration
Vaccine method
Confidence in elimination boar taint (5-pt scale; Mean (SD))
Physical castration
Vaccine method
Seek out vs. Avoid (%)
Physical castration
Would seek out
Neutral
Would avoid
Vaccine method
Would seek out
Neutral
Would avoid
Willingness to pay (7-pt scale; Mean (SD))
Physical castration
Vaccine method
Preference (7-pt scale)
Mean (SD)
Preference for physical castration (%)
Neutral (%)
Preference for vaccine method (%)
Pork consumption intention (%)
Would eat only pork from vaccine method
Would eat pork from either method
Would eat only pork from physical castration
Would stop eating pork
a-c
Scores in a row with different superscript are significantly different at p<0.05 (one-way ANOVA F-tests with Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores)
118
Chapter 6 : Piglet castration – European citizens
Table 3.10. Profile of the different segments in terms of socio-demographics, pork consumption
frequency and absolute product importance scores
Total
*
sample
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Average,
Ethicsoriented
Low ethics,
Healthoriented
Priceoriented
Belgium
France
Germany
The Netherlands
25.6
24.6
25.0
24.9
25.4
25.7
24.8
24.1
27.1
18.0
20.2
34.7
24.4
28.6
30.8
16.2
Male
Female
49.6
50.4
46.0
54.0
56.3
43.7
53.2
46.8
18-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
> 65 years
9.3
16.6
21.2
20.9
15.1
17.0
7.1
14.8
20.2
21.1
16.7
20.0
13.3
20.4
21.2
20.8
12.3
12.0
11.5
17.7
24.1
20.3
13.2
13.2
Pork consumption frequency
2 to 3 times a month
Once a week
More than once a week
17.6
36.8
45.6
18.6
39.2
42.2
16.6
32.9
50.5
15.7
33.9
50.5
Country (%)
Gender (%)
Age category (%)
*
Test
statistics
p-value
χ²=99.94
<0.001
χ²=32.02
<0.001
χ²=91.21
<0.001
χ²=27.04
<0.001
Reference value
3.3.
Between-group comparisons
Central questions in the analyses were the respondents’ self-reported acceptance of both methods,
the preference for one method over the other, the extent to which respondents would seek out or
avoid pork from either method and their claimed pork purchasing intention. These questions will be
related to the three market segments, the respondent’s demographic profile, awareness and
confidence in the methods, in order to detect the underlying motivations for choosing one method
over another. In the first part, the focus will be on acceptance and preference ratings; the second
part will deal with the other two central questions that relate more to claimed purchasing intention.
3.4.
Acceptance of both alternative methods
Acceptance ratings for the physical castration method were not significantly correlated with
acceptance ratings for the vaccine method (r=0.005, p=0.753). Thus, a high acceptance for one
method did not necessarily involve a rejection of the other method. After a recoding of the original
seven-point scale into a categorical three point scale (1=unacceptable, 2=neutral, 3=acceptable), it
resulted that 73.4 percent of the respondents who accept the physical castration method also
accept the vaccine method (n=942, 23.4 percent of the total sample). A minority of 3.8 percent of
119
Part III
the sample (n=154) accepts the physical castration method, while rejecting the vaccine method. In
contrast, 31.3 percent (n=1,261) accept the vaccine method and reject physical castration. Finally,
4.7 percent (n=188) rejects both methods.
The different market segments differed in their acceptance of the physical castration (p<0.001),
with the lowest acceptance score in segment 1 (“average, ethics-oriented”; μ=3.59) and the highest
acceptance in segment 2 (“low-ethics, health-oriented”; μ=4.05). For all three segments,
significantly higher acceptance scores appeared for the vaccine method as compared to physical
castration, but no differences were found between segments for the acceptance of the vaccine
method (p=0.110). Combining the two acceptance measures (in their categorical format) indicates
that the “low-ethics, health-oriented” segment does not have a strong preference for one method
over the other, as long as the elimination of boar taint is guaranteed. This segment accounts for
26.2 percent and 26.0 percent of the consumers who are neutral to or accepting both methods,
respectively (Table 3.11). These shares are significantly different from the segment’s share of 21.6
percent in the total sample. Segment 1 (“average, ethics-oriented”) was more pronounced in its
opinion, with a lower presence in the double neutral group (50.4 percent as compared to the
segment’s share of 59.2 percent in the total sample). They appeared to be most rejecting physical
castration, given a higher presence in response categories where physical castration was reported
as unacceptable (around 65 percent as compared to the segment’s share of 59.2 percent in the total
sample). Segment 3 was rather equally present across the different combinations.
The acceptance scores were strongly linked with the respondents’ confidence in an effective
elimination of boar taint. Further, acceptance scores for the physical castration method were higher
among men (p<0.001) and did not differ between gender for the vaccine method (p=0.155). Age did
not impact on the acceptance of physical castration (p=0.418), while the youngest respondents (1824 years) indicated a higher acceptance of the vaccine method than respondents aged above 54
years (p<0.001).
Table 3.11. Combination of the responses on acceptance of physical castration method and
acceptability of vaccine method
Does not accept physical castration
Does not accept vaccine method
Neutral on vaccine method
Accept vaccine method
Neutral on physical castration
Does not accept vaccine method
Neutral on vaccine method
Accept vaccine method
Accept physical castration
Does not accept vaccine method
Neutral on vaccine method
Accept vaccine method
*Share in the total sample
120
Segment 1
(59.2%)*
Segment 2
(21.6%)*
Segment 3
(19.1%)*
65.1
65.1
63.8
15.9
15.1
18.6
19.0
19.7
17.6
67.3
50.4
59.5
16.3
26.2
22.9
16.3
23.3
17.6
60.8
55.9
53.2
21.6
23.4
26.0
17.6
20.7
20.8
Chapter 6 : Piglet castration – European citizens
3.5.
Preference for the vaccine method over physical castration
The preference score (the higher the stronger the preference is for the vaccine method) differed
significantly between segments (p=0.004), with a lower mean score for segment 2 (“low-ethics,
health-oriented”; μ=5.38) as compared to segment 1 (“average, ethics-oriented”; μ=5.58). In line
with gender differences with respect to acceptance of both methods, a higher preference for the
vaccine method was found among females (p<0.001). In a similar vein, a higher preference score
was found among younger (18-24 years) consumers as compared to consumers aged above 45
years (p<0.001). No significant differences in acceptance and preference scores were found for
different levels of pork consumption frequency (p>0.05).
3.6.
Associations with claimed pork purchasing intentions
On the question whether the respondent would seek out or avoid pork from either vaccinated or
physically castrated pigs, about one third of the sample (30.3 percent) answered neutral for both
methods. This reflects that the method of eliminating boar taint in rearing male pigs is not top of
mind among a substantial share of consumers when purchasing pork. Nevertheless, 17 percent
would avoid pork from physically castrated pigs while seeking out pork from vaccinated pigs. In
contrast, only 2.6 percent would actively seek pork from physically castrated pigs and avoid pork
from vaccinated pigs. The “average, ethics-oriented” segment 1 was underrepresented in the
neutral groups, while more strongly represented mainly in the group that would avoid pork from
physically castrated pigs and the group that would seek out pork from vaccinated pigs (Table 3.12).
The “low-ethics, health-oriented” segment 2 was characterised by a higher presence in the neutral
groups and an underrepresentation in the groups that would avoid or seek out either of both
methods. Segment 3 could not be clearly profiled on these behavioural intention items.
Table 3.12. Intention to seeking out and avoidance of pork from physically castrated and
vaccinated male pigs, % of consumers
Physical castration method
Share in total
Would
sample
seek out
Segment 1
59.2
63.7
Segment 2
21.6
Segment 3
19.1
Vaccine method
Would
Would
avoid
seek out
52.0
68.0
66.2
51.2
62.9
15.8
27.6
15.3
16.3
28.3
16.6
20.5
20.4
16.7
17.5
20.5
20.4
Neutral
Neutral
Would
avoid
Similar results were found when the market segments were compared in relation to the question
that asked about pork purchasing intentions (results not shown). The “average, ethics-oriented”
segment 1 appeared more strongly in the groups with a pronounced opinion and thus less in the
group that does not care about the method of castration. This indifferent response option was
strongly reported by respondents from the “low-ethics, health-oriented” segment 2. Segment 2 was
also most absent in the group that indicated to stop eating pork.
121
Part III
Respondents who claimed to try to eat only pork from vaccinated pigs had the highest preference
score (i.e. highest preference for the vaccine method), opposed to the lowest preference score for
respondents who claimed to eat only pork from physical castrated pigs (Table 3.13). Positive
acceptance scores (> 4) were found for the group that does not care about the method used. Within
the group that indicates to stop eating pork, the lower acceptance score for pork from physically
castrated pigs (μ=2.75) as compared to pork from vaccinated pigs (μ=3.62) reveals that rejection of
physical castration is a much stronger potential motivation to stop eating pork than possible
rejection of the vaccine method. Confidence in the effectiveness of the method appeared to be
related to the preferred method and a low confidence in a proper elimination of boar taint seemed
to be a motive for a refusal for eating pork.
With respect to age, there was a tendency that more elderly would seek out pork from physically
castrated pigs and more youngsters would seek out pork from vaccinated pigs. Men were more
likely to seek out pork from physically castrated pigs and females to seek out pork from vaccinated
pigs. Females were also more present in the group that claims to try to eat only pork from
vaccinated pigs. Males were overrepresented in the group that would buy pork produced using
either method.
Table 3.13. Relation between claimed behaviour and attitude measures related to piglet
castration
Preference score
Acceptance of physical
castration
Acceptance of the
vaccine method
Confidence about
physical castration
Confidence about the
vaccine method
a-d
Would eat only
Would eat pork
Would eat only
pork from the
from either
pork from physical
vaccine method
method
castration
c
4.68
b
4.50
d
5.25
b
3.51
c
3.35
6.55
3.07
6.00
3.20
3.75
b
2.15
c
5.30
c
3.34
c
3.77
b
2.63
Would stop eating
pork
a
4.88
b
d
2.75
a
3.62
d
2.60
a
2.58
a
b
a
a
Scores in a row with different superscript are significantly different at p<0.05 (one-way ANOVA F-tests with
Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3 comparison of mean scores)
122
Chapter 6 : Piglet castration – European citizens
4. Discussion
This chapter contributes to the contemporary (anno 2010) debate on the castration of male piglets
and has placed particular focus on the vaccine method (the alternative term used in this study for
immunocastration) relative to physical castration with anaesthesia. This study allows drawing crossnational conclusions and herewith is an international comparison complement to the existing
national studies that often differ from each other in their design and information provision, and are
therefore hard to compare.
In the present survey particular focus has been placed on the vaccine method relative to physical
castration with anaesthesia, given that both methods are considered as possible and economically
feasible solutions in the short-run to the reduction of boar taint (von Borell et al., 2009). In this
study, pre-purchase consumer attitudes and claimed purchasing behaviour with regard to (pork
from) the vaccine method and physical castration with anaesthesia were investigated. A study of
this scale with cross-country comparison and segmentation analysis is unprecedented. Crosscountry differences observed in terms of awareness, acceptance and preference most likely reflect,
first, (dis)similarities in terms of consumer familiarity with pig production and consumer interests
when purchasing pork. The issue has been covered explicitly by means of the identification and
profiling of cross-national consumer segments. Second, differences in the national pork markets and
pork markets environments, including policies in relation to piglet castration and related
communications, may explain another part of the observed cross-cultural differences. Detailed
analysis and discussion of the latter market-environmental factors are outside the scope of this
chapter.
Descriptive analyses showed a low consumer awareness of boar taint, probably related to the
effective elimination and the very rare prevalence of tainted meat, and corroborates earlier findings
(e.g. Hennessy and Newbold, 2004) and findings from the previous chapter (Chapter 5). A
corresponding low awareness was found for physical castration as a method to eliminate boar taint.
The vaccine method was even more unfamiliar to the large majority of the sample. A slightly larger
percentage of consumers who claimed to be well aware of the vaccine method was found in
Belgium (though this percentage was still very low), which is most likely due to the later data
collection as compared to the other countries. Low awareness corresponds with consumers and
citizens dissociation from animal production and animal production practices (Harper and Henson,
2001). An (ever) increasing degree of urbanisation and industrialisation of animal production has led
to a situation whereby consumers and citizens become less and less aware of how animals are
actually reared and managed (De Tavernier et al., 2010). In this perspective, any publicity and
information that consumers will receive about the current practice of physical castration of piglets
will be important and determinant in shaping their opinion and will be possibly also influential on
their purchasing behaviour. The sector is mainly concerned about false communications that relate
the vaccine to a hormone treatment. Previous research already indicated the strong negative
123
Part III
impact such communication can have on consumers’ attitudes and meat purchasing behaviour
(Verbeke and Ward, 2001). No such indications of adverse consumer reactions to the vaccine
method were found in the present study. This is in correspondence with a previous study in
Sweden. Lagerkvist and co-authors (2006) concluded from a consumer choice experiment that food
safety risks were subordinate to animal welfare concerns, which were, in turn, dominated by food
quality (i.e. taste) concerns. In contrast, Fredriksen et al. (2010) attributed Norwegian consumers’
scepticism towards the vaccine method to fear for residuals in meat from vaccinated pigs and to
their apparent contentment with the current local practice of physical castration with anaesthesia.
Taste was the dominant product attribute in the pork purchasing process in our study. A
segmentation analysis based on product attribute importance resulted in three distinct segments,
which did not differ in their perceived importance of taste. This dominance was reflected
throughout the survey findings, also in relation to the acceptance of, and preference for the vaccine
method. Respondents were in the first place interested in meat with a high sensory quality (i.e.
without boar taint). These findings herewith underscore the relevance of adequate monitoring of
taste and sensory quality, including the prevention of off-flavours.
Only a very small number of respondents (4.7 percent) evaluated both methods (physical castration
and the vaccine method) as unacceptable after being informed about the methods. The stronger
taste was dominating the pork purchasing process and the less important animal welfare was, the
more neutral respondents were with regard to the method used to eliminate boar taint, as long as it
is eliminated. Respondents preferring the physical castration method were not willing to pay a price
premium for this meat. Respondents that preferred the vaccine method were only moderately
willing to pay a price premium. Hence it seems that the acceptance of the vaccine method will rely
more on an effective elimination of boar taint and no impact on product price, rather than on
animal welfare considerations during purchase. Although increasingly important, animal welfare is
not top of mind for the individual during the food purchasing process (Verbeke, 2009). The
likelihood of consumers searching actively for pork that is produced using the vaccine method is
thus rather small.
This chapter’s conclusion of the impact of pork price determining method acceptance is different to
the conclusion of de Roest et al. (2009), who researched the economic implications of the
alternatives to physical castration without anaesthesia. They concluded that the improvement in
feed efficiency will probably compensate the costs associated with the vaccine and therefore
defined consumer acceptance of the vaccine method as a dependent factor for the economic
feasibility of the method. Our findings indicate that acceptance and preference with respect to the
vaccine method is not associated with consumers’ price-orientation. Combining the results of both
studies argues in favour of the vaccine method. The exact role of the different product attributes in
shaping the preference for the vaccine method can be further researched in specifically adapted
(e.g. conjoint) research designs.
124
Chapter 6 : Piglet castration – European citizens
5. Conclusions
This cross-country study demonstrates that the sector’s uncertainties with respect to consumer
acceptance of the vaccine method in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium are void. The
vast majority of pork consumers in these four EU countries accept the vaccine method and strongly
prefer this method over physical castration with anaesthesia, after being informed about both
alternative methods for piglet castration. In addition, confidence that the vaccine method allows for
a proper elimination of boar taint, and acceptance and preference for the vaccine method did not
differ significantly between pork market segments that are ethics-, health- or price-oriented. These
findings indicate that the adoption of the vaccine method is unlikely to result in marketplace loss of
any particular target market. In contrast, physical castration with anaesthesia is significantly less
preferred in general and even rejected by a substantial share of the pork consumers. The observed
differences between the identified market segments suggest that in particular the majority segment
of ethics-oriented consumers/citizens reacted negatively towards physical castration with
anaesthesia. Furthermore, the study shows no evidence that providing consumers with information
about the vaccine or immunisation method would evoke risk perceptions and adverse effects in
terms of product acceptance. The conclusion of this cross-national European consumer study is that
the vaccine method is the most preferred by consumers, irrespective of their main motivation for
purchasing pork. Therefore, from a market differentiation perspective, the vaccine methods also
presents itself as a more neutral alternative than physical castration with anaesthesia, in the sense
that the application of the vaccine method might not differently affect different consumer
segments in the pork market.
125
Chapter 7 : Piglet castration – Flemish producers
Chapter
7
Piglet castration – Flemish
producers
Adapted from Tuyttens, F.A.M., F. Vanhonacker, B. Verhille, D. De Brabander, and W. Verbeke.
2011. Pig producer attitude towards surgical castration of piglets without anaesthesia versus
alternative strategies. Research in Veterinary Science resubmitted 6 December 2010.
Abstract
In addition to the two previous chapters, that approached the theme of piglet castration from a
consumer perspective, this chapter focuses on the opinion of the producer. This allows extracting
possible differences in line with the impact of place-based variables. Also, pig producers are a key
stakeholder in the discussion about more humane alternatives to the surgical castration of male
piglets for avoiding the problem of boar taint, though their attitude has rarely been documented.
This chapter reports the findings from a questionnaire among 160 Flemish pig farmers about their
preference ranking of, and attitude towards surgical castration with (SCA) and without anaesthesia
(SCN), immunocastration (IC), sperm sexing (SS) and raising entire males (EM). The farmers’ general
preference was recorded as SCN>SS>SCA=IC>EM. The farmers’ self-reported knowledge of the
strategies was associated with famers’ preference for SCA (negatively) and SS (positively). Herd size
was correlated with farmers’ preference for SCA (negatively) and SS (positively). Farmers perceived
surgical castration without anaesthesia as the most favourable strategy in terms of farm
profitability, animal performance and effectiveness against boar taint, but they expected the lowest
consumer acceptance for this strategy. Surgical castration with anaesthesia was ranked the least
favourable in terms of labour conditions. Production of entire males was viewed as the least
profitable and the least effective strategy. Sperm sexing was positively perceived, particularly in
terms of labour conditions, animal welfare, effectiveness and expected consumer acceptance. The
farmers’ opinion was quite homogeneous, especially regarding surgical castration without
anaesthesia and production of entire males. Increasing our understanding of farmers’ perception
will hopefully benefit communication about this intricate issue.
127
Part III
1. Introduction
Annually, approximately 100 million pigs or about 83 percent of the total population of male piglets,
are surgically castrated in the EU, predominantly without anaesthesia or analgesia (Fredriksen et al.,
2009). De Roest et al. (2009) stated that within the EU this practice is very unlikely to be tenable in
the future. Indeed, there are alternatives to this practice of which some are already implemented in
certain countries. For example, the use of a local or general anaesthetic is mandatory in Norway,
Switzerland and the Netherlands (for the domestic market only). With the possible exception of
Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, however, anaesthesia is very rarely used in other
European countries (Fredriksen et al., 2009). In some other countries, though, nearly all (Ireland and
the UK) or the majority (Cyprus, Spain, Portugal) of the male piglets are not castrated but raised as
entire males (Fredriksen et al., 2009). Immunocastration is used in various countries such as
Australia and New Zealand and has recently been licensed for use in the EU. Other alternatives
require more research and development before they can be implemented in practice. For example,
artificially inseminating sows with sexed sperm so that they produce female offspring only has been
suggested as a possible solution in the long term. Similarly, automated real-time sorting out of
tainted carcasses at the slaughter line is theoretically possible but has not yet been proven to be
ready for implementation in practice.
There is a large body of research in which the pros and cons of these alternatives are compared
with regard to animal welfare (reviewed by Prunier et al., 2006; von Borell et al., 2009), meat quality
(reviewed by Lundstrom et al., 2009) and economic implications (reviewed by de Roest et al., 2009).
Recently some studies have also been conducted on stakeholder attitudes towards the alternative
strategies for dealing with the problem of boar taint. Most of these studies have focused on the
attitude of consumers/citizens towards the vaccination method (Giffin et al., 2008; Hennessy and
Newbold, 2004; Huber-Eicher and Spring, 2008; Lagerkvist et al., 2006). Studies that have focused
on other alternatives or other stakeholder groups are rare. The attitudes of representatives of
various stakeholder groups in the EU towards the different alternatives were investigated as part of
the EU-PIGCAS project (EU FP6-2005-SSP-5A PIGCAS project nº 043969), but the results have not
been published in a refereed scientific journal. Besides the general public, a key stakeholder is of
course the pig producer who would have to implement the alternative strategy in practice.
Fredriksen and Nafstad (2006) conducted a survey among Norwegian veterinarians and pig
producers two years after the mandatory use of local anaesthesia for piglet castration was
implemented. The effect of the anaesthesia was subjectively evaluated to be good by 54 percent of
the veterinarians, but by only 19 percent of the pig producers. Two thirds of the veterinarians
versus one third of the pig producers judged that the use of anaesthesia improved the level of pig
welfare. On a much smaller scale Eijck et al. (2007) interviewed six organic farmers whose
veterinarians had started using local anaesthesia. Four farmers agreed completely or partly that the
use of anaesthesia was beneficial for the pig’s welfare, while the other two disagreed. A large
proportion of the 174 European representatives of the mainstream pork production chain that were
128
Chapter 7 : Piglet castration – Flemish producers
questioned as part of the PIGCAS-project were proponents to keep things as they are, at least until
better solutions for the boar taint problem are available (Ouedraogo et al., 2009). They were,
however, prepared to accept alternatives, provided that there is no extra cost or extra risk for them.
Their mean order of preference for the different alternatives was SCN (surgical castration without
anaesthesia) = SCA (surgical castration with anaesthesia) > SS (raising females only via sperm
sorting) > IC (vaccination against boar taint) = EM (production of entire male pigs). Although
valuable, this study had some important limitations. Responses were obtained via national contacts,
from a limited and unbalanced number of organisations and from representatives rather than from
individual farmers. They were not checked for accuracy and could not be considered representative
at the level of the EU, nor the country itself. Moreover, the opinion of the representatives of the
pork production chain may differ from the opinion of the pig producers themselves.
The specific objective of the present chapter was, therefore, to use a similar questionnaire as the
one used in the PIGCAS-project in order to investigate the attitude of individual Flemish (Dutch
speaking part of Belgium where 95 percent of the Belgian pig production is situated) pig producers
towards surgical castration and the various alternatives. These survey data also allowed
investigation of the effect of variables such as farmer’s age, farmer’s knowledge about the
alternatives and pig herd size on their self-reported attitude and perceptions. Insights with respect
to farmers’ attitudes can be useful for future policy decisions in relation to possible market bans,
and the introduction or adoption of one (or more) of the possible strategies to avoid boar taint.
2. Materials and methods
Methodological details in terms of research approach and sampling procedure are provided in Part
I, section 4, and apply to Study 4.
2.1.
Survey
The questionnaire assessed the attitude of Flemish pig farmers with regard to the routine practice
of surgical castration of male piglets without anaesthesia/analgesia (SCN) and various alternative
strategies to deal with the problem of boar taint. These alternatives included the surgical castration
with anaesthesia (SCA), the vaccination against boar taint (also commonly known as
immunocastration or the vaccine method) (IC), the production of entire males with detection and
removal of carcasses with boar taint at the slaughter line (EM) and raising females only via sperm
sexing (SS). The questionnaire was accompanied by a text providing background information on
each alternative. This text was a Dutch translation from the English version drafted by the PIGCAS
project (http://w3.rennes.inra.fr/pigcas). For every alternative, the method, the advantages and the
possible disadvantages were described in a concise and objective way.
129
Part III
The questionnaire consisted of two parts. In the first part, some questions were asked about the
farm characteristics and management (e.g. number of sows, boars, fattening pigs and piglets,
weaning age, slaughter age and weight, breed and gestating sow housing system) and the farmer
(e.g. date of birth, gender, self-reported knowledge level about piglet castration and its
alternatives). Self-reported knowledge level was assessed as the extent to which the respondent
believed to be informed about the routine practice of castration and its alternatives, measured on a
five point Likert scale that ranged from “I have almost no knowledge” (1) to “I am well informed” (5)
about each alternative. The second part of the questionnaire contained statements intended to
measure the farmers’ attitude towards the current practice of surgical piglet castration without
anaesthesia and the alternative strategies. This part included exactly the same statements that had
been asked to stakeholder representatives as part of the PIGCAS-study, with the exception of
questions related to the production of entire males, which were not included in the PIGCAS-study.
The statements are provided in full in Table 3.14 to Table 3.18. The respondents were asked to
express their level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale, that ranged from “totally disagree” (1)
over “neither disagree, nor agree” (3) to “totally agree” (5), concerning three to eight issue
statements for each of the alternative strategies. Respondents could also choose for a “don’t know”
option. Additionally, one specific question balancing immunocastration against the routine practice
(SCN) was included and scored on a seven-point Likert scale that ranged from “IC is much worse
than the routine practice” (1) over “neither worse, nor better” (4) to “IC is much better” (7).
Farmers were further asked to rank the five practices in general from “most suitable practice” (1) to
“least suitable practice” (5), as well as on six specific aspects (i.e. labour conditions, animal welfare,
effectiveness against boar taint, production performance, farm profitability and consumer
acceptance) from “most favourable practice” (1) to “least favourable practice” (5).
2.2.
Statistical analyses
Data were analysed with SPSS 15.0. Frequencies (as percentages) are presented in table format or
as histograms. Ranking data from the practices are statistically compared using the non-parametric
Friedman test with chi-square statistic and p-values below 0.05 as decision criterion for statistical
significance.
3. Results
3.1.
Sample profile
The geographical distribution of the farmers closely matched with the partitioning in the SANITEL
record. The age of the participating farmers ranged from 21 to 73 years, with a mean of 46.4 years
(SD=10.0). On the majority of the farms (63.9 percent), piglets were weaned between 25 and 30
days of age. Slaughter age of fattening pigs varied from 90 to 125 kg live weight and was
predominantly done in the range of 110 to 115 kg (73.6 percent of the farms). On about three
130
Chapter 7 : Piglet castration – Flemish producers
quarters of the farms, fattening pigs were slaughtered between 24 and 30 weeks. On 62.3 percent
of the farms, all gestating sows were housed individually. The number of pigs on the farm ranged
from 0 to 1,393 sows, from 0 to 55 boars, from 0 to 4,900 piglets and from 0 to 10,000 fattening
pigs.
About 20 percent of the farmers considered themselves to be poorly informed about piglet
castration and its alternatives and 62.5 percent reported to be reasonably or well informed. Only 10
percent found it advisable for Belgium to do pioneering work in Europe with respect to
implementing alternative practices for piglet castration. The majority (56.9 percent) was not in
favour of actively seeking out alternative strategies.
3.2.
Surgical castration without anaesthesia
Pig farmers in this Flemish sample reported a rather homogeneous opinion with respect to surgical
castration without anaesthesia. Responses were skewed to one side of the scale for almost all
statements dealing with SCN and corresponded with a favourable attitude towards the current
practice SCN (Table 3.14). The strongest agreement was found for the statements that positively
link SCN with avoiding aggression and mounting behaviour (84.4 percent strongly agreeing) and
with a proper elimination of boar taint (82.5 percent strongly agreeing). Sixty percent of the farmers
answered negative on the statement that male pigs should not be castrated because of the
expected higher production cost. This indicates that interest in avoiding aggression, mounting
behaviour and boar taint through castration outweighs the expected lower production costs
associated with the production of entire males. Further, 72.5 percent of the sample agreed that
castration is well endured by the animals. Very few pig farmers (2.5 percent) thought that male pigs
should not be castrated in order not to impact on the animal’s integrity. Opinions were the least
homogenous for the statement that suggested to sell pork from entire males at a lower price.
131
Part III
Table 3.14. Attitude of Flemish pig farmers with regard to surgical castration without anaesthesia.
Percentage of responses are registered on five-point Likert scales that range from “disagree
strongly” (1), over “neither agree, nor disagree” (3), to “agree strongly” (5), and an additional
“don’t know” (DK) option
1
2
3
4
5
DK
I would rather have males castrated than have a 10%
increase in the incidence of “off-flavour” when eating
pork
2.5
1.3
2.5
6.3
82.5
5.0
I would rather have males castrated than a high level of
aggression and mounting behaviour in pigs
0.6
1.9
0.0
8.1
84.4
5.0
Castration of male pigs is so painful that I think it should
be avoided
52.5
16.3
13.1
7.5
0.6
10.0
I think that male pigs should not be castrated because
castrates need more resources to be raised and
thereby they cost more to be produced
40.6
20.0
14.4
8.8
2.5
13.8
It is fair to sell pork from entire males at a lower price
than pork from castrates because of the possibility
that it is tainted
26.9
11.3
12.5
15.6
24.4
9.4
It is fair to sell pork from entire males at a higher price
than pork from castrates because avoiding castration
is good for the animal’s welfare
45.0
10.6
20.0
5.0
10.0
9.4
Castration of pigs is a very old practice which is well
endured by the animals
3.1
3.8
10.0
22.5
50.0
10.6
I think males should not be castrated, because I believe
that we should not change the natural state of the
animal
64.4
13.1
11.3
1.9
0.6
8.8
3.3.
Castration with anaesthesia and/or analgesia
In general Flemish farmers expressed a negative attitude towards SCA. They particularly disagreed
with the statements that related SCA to the worthiness of extra production (85 percent) and labour
costs (65.1 percent) and with the suggestion that it should be performed by a veterinarian (82.6
percent) (Table 3.15). In addition, 84.4 percent they did not believe that the animal’s welfare
benefits from the use of an anaesthetic, because of the stress associated with its administration.
Also, a majority (54.4 percent) deemed the risk of harmful residues from the anaesthetic more
important than the ethical consideration associated with castration without anaesthesia.
Consequently, the farmers were not willing to bear any extra costs or risks, given that the search for
alternatives is driven by public concern in terms of animal welfare, something that is not considered
a problem at farmer’s level. In the case consumers or society were willing to bear the extra costs, a
more positive farmers’ attitude towards SCA was recorded (agreement by 68.2 percent).
132
Chapter 7 : Piglet castration – Flemish producers
Table 3.15. Attitude of Flemish pig farmers with regard to surgical castration with anaesthesia
and/or analgesia. Percentage of responses are registered on five-point Likert scales that range
from “disagree strongly” (1), over “neither agree, nor disagree” (3), to “agree strongly” (5), and an
additional “don’t know” (DK) option
1
2
3
4
5
DK
51.3
13.8
10.0
15.0
3.8
6.3
81.3
1.3
4.4
3.1
3.8
6.3
75.6
9.4
5.0
1.9
3.8
4.4
11.9
4.4
10.0
14.4
53.8
5.6
40.6
13.8
21.9
6.9
4.4
12.5
1.3
3.8
6.3
18.1
66.3
4.4
68.8
10.6
9.4
1.3
1.9
8.1
I think the extra work needed to anesthetise pigs before
castration is worth doing
I think only veterinarians should be allowed to apply
anaesthetics prior to castration
Though pain prevention in castrating the animals entails
extra production costs, I think this extra is worth
paying by the farmer
Pain prevention in castrating the animals will certainly
increase the production costs; however, I think the
extra cost is worth paying by the consumer
I am less concerned with the risk of residues in pig meat
when castrated with anaesthesia, than with the idea
that the animal has been castrated without
anaesthesia
I think the animals’ welfare does not improve with
castration with anaesthesia, given that the animals
are more stressed preceding the castration
Even with anaesthesia, I think boars should not be
castrated, because I believe that we should not
change the natural state of the animal
3.4.
Immunocastration
The farmers’ opinions related to IC were less strongly skewed to one scale’s end and a higher share
of the participants chose the neutral response category or the ‘don’t know’ option as compared to
the statements for SCN and SCA (Table 3.16). Farmers seemed uncertain especially in relation to an
effective elimination of boar taint (38.8 percent answering neutral or don’t know), a possible safety
risk for the farmer during vaccination (34.4 percent) and to a possible safety risk following on
consumption (41.7 percent). 71.3 percent were unwilling to bear any extra costs from this method,
while only 13.7 percent still disagreed on the adoption of IC when extra costs were to be covered by
consumers. The statement that ‘the production of entire males should be preferred to IC because
the latter is unnatural’ was rejected by the majority of the farmers and indicates that the
importance of naturalness was perceived subordinate to the wish for a proper elimination of boar
taint (and probably less aggressive male pigs). When asked directly about their general opinion
133
Part III
about IC as compared to SCN, about half the respondents was in favour of SCN, while a minority of
13.2 percent favoured IC (Figure 3.6).
Table 3.16. Attitude of Flemish pig farmers with regard to immunocastration (IC). Percentage of
responses are registered on five-point Likert scales that range from “disagree strongly” (1), over
“neither agree, nor disagree” (3), to “agree strongly” (5), and an additional “don’t know” (DK)
option
1
2
3
4
5
DK
I doubt that IC of males can be done by the farmer without
safety risk, so I think we should avoid IC as an
alternative to surgical castration
10.0
7.5
18.1
10.0
38.1
16.3
IC may entail an increase in the production costs; however
I think any extra price is worth paying by the farmer
61.3
10.0
13.8
3.8
1.9
9.4
IC may increase the production costs; however I think any
extra is a price worth paying by the consumer
10.6
3.1
12.5
15.0
46.9
11.9
Because I think IC may affect consumer health, I would
rather have all boars castrated without anaesthesia
3.8
4.4
17.5
12.5
50.0
11.9
Because I think IC may affect consumer health, I would
rather have all boars castrated with anaesthesia
33.1
12.5
26.3
10.0
2.5
15.6
I doubt that all vaccinated males will be free from boar
taint, so I think we should avoid IC
5.0
5.0
16.3
16.9
34.4
22.5
Because I think IC is unnatural, I would prefer farmers to
rear entire males
40.0
12.5
16.9
7.5
5.6
17.5
better
IC much
better
40
Percentage of the sample (%)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
IC much
worse
worse
somewhat
worse
neither
worse nor
better
somewhat
better
Figure 3.6. General attitude of farmers towards immunocastration (IC) relative to attitude
towards the routine practice of surgical castration without anaesthesia. Answers were registered
on a seven-point scale ranging from IC perceived as (1) “much worse” to (7) “much better”
134
Chapter 7 : Piglet castration – Flemish producers
3.5.
Sperm sexing
In general, farmers’ responses were rather positive towards the idea of SS as an alternative practice,
although a high number of neutral answers suggested some degree of uncertainty (Table 3.17).
Similar to other alternative methods, farmers were particularly open to sperm sexing if the
consumers would be willing to pay (agreement by 47.6 percent, disagreement by 18.8 percent).
About half of the sample agreed that SS would be the best way to avoid castration and were as such
in favour of further research to optimise this technique. Opinions about the statement that boars
should be castrated because sexing sperm is unnatural were more diverse.
Table 3.17. Attitude of Flemish pig farmers with regard to sperm sexing (SS). Percentage of
Responses are registered on five-point Likert scales that range from “disagree strongly” (1), over
“neither agree, nor disagree” (3), to “agree strongly” (5), and an additional “don’t know” (DK)
option
1
2
3
4
5
DK
12.5
6.3
17.5
18.8
28.8
16.3
8.8
5.6
11.3
23.1
35.6
15.6
21.3
9.4
18.8
11.3
25.0
14.4
SS is not cost effective for the farmer, but I think the
extra price is worth paying by the consumer
Sexing semen adequately would be the best way to
avoid castration, so I think that techniques to do it
properly need to be developed
Because SS to raise females only is unnatural, I would
rather have all boars castrated
3.6.
Production of entire males
Farmers were not in favour of EM as an alternative strategy. This was mainly concluded from three
quarters of the sample expressing negative opinions on the issue statements which associated the
production of entire males with an increased level of aggression and mounting behaviour and with
losses from an improper elimination of boar taint (Table 3.18). Similar to the former alternatives,
the farmers rejected the idea of having to bear any extra cost themselves, while their opinions were
less adverse if the consumer was willing to bear the extra costs.
135
Part III
Table 3.18. Attitude of Flemish pig farmers with regard to the production of entire males (EM).
Percentage of responses are registered on five-point Likert scales that range from “disagree
strongly” (1), over “neither agree, nor disagree” (3), to “agree strongly” (5), and an additional
“don’t know” (DK) option
1
2
3
4
5
DK
0.6
3.8
10.0
17.5
57.5
10.6
64.4
10.6
5.0
4.4
5.0
10.6
15.6
8.8
12.5
18.1
33.1
11.9
3.1
5.0
13.1
7.5
56.3
15.0
The animal’s welfare is harmed too much through an
increased level of aggression and mounting behaviour
of entire males
This practice can cause increased costs at slaughter
because of sorting out tainted carcasses, but I think
the extra cost is worth paying by the farmer
This practice can cause increased costs at slaughter
because of sorting out tainted carcasses, but I think
the extra cost is worth paying by the consumer
I don’t fancy raising entire males
3.7.
Ranking the alternatives
Overall, the current practice of SCN was ranked as the most suitable practice by the pig farmers
involved in this study (Table 3.19). Nearly two thirds (62.5 percent, result not shown) of the farmers
gave the best rank to SCN. A large chi-square value indicated a pronounced difference in the general
ranking of the practices (χ²=224.36). Further, a large chi-square value was associated with a proper
elimination of boar taint and with farm profitability (respectively χ²=244.72 and χ²=122.05), two
characteristics on which SCN received the most favourable mean ranking. As such, these two
characteristics most probably contributed a lot to the general ranking of the alternatives by the
farmers, possibly together with expected benefits in terms of reduction of aggression and mounting
behaviour (favourable ranking on labour conditions, especially as compared to the ranking of the
production of entire males). In contrast, SCN was ranked the least favourable alternative in terms of
animal welfare and expected consumer acceptance. SS was perceived as the most suitable
alternative. It ranked second best (after SCN) regarding effectiveness against boar taint,
performances and profitability and first on the other characteristics. The general ranking for SCA
and IC did not differ. Compared with SCN, SCA ranked particularly less favourable in the farmers
opinion with respect to labour conditions (mean rank of 2.59 for SCN versus 4.13 for SCA). The
farmers believed this latter practice would be better accepted among consumers (mean rank of
3.94 for SCN versus 2.67 for SCA), while only a minor difference in mean ranking appeared regarding
animal welfare (3.51 for SCN versus 3.29 for SCA). IC ranked second for animal welfare, but was
attributed a lower mean ranking for perceived effectiveness for the elimination of boar taint and
expected consumer acceptance (respectively 3.82 and 3.24). Finally EM was considered the least
suitable practice in general, mainly due to an unfavourable ranking for farm profitability,
performance indicators, and a proper elimination of boar taint.
136
Chapter 7 : Piglet castration – Flemish producers
Table 3.19. Mean rankings of the different practices to eliminate boar taint. A lower score
corresponds with a more positive ranking (SCN: surgical castration without anaesthesia; SCA:
surgical castration with anaesthesia; IC: immunocastration; SS: sperm sexing; EM: production of
entire males)
SCN
SCA
IC
SS
EM
General
Labour
Animal
welfare
Effective against
boar taint
Performances
Profitability
Expected
consumer
acceptance
1.67
3.14
3.28
2.68
4.24
2.59
4.13
2.95
1.97
3.36
3.51
3.29
2.81
1.99
3.40
1.84
2.59
3.82
2.03
4.71
2.42
3.21
3.22
2.68
3.47
1.62
3.22
3.38
2.82
3.96
3.94
2.67
3.24
2.16
2.99
χ²
224.36
108.16
64.49
244.72
30.09
122.05
70.95
p
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Non-parametric Friedman Chi-square tests are used to statistically compare differences in mean rankings
within each column.
3.8.
Influencing factors
Age, farm size and self-reported knowledge significantly influenced the rank order of the different
alternatives (p < 0.001) (Table 3.20). SCN was ranked as the most suitable practice in each category,
EM as the least suitable practice. In general, a similar trend in mean rankings of the practices was
seen between the categories within each of the farm or farmer characteristics. Regarding the age of
the farmer, SCN was ranked slightly better (i.e. lower rank) with increasing age (1.75 for the
youngest versus 1.58 for the oldest age category). Farmers younger than 41 years indicated a better
ranking for IC as compared to older farmers (2.85 versus 3.44 and 3.39). The ranking of SS improved
with increasing farm size (as approximated by the number of sows) (from 3.24 to 2.43), mainly at
the expense of the rank order of SCA. Similarly, a greater self-reported level of knowledge was
associated with an improved rank order of SS (from 3.03 to 2.54) and a worsened rank order of SCA
(from 2.58 to 3.33).
137
Part III
Table 3.20. Influencing factors on the rankings of the different practices to eliminate boar taint.
Figures present mean rankings, where a lower score corresponds with a more favourable ranking
(SCN: surgical castration without anaesthesia; SCA: surgical castration with anaesthesia; IC:
immunocastration; SS: sperm sexing; EM: production of entire males)
Age farm manager
Farm size (# sows)
Self-reported knowledge
< 41
41-50
51+
0
1-99
100-170
171+
Low
Neutral
High
SCN
1.75
1.70
1.58
1.68
1.56
1.59
1.83
1.74
1.45
1.71
SCA
3.25
3.14
3.07
2.82
3.05
3.23
3.49
2.58
3.10
3.33
IC
2.85
3.44
3.39
3.11
3.27
3.45
3.24
3.48
3.14
3.25
SS
2.88
2.59
2.63
3.24
2.83
2.43
2.22
3.03
2.76
2.54
EM
4.28
4.13
4.33
4.16
4.29
4.30
4.19
4.16
4.55
4.17
χ²
52.62
84.48
93.18
48.23
63.06
74.71
53.47
41.45
56.88
136.64
p
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Non-parametric Friedman Chi-square tests are used to statistically compare differences in mean rankings
within each column
4. Discussion and conclusion
Increased public concern about animal welfare issues has brought many livestock production
practices into discussion, among them surgical piglet castration without anaesthesia. Research on
alternative strategies to deal with the problem of boar taint has highlighted surgical castration with
anaesthesia and/or analgesia and immunocastration as feasible solutions in the short run and no
castration as the final target in the long run. The latter can be achieved through sperm sexing
(female offspring only), genetic selection of breeds with no boar taint or sorting the tainted
carcasses at the slaughter line (Prunier and Bonneau, 2006), although additional research is needed
before these alternatives can be implemented on a large commercial scale. The pig production
chain is composed of different stakeholders with different interests and different attitudes. As such
the marketplace success of any alternative method is likely to depend on a positive acceptance by
stakeholders throughout the chain and by pig producers in particular.
This study has quantified the attitude of pig farmers in Flanders, Belgium, about current practice of
surgical castration without anaesthesia and its alternative short and long term strategies. In general,
the farmers preferred the current practice. This preference was mainly grounded on an expected
reduced level of aggression and mounting behaviour among pigs as a positive consequence of
castration, on delivering a high quality pork (i.e. without boar taint), and on perceived economic
benefits (e.g. farm profitability). These issues were perceived negatively in relation to the
production of entire males. As such, the latter practice was strongly rejected by a large proportion
of the pig farmers. Sperm sexing was attributed the second best rank, followed by surgical
castration with anaesthesia and immunocastration. The use of anaesthetics or analgesics was not
preferred, mainly owing to its expected additional costs in terms of higher expenses and labour
conditions, while producers did not consider it better for the welfare of the piglets. Compared to
138
Chapter 7 : Piglet castration – Flemish producers
other practices, farmers chose more frequently for the neutral or ‘don’t know’ response category in
case of sperm sexing and immunocastration, which can be an indication of a higher degree of
unfamiliarity with or uncertainty about these practices. Sperm sexing is not yet ready to be put in
practice and immunocastration was, at the time of the survey (end of 2007 – beginning of 2008),
still a rather new concept on the Belgian market, which may have triggered a more reserved
response behaviour.
The rank order obtained from the present study deviates to some extent from the rank order
obtained in the PIGCAS-study (SCN=SCA>SS>IC=EM, Ouedraogo et al., 2009), which was based on
European pig producer representatives. The main differences are related to a better ranking of SCA
and a worse ranking of SS and IC among the stakeholder representatives (PIGCAS-study) versus the
actual producers (present study).
The farmers reported a quite homogeneous opinion, especially with regard to surgical castration
without anaesthesia (positive) and the production of entire males (negative). Indeed, attitudes were
often skewed to one side of the scale. Such a homogeneous opinion corresponds with earlier
surveys among farmers (e.g. Boogaard et al., 2006; Te Velde et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2008).
Farmer’s perception is clearly distinct from the public’s perception. The public is mainly led by
ethical and moral considerations such as animal welfare concerns and societal acceptability
(Vanhonacker et al., 2009). The resulting farmers’ low importance for the animal’s naturalness
corroborates with literature about conceptions of animal welfare, where animal welfare is mainly
related to a good functioning of the animal in the view of farmers (e.g. Chapters 3 and 4).
The farmers’ perception did not always match with scientific evidence. For instance, surgical
castration without anaesthesia was ranked most favourable in terms of production performance,
while growth parameters and feed efficiency have been shown to be superior in entire males (de
Roest et al., 2009). Also the farmers’ expected lower consumer acceptance (Vanhonacker et al.,
2009), reduced profitability (de Roest et al., 2009), and uncertainty with respect to consequences
on human health (Clarke et al., 2008) and to the elimination of boar taint related to
immunocastration (Jaros et al., 2005) have been contradicted by the referenced scientific studies.
Interestingly, farmers did not associate the current practice of surgical castration without
anaesthesia with a strong impairment of animal welfare. They did not judge the use of anaesthesia
or the production of entire males as superior alternatives for the welfare of the pigs, and yet they
believed that both alternatives would be distinctly more acceptable among consumers. This could
explain their reported preference for the current practice of surgical castration without anaesthesia,
especially given that the search for alternative practices stems from public concern related to
animal welfare. This also supports their rejection to bear any costs associated with a possible
adoption of the alternatives, while costs borne by consumers or society increased farmers’
willingness to adopt new strategies to avoid boar taint. Based on these findings we predict that
resistance and dissatisfied farmers’ reactions can be expected if a ban on the current practice of
surgical castration without anaesthesia were to be implemented. A general voluntary producerinitiated shift away from the current practice seems unlikely without additional scientific
arguments, economic incentives or coercion.
139
Chapter 8 : Modifiers of societal concerns
Chapter
8
Modifiers of societal concerns
related to stocking density
Adapted from Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, S. Buijs, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2009.
Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production.
Livestock Science 123: 16-22.
Abstract
In the following two chapters, the discussion on attitude modifiers goes beyond place-based
variables and also discusses the impact of other social structural variables and individual animalrelated experiential variables. In the present chapter, this discussion is embedded in the context of
space allowance for farm animals, as one of the most topical and vividly debated sub-matters of
farm animal welfare. As such, this chapter focuses on societal concerns related to space allowance
in Flemish animal production. It reports a quantitative analysis of cross-sectional 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.
141
Part III
1. Introduction
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 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 (Bock and van Huik, 2007; Borgen and Skarstad, 2007; Hubbard et al., 2007;
Kling-Eveillard et al., 2007; Menghi, 2007). However farmers face a difficult trade-off between
economic interests and animal welfare-related concerns (Appleby, 2004; McInerney, 1991).
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 (Frewer et al., 2005; Harper and Henson, 2001; Heleski et al., 2006; Kanis et al., 2003;
Maria, 2006; McGlone, 2001; Phan-Huy and Fawaz, 2003; Te Velde et al., 2002; Verbeke and Viaene,
2000) and to many studies evaluating the effect of stocking density on welfare from the animal’s
point of view (Estevez, 2007; Postollec et al., 2008; Spinu et al., 2003; Spoolder et al., 1999;
Zimmerman et al., 2006).
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.
142
Chapter 8 : Modifiers of societal concerns
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 chapter available survey data from Flemish citizens, collected 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, it was explored to what
extent people associate space allowance with animal welfare and to what extent they consider it a
problem or not in current Flemish animal production. Second, since citizens can not be considered
one homogenous group regarding their concern towards animal welfare, 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, the extent to what pen size or group size perceptions weigh
more heavily in people’s formation of beliefs relating to stocking density is examined.
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). The data collected in
2000, 2001 and 2002 corresponds with Study 1, described in Part I, section 4. The data gathered in
2006 corresponds with Study 2 in the same section.
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:
40.2 years; 36.3 percent living in urban areas (FOD Economy)) 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 percent. Finally,
education level was higher in dataset 2 than in dataset 1 (χ²=12.38; p<0.001) and biased towards
higher education.
143
Part III
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 Likertscale, ranging from “has nothing to do with animal welfare” (1) to “has a lot to do with animal
welfare” (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” (1) to “very
important” (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 Likert-scale, ranging from “has a very negative impact on animal welfare” (1)
to “has a very positive impact on animal welfare” (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” (1) to “is no problem at all” (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 Likertscale), 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
144
Chapter 8 : Modifiers of societal concerns
“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 (Figure
3.7). 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 3.21). 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 (see Part II).
PerImp
High
Positive
attention point
High
concern
Neutral
EvalBel
Good / positive
judgment
Bad / negative
judgment
Not a major
issue
Low / no particular
concern
Low
Figure 3.7. Conceptualisation of concern as a combination of perceived importance (PI) and
evaluative belief (EB)
145
Part III
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 one-way 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-structural variables 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 3.21). 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 3.21).
The highest concern was expressed for the transport of animals and the (un)loading of animals.
Table 3.21. Perceived importance, evaluative belief, and concern scores for 23 animal welfare
aspects in dataset 1 (n=521); mean scores with 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
146
Perceived importance
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)
2.98 (1.17)
2.99 (1.09)
Evaluative belief
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)
2.85 (0.86)
2.96 (0.84)
Concern
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)
0.14 (1.46)
0.05 (1.35)
Chapter 8 : Modifiers of societal concerns
In dataset 2, in particular stocking density’s perceived importance was very high (ranking 7th on 72
aspects) 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 Chapter 3).
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
3.22). 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-structural variables
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
3.23). Living environment, representing a place-based variable, did not associate significantly with
levels of concern about stocking density. Regarding other social structural variables, no significant
effect of gender on concern towards stocking density was found in dataset 1, 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. 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.
147
Part III
Table 3.22. 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 behaviour
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 behaviour
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 behaviour
Freshness of feed
148
PerImp
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)
EvalBel
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)
Concern
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)
Mortality
Attention for animals
Natural birth
Maternal behaviour
Variation in feed
Shelter
Frustration
Number of transports
Growth hormones
Lairage time
Boredom
Having fun
Sexual behaviour
Hunger during transport
Light regime
Foraging behaviour
Availability of feed
Group housing
Play behaviour
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
Static groups
Genetic selection
Feed on fixed moments
Distraction material
Technical noise
PerImp
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)
EvalBel
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)
Concern
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)
Chapter 8 : Modifiers of societal concerns
Table 3.23. 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
Concern
PerImp
EvalBel
***
***
1.86***
**
1.40
4.13
2.26
Concern
Male
4.41
3.01
Female
4.46
3.32**
1.15
4.43***
1.95***
2.48***
18-24
4.54b
2.86a
1.68c
4.40
2.00a,b
2.40a,b
25-39
4.35a,b
3.03a,b
1.32b,c
4.33
1.87a
2.46b
40-54
4.49b
3.48b
1.01a,b
4.16
2.31b,c
1.85a
55+
4.19a
3.46b
0.73a
4.22
2.41c
1.81a
4.59***
3.18
1.40*
4.25
2.04
2.22
3.20
1.13
*
4.30
2.15
2.14
Urban
Living
EvalBel
Dataset 2 (n=459)
environment
Rural
Presence of
Yes
4.45
3.48***
0.97***
4.13***
2.37***
1.76***
children
No
4.50
2.88***
1.62***
4.42***
1.86***
2.56***
Education
Till 18
4.34
3.32**
1.03**
4.29
2.14
2.14
Beyond 18
4.53
3.09**
1.43**
4.28
2.09
2.19
**
0.001<p<0.05;
***
p<0.001;
4.33
***
a-c
Scores in a row with different superscript are significantly different at p<0.05
(one-way ANOVA F-tests with Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores)
3.3.
Relation 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 dataset 2, which includes the necessary information on each of the
three aspects, three regression analyses were performed with perceived importance (PerImp),
evaluative belief (EvalBel) and citizen concern (Concern) towards stocking density, respectively, as
the dependent variable and perceived importance, evaluative belief and citizen concern of both pen
size and group size, respectively as independent variables:
PerImp (stocking density ) = a + b1 ⋅ PerImp ( pen size ) + b2 ⋅ PerImp( group size )
EvalBel(stocking density ) = a + b1 ⋅ EvalBel( pen size ) + b2 ⋅ EvalBel( group size )
Concern (stocking density ) = a + b1 ⋅ Concern ( pen size ) + b2 ⋅ Concern( group size )
149
Part III
For all three models, a consistent picture of effects and effect sizes was found (Table 3.24). Both
pen size and group size were confirmed to be significant as explanatory variables of perceptions of
stocking density (p<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.
Table 3.24. 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
b
SE
β
R²adj
Constant
1.717
0.160
Pen size
0.473
0.041
0.481
0.363
Group size
0.163
0.033
0.207
Constant
0.135
0.092
Pen size
0.553
0.037
0.575
Group size
0.260
0.039
0.257
Constant
0.856
0.073
Pen size
0.603
0.037
0.617
Group size
0.202
0.034
0.220
0.575
0.591
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, the aim was 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 setup 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
150
Chapter 8 : Modifiers of societal concerns
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 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 Figure 3.7. 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 social structural attitude modifiers, some consistent results were found indicating
that younger people and households without children are the higher concerned citizen groups
regarding 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 social structural variables with
citizen concerns about the issue of stocking density or space allowance in particular, although
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 (Boogaard et al., 2006; Harper and Makatouni, 2002; Maria, 2006) and education level
(Boogaard et al., 2006; Harper and Makatouni, 2002; 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
151
Part III
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 different social structural 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
groups, discussed in Chapter 1. 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 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.
152
Chapter 9 : Consumer variety – segmentation analysis
Chapter
9
Acknowledging consumer variety: a
segmentation analysis
Adapted from Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2007.
Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare.
International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 15: 91-107.
Abstract
In this chapter, further elaboration is made on determinants that modify the attitudes and concerns
for farm animal welfare. In the introduction of the chapter, the attitude modifiers discussed in this
dissertation’s conceptual framework are compared with study findings published in literature. This
chapter applies the attitude modifiers as profiling variables of market segments that differ in public
opinion toward animal welfare as well as in animal welfare related behaviour as consumers. In that
perspective, a cluster analysis is performed using a cross-sectional dataset of 459 residents of
Flanders, Belgium, gathered in 2006. The perceived importance attached to animal welfare as a
product attribute in the food purchasing decision process relative to other product attributes
(relative importance; RI) is investigated, as well as the subjective evaluation of the current state of
farm animal welfare (evaluation; EV) as segmentation variables. Six clusters are obtained: cluster 1
with moderate RI and positive EV (21.1 percent); cluster 2 with very low RI and strong positive EV
(12.9 percent); cluster 3 with low RI and moderate EV (18.7 percent); cluster 4 with moderate RI and
low EV (12.6 percent); cluster 5 with high RI and moderate EV (23.5 percent); cluster 6 with very
high RI and very negative EV (11.1 percent). Based on this segmentation exercise and the segments’
profiles, market opportunities for higher animal welfare products are identified.
153
Part III
1. Introduction
1.1.
Background
Animal welfare in general and more specifically in animal production has become a major issue of
interest, not only among direct interest groups involved in the food production chain, such as
producers, retailers, government and consumers, but also in a wide variety of scientific research
disciplines. This tendency of a general increased interest in animal welfare can be explained to a
large extent by the prosperity level in the Western society (Seamer, 1998). Food supply has largely
exceeded food demand, which has turned markets into demand-driven economies where the goal
of exchange and marketing is to better meet consumers’ expectations, demands and preferences.
Together with the growing influence of post-materialistic values – of which interest in farm animal
welfare is just one example – on product attribute evaluation and food choice decision-making, this
has recently led to numerous studies about public and citizen concerns on the one hand (Boogaard
et al., 2006; Kanis et al., 2003; Lassen et al., 2006; Maria, 2006; Verbeke, 2002), and about
consumer attitudes and behaviour in relation with farm animal welfare on the other hand
(European Commission, 2005; Frewer et al., 2005; Harper and Henson, 2001). This research focus
was anticipated by Verbeke and Viaene (1999a), who concluded based on the analysis of a 1998
consumer sample in Flanders that animal welfare and acceptable production methods emerged as
key attention points for the future of animal production and marketing, as well as public and
consumer acceptance of animal-based food products.
However, the interpretation of the concept of farm animal welfare differs considerably between
different interest and stakeholder groups, and its conceptualisation is heavily influenced by
convictions (opinions about the way things are), values (opinions about the way things should be),
norms (translations of these values into rules of conduct), knowledge (constructed from experiences,
facts, stories, and impressions) and interests (economic, social and moral interests) (Te Velde et al.,
2002). This framework explains why the animal production and processing sector and the broader
public tend to speak different languages when talking about animal welfare. Producers tend to
position themselves as knowledgeable and rational actors, while they dismiss the concerns of the
lay person as emotional and uninformed. The public, however, often associates the industry’s
interest in animal welfare as strictly economic and profit oriented and considers their own citizen
and consumer viewpoint as ethically motivated (Kendall et al., 2006).
1.2.
Public attitude toward animal welfare
Within the broader public, diverse opinions exist. Despite the occurrence of differing opinions and
the relevance of the topic, little research has focussed thus far on a conceptual approach to
determinants of public or consumer attitudes to animal welfare. In this dissertation, I make use of
the theoretical framework developed by Kendall et al. (2006), based on an extension of existing
154
Chapter 9 : Consumer variety – segmentation analysis
literature in sociology, mainly stemming from U.S. studies. Summarising, Kendall and co-authors
distinguish between social structural variables to explain different attitudes between social groups,
and individual animal-related experiential variables to explain differences within social groups (see
Part I). Regarding social structural variables, distinction is made between place-based variables and
other social structural variables. In this introduction, this framework is compared with findings from
published studies. With regard to the place-based variables, utilitarian motives were used to
hypothesise a lower concern about animal welfare among persons with a rural background and/or
experience with farming. This was confirmed by Verhue and Verzeijden (2003) and Frewer et al.
(2005), who found that people living in rural neighbourhoods evaluated the state of animal welfare
more positively.
Other social structural variables comprised gender, socio-economic class, age and family status.
Women expressed a higher concern with animal welfare as compared to men. The task of women
as primary family caretakers and as being more likely to engage in household tasks that put them in
contact with animals, like caring for pets and preparing food were considered as possible
explanations for this gender difference. Similar conclusions are found by Burrel and Vrieze (2003)
and Verhue and Verzeijden (2003). Next, lower income categories and less educated persons were
hypothesised to express a greater concern for animals, which has also been referred to as the
underdog-hypothesis (Kendall et al., 2006). Opposite results were found by Burrel and Vrieze (2003)
and Verhue and Verzeijden (2003), where especially higher educated people expressed a higher
concern for animal welfare. Further, age was hypothesised to be inversely related to the concern for
animal welfare. This was linked to one’s life-cycle stage, hence subject to a change over time
depending on the evolution and change of factors in a person’s direct social environment, such as
family relations (Kendall et al., 2006). Verhue and Verzeijden (2003) confirmed this hypothesis
indicating a higher concern toward animal welfare among younger people. Finally, with regard to
family status, expectations were that people with dependent children would express less concern
about animal welfare, since they have to attribute time and energy toward their own offspring
instead of to non-human others.
With regard to the individuals’ experiences, a positive relationship with concern for animal welfare
is hypothesised for people who do not hunt, have a pet, are vegetarian, are more involved in
cooking and food shopping and have higher concerns about the environment and food in general.
With regard to vegetarianism, the hypothesis was grounded on the worldview accompanying
vegetarianism, which encompasses greater awareness of the origin of one’s food (McDonald, 2000).
1.3.
Animal welfare related consumer behaviour
At present, there is a lack of studies that combine the citizen and the consumer perspective on farm
animal welfare, i.e. studies that consider both variations in citizen attitude toward animal welfare
on the one hand and variations in the impact of animal welfare as a product attribute on
consumers’ food choice decisions on the other hand. Such studies are relevant because the market
155
Part III
for high welfare products is rapidly evolving, due to some contemporary changing food patterns.
Increased disposable incomes have caused that food shoppers in many markets can afford to pay
premium prices for differentiated quality products. As a result, food has begun to provide an
emotional as well as a functional role in consumers’ lives. At the same time, consumer confidence in
food production has dropped due to some consecutive food scares in Europe at the end of the
nineties, in particular within the animal production chain. Furthermore, consumers are increasingly
aware of the association between food intake or their dietary behaviour and their personal health
and overall well-being. They believe that food produced in a more natural way will suit them better
and provide them with more benefits (Grunert et al., 2000). Considering these tendencies, a higher
willingness to pay for high welfare products can be assumed. However, many studies have criticised
claimed consumer willingness to pay, referring to the ambivalent position of an individual in the role
of consumer versus citizens (Bennett et al., 2002; Carlsson et al., 2007; Korthals, 2001a; Liljenstolpe,
2008). Moreover, animal welfare is an ethical issue and as a consequence highly sensitive to social
desirable answering, for example in survey research and interview questionnaires. As a
consequence, some deduced that consumers do not prioritise animal welfare considerations while
shopping for food. Such conclusions, however, may be too general and based on sample average
scores, without acknowledging for different segments that might exist. Only few studies noticed the
existence of a specific segment taking animal welfare more into account when shopping (e.g.
Grunert et al. (2004)).
More specifically, little information is available with respect to the segmentation of individuals
based on their perceived importance of animal welfare when purchasing food in general (thus in
their role as a consumer) and to our knowledge the segmentation of individuals based on the
relative importance attached to animal welfare when purchasing food has not yet been studied in
depth.
1.4.
Scope and objectives
The aim of this chapter is to perform a segmentation analysis based on the two topics discussed
above: i.e. public attitude toward farm animal welfare in relation to animal production in Flanders,
Belgium, and consumers’ relative importance attached to farm animal welfare as a product
attribute during food purchasing decisions. The contribution of this approach is two-fold. On the
one hand, positioning different segments based on those two dimensions can help to better
understand different viewpoints within society (citizens versus consumer), yielding a valuable basis
to improve the societal (public and market-related) debate about the issue. On the other hand,
segmentation is a necessary tool in order to understand how to make higher welfare foods relevant
to different consumers and how to position these products in a competitive marketing
environment. From this angle, distinct consumer profiles can be established which can provide
insights as to how to target, communicate and convince these distinct groups to purchase higher
welfare products. Attitude toward animal welfare is used as an indicator for the market
opportunities of high welfare products, while the relative importance of animal welfare as a product
156
Chapter 9 : Consumer variety – segmentation analysis
attribute will be considered as the leverage or selling proposition for how to promote and
communicate these products. The strength of this segmentation exercise is that it combines a
rather concrete consumer-related measure (relative importance attached to farm animal welfare as
a product attribute) with a more abstract public opinion (attitude toward animal welfare). Profiling
variables pertain to the attitude modifiers considered in the theoretical framework of Kendall et al.
(2006), meat consumption, knowledge and interest in information. These results should provide a
more balanced picture with respect to the existence of socially and ethically engaged segments,
integrating both evaluations from a public and a consumer perspective.
2. Materials and methods
Methodological details in terms of research approach and sampling procedure are provided in Part
I, section 4, and apply to Study 2.
2.1.
Measurement of constructs
First, 13 product attributes were probed for their perceived importance (PI) in the food purchasing
decision process of animal food products on a five-point interval scale ranging from “totally
unimportant” (1) to “very important” (5). The product attributes were: safety, quality, reliability,
taste, origin, health, price, appearance, freshness, environmental friendliness, availability, animal
welfare and production method. PI reflects the individuals’ reaction from a consumer perspective,
i.e. someone who has to weigh and evaluate different product attributes before coming to a
purchase decision.
Second, respondent’s attitude was measured in terms of evaluative belief with respect to the
current state of animal welfare in Flemish animal production (EV). Therefore the statement: “Do you
believe the current state of farm animal welfare in Flanders in general is…” was used. This item was
measured on a seven-point interval scale anchored at the left pole by “very poor” (1) and at the
right pole by “very good” (7), with “moderate” (4) as the mid-point of the scale. This second
measure is much more a public opinion, which is presumed to be held rather independent of the
consumption decisions (see previous chapters).
Third, consumption of beef, pork, poultry, fish and meat substitutes was scored on a six-point selfreported consumption frequency scale, ranging from “daily” to “never”.
Fourth, both subjective and objective knowledge about farm animal welfare were probed.
Subjective knowledge was assessed using four relevant items of the five-item scale described by
Flynn and Goldsmith (1999) and measured on a five-point Likert-scale. Items were: “Compared to an
average person, I know a lot about animal welfare”; “I have a lot of knowledge about how to
evaluate the welfare of farm animals”; “I have a lot of knowledge about how farm animals are
kept”; “My friends consider me as an expert on farm animal welfare.” Objective knowledge was
157
Part III
investigated using five statements, corresponding with the major five groups of farm animals in
Flanders: “Barn eggs are from chicken that have outdoor access” (not correct); “Male pigs are
castrated because otherwise the meat can have a bad smell” (correct); “Broilers are slaughtered at
the age of 4 months” (not correct); “A dairy cow gives milk only after calving” (correct); “Doublemuscled beef cattle mostly calve via a Caesarean section” (correct). Respondents could either agree
or disagree with each statement. To account for guessing, respondents were also asked to indicate
how confident they were about their answer to each item on a scale from “very uncertain” (1) to
“very certain” (5).
Fifth, consumer opinions toward information related to farm animal welfare were assessed using six
statements, each scored on a five-point Likert-scale. Statements were: “Labels should indicate more
clearly the rearing conditions of the animals”; “Information about animal welfare is too little
available”; “Animal welfare should be controlled more severely”; “Animal welfare should be
guaranteed through a label on the product”; “I’m willing to pay more for food produced with more
attention to animal welfare”; “More information about animal welfare would influence my meat
consumption”.
Sixth, variables representing the determinants for the attitude toward animal welfare as described
by Kendall et al. (2006) were included. The place-based factors were represented by living
environment and farm experiences. Respondents were asked in what type of place they live (rural
or urban). The response is coded 1/0 and is based on individuals’ self-identification. To tap
experience with farming, respondents were probed with the following statements on which they
could answer “yes” or “no”: “I have / my parents have a farm”; “My grandparents / other relatives
have a farm”; “Close neighbours / good acquaintances have a farm”. Other structural factors
involve gender, age, education and presence of children. Finally, being a vegetarian (yes/no) was
included as variable measuring individuals’ animal-related experience.
2.2.
Statistical analyses
Data were analysed using SPSS 12.0. First, hierarchical clustering with Ward’s Method as cluster
method and K-means cluster analysis were performed to obtain segments. Bivariate analyses
including cross-tabulation with χ²-statisitics, independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA
comparison of means were used to profile the clusters in terms of behaviour, knowledge,
information opinions and structural determinants for attitude toward animal welfare.
Given the high reliability coefficient of the four subjective knowledge items (Cronbach’s alpha =
0.93), we calculated a summated subjective knowledge score corresponding with a score ranging
from 4 to 20. Also with respect to objective knowledge, we computed a cumulative score. For each
objective knowledge item, a wrong answer was coded as zero, while a correct answer was coded
with its corresponding reported certainty level, i.e. ranging from one to five. As a result of this
coding procedure and after summation across the five items, an overall range from zero to 25 was
obtained for objective knowledge.
158
Chapter 9 : Consumer variety – segmentation analysis
3. Results
3.1.
Segmentation analysis
3.1.1.
Segmentation variables
The first segmentation variable pertains to the perceived importance attached to animal welfare in
the food purchasing decision-process. Since this perceived importance has little meaning in absolute
terms, though only relative as compared to the perceived importance attached to other product
attributes, a relative score was computed for each of the 13 attributes assessed by the respondents.
This score, corresponding with the relative importance, was computed using (1):
RI i =
13 * PI i
13
∑ PI
i =1
RI = relative perceived importance
PI = absolute perceived importance
(1)
i
A RI-score below the value of 1 indicates that the specific product attribute ranks among the less
important product attributes, while a score above 1 corresponds with a relatively important product
attribute. As the focus will be on the relative perceived importance of animal welfare, we will use
the abbreviation RIAW in further discussion as reference for the relative perceived importance score
assigned to the attribute animal welfare. RIAW ranges from 0.27 to 2.60 within the sample, with a
mean score of 0.98 (SD=0.23).
The second segmentation variable is the respondent’s attitude in terms of evaluation (belief) of the
current state of animal welfare in Flemish animal production (EV). EV ranges from 1 to 7 with a
mean score of 4.13 (SD=1.49). For the clustering procedure, we have opted to work with the
standardised score (z-score) of both variables rather than with the actual scores, in order to obtain a
segmentation that better puts the relative position of the segments into perspective. In further
discussion, absolute perceived importance score and evaluation of farm animal welfare in the
current Flemish animal production refer to the mean scores of the non-standardised variables RIAW
and EV.
3.1.2.
Cluster analysis
A hierarchical clustering followed by a K-means cluster analysis was used to determine the optimal
number of clusters (so-called segments) yielding the highest degree of differentiation. This resulted
in a six-cluster solution (Table 3.25 and Figure 3.8).
159
Part III
Table 3.25. Profile of the segments on the segmentation variables (n=459)
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
Segment size (% of sample)
21.1
12.9
18.7
12.6
23.5
11.1
Absolute perceived importance (PI)
4.14
2.51
3.15
3.95
4.55
4.98
Relative importance (RIAW)
1.03
0.66
0.81
0.95
1.12
1.30
RI z-score (segmentation variable)
0.22
-1.40
-0.75
-0.15
0.59
1.39
Evaluation (EV)
5.44
5.95
4.53
2.36
3.76
1.67
EV z-score (segmentation variable)
0.88
1.22
0.26
-1.18
-0.24
-1.65
EV
1.5
S2
1
S1
0.5
S3
RI
0
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
S5
1
1.5
-0.5
S4
-1
-1.5
S6
-2
Figure 3.8. Mapping of the cluster centres according to relative importance (RI z-score) and
evaluation (EV z-score) of farm animal welfare; the size of markers reflects cluster size
Segment 1 (S1; 21.1 percent of the sample) corresponds to respondents who attached high absolute
importance to animal welfare when purchasing animal food products. However, all product
attributes received a high perceived importance score among these consumers. As a consequence,
their RIAW is rather neutral, thus animal welfare is considered moderately important compared to
other product attributes. Nonetheless, animal welfare received a higher importance than some
other production system-related attributes, such as production method and environmental
friendliness. With respect to their evaluation of farm animal welfare in the current Flemish animal
production, an above average EV was found (“rather good” to “good”) (Table 3.25).
Segment 2 (S2; 12.9 percent of the sample) corresponds to respondents who claim not to take
animal welfare into account in their food purchasing decision-making, given that no other product
attribute received a lower RI-score than the attribute animal welfare. Their most important product
attributes when purchasing animal food products were freshness, quality and taste. Also, people
belonging to S2 reported the most positive EV.
160
Chapter 9 : Consumer variety – segmentation analysis
Respondents belonging to Segment 3 (S3; 18.7 percent of the sample) showed a lot of similarities
with S2 regarding the absolute perceived importance of the product attributes. However, their
opinion is not that sharply pronounced, meaning that a similar ranking occurred, with smaller
differences between the relative scores. Moreover, in contrast to the very positive EV given by S2,
S3 is somewhat less positive, evaluating animal welfare mainly as “moderate” to “rather good”.
Next, Segment 4 (S4; 12.6 percent of the sample) mirrors S1 in terms of the standardised RIAW and
EV (Figure 3.8). Similar as for S1, high perceived importance scores are attached to all product
attributes. However, respondents belonging to S4 attribute less importance to animal welfare as
compared to environmental friendliness and production method.
Segment 5 (S5; 23.5 percent of the sample) is the largest segment and is composed of respondents
who indicate to take animal welfare quite heavily into account, i.e. to the same extent as quality
and health attributes and even to a higher extent than taste and safety. With respect to EV, a rather
average score was found. This segment mirrors S3 with respect to the segmentation variables.
Finally, Segment 6 (S6; 11.1 percent of the sample) is very concerned about animal welfare, as is
expressed first in a very high PI of animal welfare and second in a very poor EV. Animal welfare
emerged as the most important product attribute, followed by the two other production systemrelated attributes and outweighing the quality traits and taste. Moreover, product appearance,
availability and price are relatively considered as much less important among S6-members as
compared to the other segments.
3.2.
Profiling of the clusters
3.2.1.
Determinants of animal welfare perception
Table 3.26 presents a set of variables within the determinants of public attitude toward animal
welfare as described by Kendal et al. (2006). First, the place-related variables are considered. No
significant differences between the segments related to living environment were found, although S1
and S2 were composed of the highest amount of rural inhabitants. Living environment is not
associated with RIAW (t=0.86, p=0.39), while a marginal influence on EV resulted (t=1.79, p=0.074),
with a more positive evaluation of current farm animal welfare given by rural inhabitants
(μurban=3.97; μrural=4.22). Concerning farming experience, differences were more pronounced. The
respondents who have themselves a farm or have parents with a farm are distributed over S1, S2
and S3, with the highest relative share corresponding to S2 (21.6 percent) (χ²=43.09, p<0.001).
Segment 1 also includes a relatively large share (13.3 percent) of respondents whose grandparents
or other relatives have a farm (χ²=14.98, p<0.001). The percentage of close neighbours or good
acquaintances having a farm does not differ significantly between the segments (χ²=9.18, p=0.102).
Ownership of a farm or parents having a farm has its consequences with regard to RIAW and EV: a
significant lower RIAW (t=3.65, p<0.001) and a more positive EV (t=10.95, p<0.001) appeared among
respondents with the highest farming experience. Conversely, a lower degree of farming experience
161
Part III
did not longer impact RIAW (p>0.1), while it still showed a significantly positive relationship with EV
(p<0.1).
Second, gender, age, education level and the presence of children were included as other social
structural variables. For gender, significantly more men belong to S2 (χ²=39.55, p<0.001), whereas
women rather belong to the S5 and S6. In general, females (χ²=1.03) attached more importance to
animal welfare relative to other product characteristics as compared to men (μ=0.93) (t=4.44,
p<0.001) and they evaluate the current state of animal welfare as more negative (μmale=4.45,
μfemale=3.82; t=4.59, p<0.001). Also for age, a significant distinction between the segments was
present (χ²=36.59, p<0.001). Segment 1 was composed of a relatively low amount of people aged
between 24 and 37, while we found an over-representation of the two oldest age categories. A
similar age distribution appeared for S2, although deviations from the distribution in the total
sample were smaller as compared to S1. Segment 3 is characterised by a rather low amount of
youngsters, while S4 consists of a large group of respondents aged between 24 and 37. Finally, S5
does not show large deviation from the samples’ age distribution, whereas S6 has an overrepresentation of the two youngest age categories. No age-effect was found on RIAW (F=0.96,
p=0.41), while EV was clearly age-dependent (F=8.13, p<0.001). The second age category expressed
the lowest evaluation, significantly different from the two oldest groups. The remaining three
categories do not differ significantly from each other. Furthermore, education level does not differ
between the six segments (χ²=2.73, p=0.74), and did not associate with neither RIAW (t=0.239,
p=0.811) nor EV (t=0.998, p=0.319). Finally, between-segment differences appeared for the
presence of children in the household (χ²=36.31, p<0.01). The highest share of households with
children was present in S1 and S2, while within S6, only one fifth of the households had children. No
association of the presence of children was found with any of the segmentation variables (p>0.1).
Third, vegetarianism was the single-item included within the set of individual experiences. Almost
no vegetarians were present in S1, S2 and S3, whereas the majority of respondents within S6 (60
percent) indicated to be vegetarian. S4 and S5 were positioned in between, with respectively about
20 percent and 10 percent being vegetarian. Consequently, this difference in segment composition
was significant (χ²=148.86, p<0.01). Also, a highly significant association of vegetarianism was found
with both segmentation variables (p<0.1).
162
Chapter 9 : Consumer variety – segmentation analysis
Table 3.26. Determinants of animal welfare for the different segments (n=429), frequency
distributions (%); total sample characteristics are mentioned between brackets
Sample
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
Urban
(38.9)
33.7
30.5
46.4
41.4
38.9
43.1
I / parents have a farm
(6.1)
13.3
21.6
3.7
0
0
0
Grandparents / other family have a farm
(29.1)
43.2
35.2
21.3
28.6
21.4
26.5
Neighbours / acquaintances have farm
(40.1)
50
48.2
30.9
38.9
35.0
40.8
Male
(48.5)
54.2
82.5
44.0
48.3
36.1
33.1
Age <24
(18.8)
17.7
18.6
12.9
20.7
21.3
23.5
Age 24-37
(32.4)
15.6
25.4
36.5
39.7
36.1
49.0
Age 38-53
(31.7)
38.5
32.2
35.3
27.6
31.5
17.6
Age 54+
(17.1)
28.1
23.7
15.3
12.1
11.1
9.8
Mean age (years)
(37.8)
42.5
41.0
37.4
35.2
36.0
32.6
Higher education
(67.7)
63.2
67.8
67.9
74.1
65.7
72.5
Presence of children
(48.9)
63.2
66.1
52.4
38.6
43.5
19.6
(12.2)
0
0
2.4
21.1
9.4
62.0
Place-based variables (% yes)
Social Structural Location (% yes)
Individual Experience
Vegetarian (% yes)
3.2.2.
Meat and meat substitute consumption
Differences in claimed consumption behaviour between the segments are clearly reflected in their
reported consumption frequency of meat, fish and meat substitutes (Table 3.27). The segments S1,
S2 and S3 appeared as the heaviest meat consumers. Segment 6 on the other hand reported a very
low meat consumption frequency, while S4 and S5 indicated a meat consumption frequency in
between these two extremes. Reported fish consumption frequency, was lower for S6 as compared
to the other segments. Consumption frequency of meat substitutes was the inverse of the meat
consumption frequency, with a very regular consumption of meat substitutes in S6 and a very low
consumption frequency by S1, S2 and S3.
Table 3.27. Profiling of the segments based on meat and meat substitute consumption frequency;
mean scores
S1
Consumption frequency
Beef
Pork
Poultry
Fish
Other meat substitute
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
Sample
*
a
2.51
a
2.61
a
2.91
3.34
a
5.18
c
a,b
2.61
a
2.59
a
2.72
a
3.39
c
5.35
b,c
3.01
a,b
2.92
a
2.89
a
3.23
c
5.07
c
3.64
c
3.81
b
3.63
a
3.42
b
3.96
c
3.29
b,c
3.40
b
3.40
a
3.24
b
4.37
d
3.22
d
3.25
c
3.32
b
3.42
a
4.55
4.98
4.90
5.00
4.31
2.69
*
Six-point frequency scale: 1 = every day; 2 = several times a week; 3 = weekly; 4 = monthly; 5 = less than
a-d
monthly; 6 = never ; Scores in a row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.05 (oneway ANOVA F-tests with Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores)
163
Part III
3.2.3.
Knowledge
The level of both subjective and objective knowledge about animal production practices correlates
quite well and is not equal among the six segments (F=10.89, p<0.001; F=5.21, p<0.001,
respectively). S6 and S2 reported the highest subjective knowledge about farm animal welfare. S3
on the other hand indicated the lowest subjective knowledge and all other segments did not differ
significantly from each other (Table 3.28). In line with the reported subjective knowledge, S6 and S2
turned out to be also effectively the most knowledgeable about animal welfare issues based on the
objective knowledge score (Table 3.28). S3, S4 and S5 were the least knowledgeable.
3.2.4.
Information variables
The different segments show clear differences with regard to the evaluation of the current
information about animal welfare, the expectation they have about animal welfare information and
the stated impact of information on their behaviour. The lowest score for each of these issues was
given by people belonging to S2. With regard to the first four information items as they are
presented in Table 3.28, a neutral average segment score was found within S2. This indicates that
they are not against a more intensive and more clear information provision, but that they are also
not explicitly asking for more information. The difference with the other segments was the largest
with respect to the attitude toward more severe controls on animal welfare. The low interest in
information is also reflected in a very low expected impact of receiving more information on their
meat consumption. Furthermore, S2 was the only segment which disagreed to pay more for food
produced with more attention for animal welfare.
S1 and S3 are somewhat more positive toward the information statements. They score neutral
(mean value approaching the value of 4) on the statements related to more and clearer information
provision and on more severe controls. Somewhat contradictory with this request is their neutral
attitude toward the expected impact of more information on their meat consumption and the
limited willingness to pay for food produced with specific attention for animal welfare. Probably,
this could be driven by their daily consumption of meat.
In contrast, the remaining segments (S4, S5 and S6) expressed high expectations for more and
clearer information and for more severe controls on animal welfare. While these expectations are
high for S4 and S5, it is extremely high for S6. Despite this strong request for information, only a
moderate expected impact of receiving more information on the meat consumption is indicated by
these segments. Explanations pertain to a segment being largely vegetarian (S6), hence not willing
to eat meat whatever the amount of information provided, or to segments consuming already a
large amount of meat (S4, S5), hence hardly leaving room for further increase. Regarding willingness
to pay, we found a high score corresponding with S4 and S5 and a very high score for S6. Especially
concerning S6, this high willingness to pay is in line with the low perceived importance of price in
the food buying decision process.
164
Chapter 9 : Consumer variety – segmentation analysis
Table 3.28. Profiling of the segments based on knowledge and information variables
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
Sample
Knowledge
Subjective knowledge
Objective knowledge
12.4
b
b,c
13.1
a,b
14.7
b
3.17
b
3.08
b
2.81
b,c
3.19
b
2.32
b
2.08
12.7
a
10.2
b
10.7
a
3.78
a
3.92
a
3.99
a,b
11.2
a
10.2
b
4.43
b
4.40
b
4.57
a,b
11.3
a
10.6
c
4.34
c
4.38
c
4.55
c,d
4.51
c
4.32
b,c
3.78
c
12.02
b
11.97
d
4.05
c
4.02
d
4.12
e
4.13
d
4.73
b,c
3.19
15.5
a
14.2
c
4.82
c
4.44
c
4.94
d
4.86
c
4.78
Information statements
Labels should indicate more clearly the
rearing conditions
Information is too less available
3.89
3.85
Animal welfare should be controlled more
severely
3.84
Animal welfare should be guaranteed by a
label
4.00
I am willing to pay for products with more
animal welfare
3.56
More information about animal welfare
would influence my choice
a-e
2.93
a
a,b
3.78
a
3.21
b
a
2.95
b
4.47
4.19
3.60
c
3.63
Scores in a row with different superscript are significantly different at p<0.05 (one-way ANOVA F-
tests with Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores)
4. Discussion and conclusion
Driven by several socio-economic evolutions, animal welfare has gradually come to the forefront in
recent societal debates. Despite the fact that animal welfare is subject to an increasing amount of
research, theoretical development and empirical evidence related to the topic within sociology and
consumer science research is rather limited and often focused on the description of findings on a
general population level. However, opinions related to animal welfare are much divided and often
conflicting. Moreover, seen the ethical character of animal welfare, public opinions or reflections
from a citizen perspective do not provide a straightforward picture that is relevant for actual
consumer behaviour and food choice. A gap in literature exists with respect to combining public
citizen-oriented measures as well as consumer-oriented approaches.
This chapter applied the conceptual approach presented by Kendall et al. (2006), which aimed at
fostering the sociological debate about attitudes toward animal welfare. With the performed
segmentation analysis, insights in the existence of different population groups or segments were
provided. It fuels the debate starting from a different and often conflicting perspective and
identifies specific market opportunities for high welfare products.
165
Part III
A six-cluster solution was achieved. Seen the resulting characterisation of the segments in terms of
structural determinants of animal welfare, meat and meat substitute consumption frequencies,
knowledge about animal welfare and attitudes toward information about animal welfare, the six
segments could basically be interpreted as four groups with very distinct features. S2 and S6
appeared as two extreme groups that stand on their own. They have a completely opposite
attitude and belief structure in relation to farm animal welfare and a very opposed food
consumption behaviour pattern. The remaining two groups could be composed through a
combination of two segments: S4 with S5 and S1 with S3, respectively. With regard to their
features, they are positioned in between the two extreme groups, with S4/S5 rather tending to S6
and S1/S3 rather tending to S2.
Along the axis of the attitudes toward animal welfare, the characteristics of the different groups
largely corresponded with the set of determinants defined by Kendall et al. (2006) as affecting the
attitude toward animal welfare. With regard to S2, especially the highest degree of farming
experience and a high share of rural inhabitants, together with the predominantly male composition
seemed to explain the very low concern about the current state of farm animal welfare. S6 on the
other hand, which expressed the highest concern toward farm animal welfare, differed most
strongly from the other segments in terms of the share of vegetarians (highest), their age profile
(youngest) and the share of households with children (lowest). All these characteristics were
described as determinants for a higher concern toward animal welfare. The perspectives of S2 and
S6 toward farm animal welfare are strongly opposed, most likely because of their different type of
involvement with animal welfare. S2 is mainly socio-economically involved with agriculture and
animal production, in the sense that farming activities are a part of their daily lives and a source of
livelihood in their living environment. S6 is mainly involved with animal welfare because of personal
moral and ethical considerations. Both segments display a very consistent attitude-value profile (as
individual in their role as a citizen or member of a particular societal group) and behavioural profile
(as individual in their role as consumer, thus with respect to food choices). Most likely, the societal
debate about farm animal welfare will continue to be fuelled mainly by those two societal groups
with opposing interests. The position of the other segments is bridging between these two
extremes with regard to determinants described by Kendall et al. (2006). Depending on the strength
of arguments in the debate, through new personal experiences, changes in their social and living
environment and exposure to information, these segments may evolve over time in either direction.
Hence, from a communication point of view, these segments are particularly interesting as target
audiences because of their rather moderate predisposition toward farm animal welfare.
The segmentation exercise is especially valuable with regard to identifying market opportunities
and formulating marketing strategies for high welfare products for each of the groups. An increased
market opportunity for high welfare products is assumed with an increased concern for the current
state of animal welfare. As a result, little or no animal welfare-related marketing possibilities are
seen for people belonging to S2, who are very positive toward the current state of animal welfare.
In addition, they indicate a very low importance for animal welfare as a product attribute in their
166
Chapter 9 : Consumer variety – segmentation analysis
food purchasing process. Their low expressed information need and willingness to pay corroborate
with this. The group composed of S1 and S3 are also considered as a group with rather low
marketing opportunities for high welfare products. Seen their modest willingness to pay and
information need, together with animal welfare not being ranked as a very important product
attribute, high welfare products will need very strong tangible benefits (e.g. taste, tenderness …)
without high price premiums for possible market success with these segments.
Next, the group composed of S4 and S5 can be considered as a real marketing opportunity segment.
This group reports concerns about animal welfare and does not neglect animal welfare as a product
attribute in the food purchasing decision process. Moreover, they express high information needs
and willingness to pay for higher welfare products. This group comprises 36.1 percent of the
sample, hence constituting a considerable market. Within this group, animal welfare is important
but not the top priority. Consequently, we do not expect a very strong commitment in terms of
behaviour, i.e. people may not consistently buy high welfare products on every food purchase
occasion. Seen the importance attached to animal welfare and the concern toward it, it will be
important from a marketing point of view to do efforts in order to better match behaviour with
attitude within this segment. Possible strategies pertain to stimulating awareness; a strong focus on
associations of high welfare products with for instance a better taste or with benefits in terms of
health and safety; and stimulation of trial purchases through free-samples and promotions.
Finally, S6 also yields clear marketing opportunities. Seen their limited size (11.1 percent) and about
60 percent of them being vegetarian, this group constitutes only a small market for meat and other
livestock products. Notwithstanding the small size, this group has a very high commitment and a
very high willingness to pay. To most effectively reach this niche market, products should strongly
focus on high animal welfare standards, for example through clear and credible labels backed up by
trustworthy control, traceability mechanisms and personal reassurance.
167
Part IV
Factors influencing the citizenconsumer ambivalence
Chapter 10 : Citizen – consumer ambivalence
Chapter
10
Citizen-consumer ambivalence:
influencing factors
Adapted from Vanhonacker, F., and W. Verbeke. 2009. Buying higher welfare poultry products?
Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not. Poultry Science 88: 2702-2711.
Abstract
In the previous chapter, discussion about the attitude-behaviour gap has already been introduced.
This chapter further elaborates on this issue and groups consumers according to their reported
buying frequency of higher welfare eggs and higher welfare chicken meat. Similarities and
dissimilarities between these groups are mapped in terms of individual characteristics, product
attribute importance, perceived consumer effectiveness, perception of higher welfare products and
attitude toward a welfare label. These determinants relate directly or indirectly to the influencing
factors included in this dissertation’s conceptual framework. The research methodology applied was
a quantitative study with cross-sectional consumer survey data collected in Flanders in spring 2007
(n=469). Pro-welfare behaviour was unevenly distributed across different consumer segments,
despite general interest and concerns for bird welfare. A consistent choice for standard (no welfare
premium) poultry products was related to strong perceived price and availability barriers, to a low
importance attached to ethical issues as product attributes and to a low perceived consumer
effectiveness. A consistent choice for products with higher welfare standards to the contrast
associated with a high importance attached to ethical issues, a low impact of price and availability
perception, a strong association of higher welfare products with product attributes like health, taste
and quality and high perceived consumer effectiveness. The identification of market segments with
common characteristics is essential for positioning higher welfare products and developing effective
communication strategies. Finally, a welfare label emerged as an appropriate communication
vehicle for consumers who engage in pro-welfare behaviour and who experienced the label as a
solution to lower the search costs for higher welfare products.
Additionally and beyond the scope of this paper, a table is inserted at the end of the chapter,
providing some data on ‘having a pet’ as attitude modifier, given that this variable was only
incorporated in the survey used for this paper.
171
Part IV
1. Introduction
1.1.
State of the art
The present affluent Western society is increasingly interested and concerned about the welfare
standards of food producing animals (Boogaard et al., 2006; European Commission, 2005; Harper
and Henson, 2001). However, market shares for animal products with a welfare provenance remain
rather marginal (FAWC, 2006). This inconsistency with Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of
reasoned action, where marketplace behaviour is assumed to follow an attitude, has already been
explicitly discussed in the field of green consumerism (e.g. Laskova, 2007) and sustainable food
consumption (e.g. Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006), but has never been the specific scope of research in
relation to the consumption and/or purchase of higher welfare poultry products.
Available data on determinants of the attitude-behaviour gap pertain to the specificity of the food
buying process (IGD, 2007; Von Alvensleben, 1997), the general dominating importance of other
product attributes (Verbeke and Viaene, 1999a), the inadequacy of information provision (Delezie
et al., 2006; Harper and Henson, 2001; Korthals, 2001b) and to fact that consumers are a
heterogeneous group of individuals (Verbeke, 2005). Besides a substantial consumer segment that
hardly considers animal welfare when purchasing animal products, there is a segment that does buy
higher welfare products very frequently (IGD, 2007; Ingenbleek et al., 2004). In literature, a smaller
gap between attitude and behaviour (or behavioural intention) has been reported for consumers
with a higher involvement, with a lower uncertainty in relation to information and knowledge, with
a higher behavioural control in terms of availability and higher perceived consumer effectiveness
(Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006) and with a higher importance attached to animal welfare (Verbeke
and Vackier, 2004).
1.2.
Rationale and scope
This chapter concentrates on profiling consumer segments that differ in their buying frequency of
higher welfare eggs and chicken meat (further termed as pro-welfare behaviour). The specific focus
on the poultry sector is motivated by the significance of the sector in the study area, which is
Flanders, by significant consumption rates of eggs and chicken meat among Flemish consumers and
by the fact that welfare standards for laying-hens and broilers are perceived worse as compared to
the other main production animals in Flanders (pigs and cattle). As a consequence eggs and chicken
meat are considered as “welfare sensitive products” and improvements in bird welfare have been
identified as outspoken strong expectation by European consumers (Castellini et al., 2008). As such
the purchase of higher welfare animal products is thought to be concentrated in the poultry sector
(FAWC, 2006; IGD, 2007).
Whereas most studies have started from attitudes that relate to concerns and interest in animal
welfare, this study will offset with distinguishing consumer segments based on their reported
172
Chapter 10 : Citizen – consumer ambivalence
purchase frequency of eggs from hens that are kept under higher welfare standards (higher welfare
eggs) and of meat from broilers that are raised under higher welfare standards (higher welfare
chicken meat). The specific goal is to investigate the role that different personal characteristics play
in guiding the level of pro-welfare buying behaviour of eggs and chicken meat. Given the scarcity of
information about pro-welfare behaviour, we mainly formulate the study hypotheses based on
findings from green and sustainable or ethical consumerism and seek to what extent they apply to
pro-welfare behaviour.
Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) defined the ethical consumer – a concept related to “higher welfare
consumer” – as a middle-aged person with a higher income, who is above average educated, with a
prestigious occupation. No gender differences were reported. We verify the interest and concern in
animal welfare in general and in bird welfare more specific and the extent to what it translates in
pro-welfare behaviour. Hypotheses are that a higher translation of positive interest and concern in
pro-welfare behaviour is positively associated with a higher importance of animal welfare both as a
social theme and as a product attribute, a higher perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE), a
stronger association of higher welfare products with positive product attributes and lower
perceived barriers (price and availability) for purchasing pro-welfare products. A final hypothesis
relates to an expected higher need for a welfare label and higher willingness to pay for products
with a welfare provenance among consumers who already engage more in pro-welfare behaviour.
Establishing consumer profiles is relevant since it can provide a guide as to how and who to target
and how to position higher welfare products or communicate welfare efforts effectively to
consumers.
As a secondary objective of this study, we are also interested to compare the results for higher
welfare eggs and higher welfare chicken meat, given some different characteristics of both
products: eggs do not really have a substitute, hence being more price inelastic as compared to
chicken meat; eggs are a derivate of the animal whereas chicken meat concerns the consumption of
the animal itself after slaughter; and eggs, more than chicken meat, have been subject to initiatives
that are believed to associate with better animal welfare among consumers (e.g. free range,
outdoor access, lower density, more space).
2. Material and methods
Methodological detail in terms of research approach and sampling procedure are provided in Part I,
section 4, and apply to Study 3.
2.1.
Study design and subjects
The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 79 years, with a mean age of 40.7 (SD = 13.5), which
corresponds with the population mean (40.2 years). Compared to census data, the dataset consists
of a higher share of females (+10 percent), a small over-representation of people from urban areas
173
Part IV
(±5 percent), an over-sampling of the provinces West- and East-Flanders (resp. +18 and +4.7
percent) at the expense of Antwerp, Flemish Brabant and Limburg (-3.2; -8.7 and -10.8 percent,
respectively) and a higher share of higher educated people. The study complied with standard
ethics procedures in market research. All participants in the study were adult volunteers who were
informed about the scope of the study. The study did not involve the collection of sensitive personal
information. Data collection was fully anonymous and all data were stored in a non-identifiable
format.
Also, the number and percentage of vegetarians in the study is reported. Strictly speaking
vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet that excludes meat (including game and slaughter
by-products; fish, shellfish and other sea animals; and poultry). However vegetarianism has several
variants, some of which are more relaxed and include fish (pesco-vegetarianism or pescetarianism)
or stricter and excluding eggs and dairy products on top of the meat (veganism). “Vegetarians” are
referred to in this study are mainly pesco-vegetarians, i.e. consumers who eat fish, eggs and/or
dairy products, but no meat. Given the study purpose it will be important to consider this group
separately, especially for analyses concerning the consumption of chicken meat.
2.2.
Survey
Attitude towards animal welfare and pro-welfare behaviour. Two survey questions were included to
account for the interest in, and concern for animal welfare. First the extent to which the respondent
agreed with the statement that he/she judges animal welfare an important issue was measured on
a five-point Likert agreement scale with extreme values of “totally disagree” (1) and “totally agree”
(5). Second the respondent was asked to evaluate the current condition of the welfare of laying
hens and broilers in Flemish animal production. Evaluations were registered on a seven-point scale
that ranged form “very bad” (1) to “very good” (7).
The pro-welfare behaviour measure is assessed as the buying frequency of higher welfare eggs and
higher welfare chicken and was formulated as: “Out of 10 times that you buy eggs (chicken meat),
how often do you buy eggs (chicken meat) that have been produced with extra care for the animal’s
welfare?” Answers were registered on a ratio scale, ranging from “0” to “10”. Since no normal
distribution in the buying frequency is expected, the response scale will be divided in five sections
for further analysis, corresponding with five groups with a different level of pro-welfare behaviour:
consumers who never buy higher welfare eggs (chicken meat) (response grade 0; further referred to
as No Welfare_eggs(chicken meat)); consumers who rarely buy higher welfare products (grades 1, 2
and 3; Little Welfare_eggs(chicken meat)); consumers who buy higher welfare products to some
degree (grades 4, 5 and 6; Some Welfare_eggs(chicken meat)); consumers who regularly buy higher
welfare products (grades 7, 8 and 9; Regular Welfare_eggs(chicken meat)); and consumers who
always buy higher welfare eggs (chicken meat) (grade 10; All Welfare_eggs(chicken meat)).
Vegetarians will be considered a separate group, irrespective of their response grade.
174
Chapter 10 : Citizen – consumer ambivalence
Profiling variables – demographics and meat consumption. The different consumer groups will be
described and compared in terms of socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age and education)
and meat consumption. Self-reported meat consumption is measured on a six-point frequency
scale, ranging from “never” (1) to “daily” (6) for different animal products (beef, pork, chicken meat,
eggs, fish), as well as for meat substitutes.
Role of attribute perceptions, PCE and consumption motives and/or barriers. First respondents were
asked about the importance of a list of food product attributes in their decision to buy animal
products (“importance score”). The importance was measured on a five-point scale, anchored by
“totally unimportant” (1) and “very important” (5). Product attributes were “health”, “taste”,
“price”, “safety”, “trustworthiness”, “quality”, “availability” and “ethical aspect”. For the latter,
explicit reference to animal welfare and environment was given between brackets. Second,
perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) (i.e. the extent to which individuals believe that their
actions make a difference in solving a problem (Ellen et al., 1991)) was probed through four
statements focusing on the theme of animal welfare: “One person alone can do very little for the
animal’s welfare”; “Efforts concerning animal welfare by one person are useless as long as other
people do not want to do something”; “Refusing products that do harm to the animal’s welfare is a
good way to change the production system and the production offer”; and “An individual person can
make a difference for the animal’s welfare by carefully selecting the products”. Responses were
measured on five-point Likert agreement scales. Finally, questions were provided specifically in
relation to eggs and chicken meat and its production. Respondents were probed for their beliefs
regarding higher welfare eggs and higher welfare chicken meat in terms of the product’s health,
taste, price, acceptability, safety, trustworthiness, quality and availability. The discussion will make
distinction between product attributes that can be considered a motive (health, taste, acceptability,
safety, trustworthiness and quality) and product attributes that rather function as a barrier for
higher welfare products’ purchase (price and availability). The eight product attributes considered
are similar to the ones that were probed for their importance in the respondent’s general decision
process of animal food products. As a result both scores can be combined into one measure that is a
possible predictor value for the level of pro-welfare behaviour. To this end, the eight belief scores
are rescaled from variables ranging from 1 to 5 into variables ranging from -2 to +2 (i.e. original
variables minus 3). For each respondent a predictor value for the level of pro-welfare behaviour is
calculated from the eight product attributes:
8
∑
i =1
( IMPORTANCE _ SCORE ∗ RESCALED BELIEF _ SCORE)
The predictor value can range from -16 to +80. A higher score corresponds with a higher likelihood
of engagement in pro-welfare behaviour. The interpretation of the value involves some
assumptions and as a consequence it is a relative measure rather than absolute. Assumptions are
that respondents answer consistently; that the eight product attributes cover the most important
product attributes; and that the choice for higher welfare eggs and higher welfare chicken meat is
determined by product attribute beliefs. Or conversely, a strong match between the predictor value
175
Part IV
and the reported pro-welfare behaviour coincides with consistent answering behaviour, a high
importance of the product attribute and a strong impact of product attribute beliefs on the choice
for higher welfare eggs and chicken meat.
Outcome variables – interest in welfare labelling. Respondent agreement on the statement “I use
label info when I make a food choice” was registered on a five-point Likert agreement scale. Next
respondents were asked more specific to indicate their need for a label that refers to the welfare
provenance for both eggs and chicken meat as a food product category. Answers were registered
on a five-point scale, ranging from “I have no need at all” (1) to “I have a strong need” (5). In
addition, they were probed for the willingness of buying eggs or chicken meat with such a label for
six different price premiums (equal price, +5 percent, +10 percent, +20 percent, +50 percent, +100
percent), using a five-point Likert scale that ranged from “very unlikely” (1) to “very likely” (5).
2.3.
Statistical analyses
Data were analysed using SPSS 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, 2006). Means with standard deviations are
presented in table format. Frequencies are provided in table format or histogram presentation. A
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is performed to verify whether the buying frequency of both higher
welfare eggs and higher welfare chicken is normally distributed. A construct reliability test with
Cronbach alpha statistic is performed to check for the reliability of the PCE scales. Bivariate analyses
including cross-tabulation with χ²-statisitics and one-way ANOVA F-tests with Bonferroni and
Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores were used to profile the segments with different
levels of pro-welfare behaviour in terms of the socio-demographic, attitudinal and behavioural
variables that are included in the study.
3. Results and discussion
3.1.
Attitude towards animal welfare and pro-welfare behaviour
A pronounced interest and concern for animal welfare is shared among our sample. The importance
of the concept of animal welfare corresponded with a mean score of 4.29 ± 0.75 on the five-point
scale and both the welfare of laying-hens and broilers was negatively evaluated (2.91 ± 1.59 and
2.73 ± 1.58 on the seven-point scale, respectively).
A non-normal frequency distribution is found for the sample’s consumption frequency of both eggs
and chicken meat (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, p<0.001), allowing to convert the original scale into five
groups with a different level of pro-welfare behaviour (see material & method section of this
chapter). The distribution of the sample over the groups yielded a different pattern for the two food
products (Figure 4.1). For the purchase of higher welfare eggs, a U-shaped distribution was found,
meaning that the highest numbers of respondents were found in the two extreme positions, i.e.
either never or always buying higher welfare eggs. Both categories together correspond with more
176
Chapter 10 : Citizen – consumer ambivalence
than half of the sample. The mean value of the sample (without vegetarians) (mean=5.36) indicates
that on ten purchasing occasions, consumers on average buy higher welfare eggs in somewhat
more than half of the occasions. From the vegetarian subsample, more than three out of four
individuals always buys higher welfare eggs and another twenty percent regularly buys them. For
the purchase of higher welfare chicken meat, no distinct pattern appeared (Figure 4.1). About one
third of the sample was categorised in the No_Welfare group and even half of the sample in the two
categories with the lowest engagement in pro-welfare behaviour. The mean value coincides with
higher welfare chicken meat being bought in four out of ten purchasing occasions (μ=4.12).
The higher mean value for the frequency of purchasing higher welfare eggs as compared to higher
welfare chicken meat is in correspondence with the higher familiarity or awareness of consumers
with initiatives related with better animal welfare. Consequently consumers are able to make a
better informed and more rational choice when it concerns higher welfare eggs, resulting in a Ushape distribution. The distribution of buying higher welfare chicken meat reflects the higher
unawareness and higher uncertainty towards these products.
35
32.1
30
26.6
25.3
Percentage
25
21.3
20
15
17.3
12.4
19.1
17.6
14.4
14
10
5
0
eggs
No_welfare
Little_welfare
chicken meat
Some_welfare
Regular_welfare
All_welfare
Figure 4.1. Buying behaviour of higher welfare eggs and higher welfare chicken meat (%, nonvegetarians: n=400)
These findings confirm that reported concern and interest in the issue of animal welfare in general
and the welfare for laying-hens and broilers more specific do not translate equally in consumer
buying behaviour (Castellini et al., 2008; FAWC, 2006; IGD, 2007; Harper and Henson, 2001;
Korthals, 2001b; Shrum, 1995; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). The attitude-behaviour inconsistency is
mainly situated in the three groups with the lowest engagement in pro-welfare behaviour,
suggesting a low significance of interest and concern in the buying decision process of higher
welfare eggs and chicken meat (Table 4.1). Opposite, both the strong importance for animal welfare
and the poor evaluation of the current poultry welfare status among the Regular_welfare and the
All_welfare group (Table 4.1) seems to translate into consistent buying behaviour.
177
Part IV
Table 4.1. Attitude towards animal welfare in terms of welfare importance and welfare
evaluation for consumer groups with a different level of pro-welfare behaviour as a reflection of a
possible attitude-behaviour gap
Pro-welfare behaviour group
Little
Some
Regular
No
Eggs
Animal welfare is important to me
Evaluation welfare laying-hens
Chicken meat
Animal welfare is important to me
Evaluation welfare broilers
b,c
3.95
c
3.55
b,c
4.37
a,b
2.70
a
4.37
b,c
3.36
b
4.32
a,b
2.59
3.73
c
3.63
A
4.11
b,c
3.19
a
3.97
c,d
3.11
3.82
d
3.88
Vegetarians
All
c,d
4.61
a
2.14
d
4.91
1.38
b
4.76
a
2.24
c
N.A.
N.A.
a-d
Scores in row with different superscript are significantly different at p<0.01 (one-way ANOVA F-tests with
Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores)
3.2.
Socio-demographic characteristics and meat consumption
For eggs as well as for chicken meat the All_welfare group was most strongly represented by the
middle-aged groups and corroborates the study hypothesis (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). The oldest
age category was strongly present in the Some_welfare groups. Engagement in pro-welfare
behaviour is negatively associated with being male and higher education in our sample (Table 4.2),
disconfirming our study hypothesis of no gender impact and a positive association with higher
education (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). Possible explanations for this finding are, first, that ethical
consumerism (from which the study hypothesis was derived) is a much broader concept than ‘prowelfare consumerism’, hence different characteristics can emerge. Second and more importantly
the role of traditional demographic characteristics is strongly debated, especially seen that ethical
(and by extension animal welfare) concerns and awareness have become a widespread issue
(Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Roberts, 1995).
Table 4.2. Socio-demographic profile of segments with different levels of pro-welfare behaviour
(n=400). The non-shaded rows represent the results for higher welfare eggs, the shaded rows
correspond with the results for higher welfare chicken meat
Gender (%)
Age (years)
Education (%)
178
Sample (%)
41.7
Male
41.7
Male
No
53.5
54.3
Little
49.0
50.0
Some
51.8
31.6
Regular
42.2
37.1
All
21.2
23.6
41.7
41.7
14.3
17.3
35.7
32.7
14.3
17.3
32.7
35.7
Mean
Mean
18-24
25-34
35-49
50+
18-24
25-34
35-49
50+
39.8
40.5
17.2
19.2
38.4
25.3
15.7
18.9
40.9
24.4
41.4
40.6
14.3
16.3
32.7
36.7
16.2
17.6
32.4
33.8
44.7
42.9
17.9
12.5
17.9
51.8
18.7
16.0
13.3
52.0
44.2
43.2
13.1
11.9
33.3
41.7
11.6
11.6
43.5
33.3
40.1
42.8
10.6
23.1
46.2
20.2
7.1
21.4
46.4
25.0
69.8
69.8
Higher
Higher
69.7
74.0
85.1
87.7
53.6
62.7
77.4
67.1
65.7
56.6
χ²
27.18
21.40
p-value
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.54
30.40
<0.01
32.75
<0.01
15.34
17.51
<0.01
<0.01
Chapter 10 : Citizen – consumer ambivalence
Higher meat consumption frequency associates with lower levels of pro-welfare buying behaviour
(Table 4.3). Despite the lowest (absolute) meat consumption frequency among the All_welfare
group, they still do consume meat, which differentiates them from vegetarians. Lower meat
consumption is compensated by a higher consumption frequency of meat substitutes,
corresponding with literature findings, where the consumption of food products with a welfare
provenance was associated with lower meat consumption, mainly as a compensation for the price
premium they pay for higher welfare products (IGD, 2007; McEachern and Schröder, 2002). Total
consumption frequency of eggs did not differ between groups (p>0.05), corresponding with the fact
that there are no direct substitutes for eggs. Regarding the vegetarian group (results not shown) egg
consumption frequency was slightly lower, which could be due to a share of the vegetarians being
also vegan.
Table 4.3. Meat consumption frequency of segments with different levels of pro-welfare
behaviour (n=400). The non-shaded rows represent the results for higher welfare eggs, the
shaded rows correspond with the results for higher welfare chicken meat
Beef
Pork
Chicken meat
Eggs
Vegetarian
Beef
Pork
Chicken meat
Eggs
Vegetarian
Sample
mean
(2.89)
(2.94)
(2.88)
(3.11)
(4.68)
(2.89)
(2.94)
(2.88)
(3.11)
(4.68)
No
4.30c
4.33b
4.11a,b
3.84
1.75a
4.23b,c
4.29b
4.12a,b
3.89
1.92a
Pro-welfare behaviour group
Little
Some
Regular
b,c
b,c
4.46
4.35
3.93a,b
b
a,b
4.38
4.11
3.97a,b
b
a,b
4.37
4.27
4.09a,b
4.00
3.74
3.96
2.08a,b
1.94a,b
2.60b,c
4.42c
3.96a,b
4.13a,b,c
b
a
4.33
3.80
4.01a,b
b
b
4.28
4.30
4.14b
3.92
3.81
3.88
2.16a,b
2.28a,b,c
2.68b,c
All
3.83a
3.72a
3.93a
3.90
2.89c
3.84a
3.80a
3.76a
4.07
2.88c
p-value
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.36
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.39
<0.01
a-c
Scores in a row with different superscript are significantly different at p<0.01 (one-way ANOVA F-tests with Bonferroni
and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores)
3.3.
Role of product attribute perceptions
In general, consumers want a healthy, tasteful, safe, trustworthy and high quality food product
(Table 4.4). Product availability was commonly indicated as the least important attribute. Between
group differences are mainly situated on the issue of price and the ethical aspect. The higher the
engagement in pro-welfare behaviour, the higher the importance of the ethical aspect and the
lower the relative importance of price (also availability for the vegetarians). Consumers generally
agreed upon the higher price and lower availability of higher welfare products, two possible barriers
for translating attitudes in consistent behaviour (Harper and Henson, 2001; Vermeir and Verbeke,
2006) (Table 4.5). Additionally, increasing perception scores related to possible motives of
engagement in pro-welfare behaviour are found with increasing levels of pro-welfare behaviour
(Table 4.5). Between group differences are stronger for eggs as compared to chicken meat. For eggs
the highest between group differences (highest F-values) are found for “more acceptable” and
further for “healthier”, “tastier” and “better quality”. Differences for chicken meat were only very
clear for “more acceptable” and to a lesser extent “tastier”. Facing the two groups with the highest
179
Part IV
levels of pro-welfare behaviour, the main perceived benefit seemed to correspond to the higher
acceptability of the production method. Hence, whereas acceptability acts as a motive for
consumers who engage in pro-welfare behaviour, the findings suggest that No_welfare consumers
ignore the issue in order to avoid feelings of guilt (Harper and Henson, 2001). For the
No_welfare_eggs group, none of the attributes was attributed a positive association (all mean
scores below 3 on five-point scale), indicating that barriers clearly outweigh any possible benefit
among this consumer segment.
Table 4.4. Drivers in choosing animal products. Attributes are ranked with descending mean per
column (n=400). The non-shaded rows represent the results for higher welfare eggs, the shaded
rows correspond with the results for higher welfare chicken meat
Health
Taste
Price
Safety
Trustworthiness
Quality
Availability
Ethical aspect
Health
Taste
Price
Safety
Trustworthiness
Quality
Availability
Ethical aspect
No
4.29 (2)
4.49 (1)
3.80 (6)
4.15 (5)
4.16 (4)
4.29 (3)
3.57 (7)
3.23 (8)
4.32 (3)
4.34 (2)
3.80 (6)
4.15 (5)
4.18 (4)
4.35 (1)
3.58 (7)
3.33 (8)
Pro-welfare behaviour group
Little
Some
Regular
4.22 (3)
4.50 (1)
4.51 (1)
4.23 (2)
4.15 (5)
4.24 (5)
3.57 (6)
3.66 (7)
3.74 (7)
3.85 (5)
4.31 (4)
4.36 (4)
3.93 (4)
4.37 (3)
4.40 (3)
4.28 (1)
4.39 (2)
4.47 (2)
3.41 (8)
3.50 (8)
3.56 (8)
3.46 (7)
3.70 (6)
4.22 (6)
4.35 (1)
4.55 (1)
4.27 (4)
4.35 (2)
4.36 (4)
4.27 (3)
3.55 (6)
3.69 (7)
3.43 (7)
4.02 (5)
4.40 (3)
4.21 (5)
4.07 (4)
4.34 (5)
4.38 (2)
4.34 (3)
4.47 (2)
4.47 (1)
3.35 (8)
3.68 (8)
3.39 (8)
3.50 (7)
4.12 (6)
4.14 (6)
All
4.46 (2)
4.41 (3)
3.37 (8)
4.31 (6)
4.41 (5)
4.54 (1)
3.47 (7)
4.41 (4)
4.77 (1)
4.53 (6)
3.51 (8)
4.56 (5)
4.69 (2)
4.64 (5)
3.53 (7)
4.65 (3)
Vegetarians
4.17 (2)
3.94 (5)
3.05 (8)
3.94 (5)
4.08 (3)
3.93 (6)
3.08 (7)
4.75 (1)
N.A.
Table 4.5. Possible barriers and motives for engagement in pro-welfare behaviour. The nonshaded rows represent the results for higher welfare eggs, the shaded rows correspond with the
results for higher welfare chicken meat
Cheaper
Better available
Healthier
Tastier
More acceptable
Safer
More trustworthy
Better quality
Cheaper
Better available
Healthier
Tastier
More acceptable
Safer
More trustworthy
Better quality
a-d
No
1.88
2.00a
2.87a
3.00a
2.91a
2.86a
2.90a
3.11a
1.93
2.20a
3.04a
3.44a
3.28a
3.19a
3.11a
3.55a
Pro-welfare behaviour group
Little
Some
Regular
2.05
2.03
2.31
2.40a,b
2.40a,b
2.61b
3.21a,b
3.42b,c
3.88c,d
a,b
a,b
3.42
3.49
3.84b,c
b
b
3.55
3.61
4.26c
a
a,b
2.88
3.33
3.53b
a,b
b,c
3.15
3.44
3.60b,c
a
a,b
3.20
3.50
3.94b,c
2.09
2.25
2.28
2.42a,b
2.57a,b
2.40a,b
3.40a,b
3.45a,b
3.79b
a,b
b,c
3.64
3.98
4.20c
a
b
3.62
4.07
4.22b
a
a,b
3.24
3.67
3.75b
a,b
b,c
3.40
3.67
3.77b,c
a,b
a,b,c
3.78
3.97
4.15b,c
All
2.01
2.65b
4.01d
4.15c
4.64c
3.64b
3.75c
4.15c
2.17
2.80b
3.58b
4.38c
4.65c
3.87b
3.89c
4.32c
Vegetarians
2.46
3.04
4.01
4.06
4.71
3.81
4.08
4.32
N.A.
Scores in a row with different superscript are significantly different at p<0.01 (one-way ANOVA F-tests with Bonferroni
and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores)
180
Chapter 10 : Citizen – consumer ambivalence
Predictor values are in correspondence with the level of pro-welfare behaviour, for eggs as well as
for chicken meat (Table 4.6). Especially in the case of eggs, between group differences were
pronounced suggesting a high importance of product attribute perceptions and their association
with higher welfare eggs in the purchase decision. In the case of chicken meat differentiation was
less pronounced, where no significant differences in predictor value appeared between the three
groups with the highest level of pro-welfare behaviour. The higher predictor scores for chicken
meat as compared to eggs within the same group indicate that consumers are more convinced
about the positive impact of higher welfare standards in chicken meat production on resulting
product attributes. This probably relates to the fact that chicken meat consumption concerns the
consumption of the animal itself whereas eggs are a derivate from the animal.
Table 4.6. Predictor values for the level of pro-welfare behaviour
Pro-welfare behaviour group
No
Little
Some
Regular
All
Vegetarians
a
a
b
b
b
Eggs
-9.25
-0.49
0.17
15.53
22.20
26.57
a
a,b
b,c
c
c
Chicken meat
-3.54
4.72
13.04
20.42
25.37
N.A.
a-c
Scores in a row with different superscript are significantly different at p<0.01 (one-way ANOVA F-tests with
Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores)
3.4.
Role of perceived consumer effectiveness
A satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha of 0.72 allows considering the four different items as one construct
representing PCE. The issue of PCE is frequently issued as a meaningful moderator within the
literature of green and sustainable consumerism (Ellen et al., 1991; Laskova, 2007; Shrum, 1995;
Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). PCE is especially relevant for food choice, given that consumers often
have limited knowledge and awareness of agriculture and its production processes and
consequently lack insights into the implications of their food purchase decisions on the food supply
chain (Dickson, 2001; Verbeke, 2005). Our study results confirm the moderating role of PCE in the
translation of positive attitudes towards animal welfare in pro-welfare behaviour, with a higher PCE
among groups with higher levels of pro-welfare behaviour (Table 4.7). In the case of eggs, the three
groups with the lowest engagement in pro-welfare behaviour did not have a positive PCE (i.e. mean
score lower or not significantly different from the scale’s midpoint). In the vegetarian subsample, a
very strong belief in the positive impact of their own behaviour on animal welfare is seen. Regarding
chicken meat, only the No_welfare and the Little_welfare group did not express a positive PCE. The
All_welfare group to the contrast indicated a significant higher PCE as compared to all other groups.
Table 4.7. Pro-welfare behaviour and perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE)
Pro-welfare behaviour groups
No
Little
Some
Regular
All
Vegetarians
a
a
a,b
b,c
c
Eggs
2.95
2.99
3.12
3.46
3.81
4.51
a
a
a
a
b
Chicken meat
3.04
3.07
3.33
3.49
3.96
N.A.
a-c
Scores in a row with different superscript are significantly different at p<0.01 (one-way ANOVA F-tests with
Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores)
181
Part IV
3.5.
Outcome variables – interest in welfare labelling
A higher label use in the food buying decision process is reported by consumers with higher levels of
pro-welfare behaviour (Table 4.8). A higher label use is often related to a higher consumer
involvement (Verbeke and Vackier, 2004; Verbeke et al., 2007c).
Table 4.8. Pro-welfare behaviour and perception on welfare label issues. The non-shaded rows
represent the results for higher welfare eggs, the shaded rows correspond with the results for
higher welfare chicken meat
Pro-welfare behaviour groups
No
I take a label into account when
buying food
There is a need for an animal
welfare label for eggs
I take a label into account when
buying food
There is a need for an animal
welfare label for chicken meat
a-d
Little
a
2.99
a
3.17
a
3.11
a,b
3.56
b
3.75
a,b
3.63
Some
b,c
3.71
b
3.67
b,c
4.10
Regular
All
Vegetarians
b,c
4.27
c
4.58
b,c
4.37
4.07
4.20
4.01
c
4.74
c
4.89
c
N.A.
a
3.36
b
3.85
b,c
4.12
c
4.28
d
4.84
Scores in a row with different superscript are significantly different at p<0.01 (one-way ANOVA F-tests with
Bonferroni and Dunnett’s T3 post hoc comparison of mean scores)
Consumer segments with higher levels of pro-welfare behaviour indicate a higher willingness to buy
eggs or chicken meat with a welfare provenance, irrespective of the price premium, confirming our
research hypothesis (Figure 4.2 and 4.3). In addition to the higher purchase willingness we also
witness a lower drop in willingness with increasing price premiums. For an equal price, a high
purchase willingness of the labelled eggs and chicken meat was expressed in all groups. However a
price premium of five percent already yields a strong drop in the purchase willingness of the
No_welfare group. A further price increase even yields negative purchase willingness. Hence for this
consumer group a price premium seem to be an insurmountable burden. Only among the groups
with the two highest levels of engagement in pro-welfare behaviour, considerable monetary
sacrifices are witnessed to attain the perceived benefits of higher welfare products. These results
support the consistent translation of attitude into behaviour among the groups with higher prowelfare behaviour.
182
Chapter 10 : Citizen – consumer ambivalence
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
No
Little
0%
Some
5%
10%
20%
Regular
50%
All
100%
Figure 4.2. Self-reported willingness to pay for higher welfare eggs, registered on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from “very unlikely” (1) and “very likely” (5)
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
No
Little
0%
Some
5%
10%
20%
Regular
50%
All
100%
Figure 4.3. Self-reported willingness to pay for higher welfare chicken meat, registered on a fivepoint Likert scale ranging from “very unlikely” (1) and “very likely” (5)
It can be concluded that the gap between attitude – which is characterised by a high interest and
concern for bird welfare in general – and actual engagement in pro-welfare behaviour are
associated with some specific consumer characteristics. Consumers who engage strongly in prowelfare behaviour attach a high importance to ethical issues when buying animal food product,
while price and availability were of minor importance. Further, they strongly associate higher
welfare poultry products with important product attributes like health, taste and quality, and
believe that they can contribute to the welfare problems through their choice for higher welfare
products. A wide gap between attitude and pro-welfare behaviour to the contrast are related to
183
Part IV
strong perceived price and availability barriers, to a low importance of ethical issues as product
attributes and to low perceived consumer effectiveness. These low involved consumers do not
invest extra efforts, e.g. in information search or label use and want good quality standards to be
set and monitored by retailers, consumer organisations and governmental institutions (McEachern
and Schröder, 2002). Segmenting consumers based on behavioural characteristics and gaining
insights into common characteristics of consumers within a segment is essential for positioning
higher welfare products and developing effective communication strategies.
Consumer groups in between were less clear-cut to define. Especially for such less clearly profiled
consumer groups, who are likely to be quite uncertain, marketing efforts could be highly influential.
Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) already demonstrated that involvement, perceived consumer
effectiveness and perceived product availability – proven to be key factors as motives or barriers for
the purchase of pro-welfare behaviour in our study – can be successfully manipulated through
communication efforts and information provision. In addition we want to stress the importance of
the product attribute perception of higher welfare food products, especially in the case of eggs. It is
important to create positive consumer expectations in terms of attribute evaluation, but it is even
more important that these expectations are confirmed. A confirmation will yield satisfaction and
stimulate re-purchase, whereas disconfirmation will make consumers to pull out (Oliver, 1980). This
holds particularly for the case of higher welfare food. First of all food purchase is a process that is
strongly influenced by habit, hence buying higher welfare food involves changing habits for the
majority of consumers and second, uncertain consumers might face an additional barrier in terms of
the price premium. Finally a welfare label seems an appropriate communication and marketing tool
for consumers who engage in pro-welfare behaviour and who experience the label as a solution to
lower the search costs for higher welfare products.
3.6.
Impact of having a pet on attitudes towards farm animal welfare
Additional to the objectives within this chapter, an analysis is included to investigate a possible
impact of having a pet in the household on attitudes towards farm animal welfare (Table 4.9).
The findings correspond in general with our research hypothesis. Especially of interest for this
dissertation is the more utilitarian view of persons that do not have a pet in the household and a
more humanitarian vision among persons with a pet in the household. This corresponds with
Bradshaw and Paul (2010, p.110), who reported that anthropomorphism, defined as the projection
of human thoughts, feelings and attributes on to non-human animals, is a defining component of
pet-keeping. Noticeable, no difference was found in the relative importance of animal welfare as a
product attribute, despite a higher importance attached to animal welfare, a poorer evaluation and
higher perceived benefits from higher welfare products among persons with a pet.
184
Chapter 10 : Citizen – consumer ambivalence
Table 4.9. Attitudes towards farm animal welfare. Impact of having a pet in the household
Pet
No pet
p-value
3.76
3.43
<0.001
2.34
2.24
0.244
3.98
3.55
0.001
2.11
2.51
<0.001
1.02
0.97
0.180
3.18
2.45
<0.001
4.42
4.03
<0.001
3.87
4.35
0.002
Perceived benefits from higher welfare products
Higher welfare products => better quality / taste / health / safety / trust
1 : not at all agree => 5 : strongly agree
Perceived barriers from higher welfare products
Higher welfare products => cheaper / more available
1 : not at all agree => 5 : strongly agree
Animal treatment scale (Kendall et al. (2006))
higher score => greater concern with animal welfare
1 : not at all agree => 5 : strongly agree
Animal utility scale (Kendall et al. (2006))
Evaluative concept of general utilitarianism
1 : not at all agree => 5 : strongly agree
Relative importance of animal welfare as product attribute
< 1 : less important than other product attributes
1 : equally important as other product attributes
> 1 : more important than other product attributes
“Humans and animals have the same value”
1 : not at all agree => 5 : strongly agree
“Animal welfare is important to me”
1 : not at all agree => 5 : strongly agree
“Evaluation farm animal welfare”
1 : very poor => 7 : very good
185
Part V
Discussion and conclusion
Discussion and conclusion
The findings from the different studies have been profoundly discussed in the previous parts and
chapters and have been linked to some study-specific conclusions. Part V has the aim to discuss and
conclude on the findings in more general terms and is subdivided in three sections. The first section
provides a recapitulation of the dissertation’s structure and indicates how this structure relates to
the conceptual framework, to the four research objectives and to the ten research hypotheses. The
second section is specifically dedicated to a general discussion of the four research objectives. The
research hypotheses are verified and are related to policy recommendations. The third and final
section is dedicated to the limitations of this dissertation, a critical discussion of the applied
methodology and to suggestions for future research, based on the limitations or as a continuation
of this dissertation’s findings.
Annexed to this part and additional to the objectives and results of this dissertation, a brief review
of solutions, that are proposed and discussed in literature, to realise better farm animal welfare is
included (Annex 1). This Annex also reviews the role that different actors, such as stakeholders,
interest groups, science or the media can play in improving farm animal welfare.
1. Recapitulation
The overall objective of this PhD-dissertation was to contribute to a better understanding of the
public conception of, and the public perception towards farm animal welfare. More specific, this
dissertation has elaborated on the way people think about farm animal welfare. It has
acknowledged that this way of thinking, together with people’s attitudes and concerns towards
farm animal welfare differs between persons and it has raised some issues that contribute to a
better understanding of the contested ambivalence between “citizen” attitudes and “consumer”
market place behaviour. In addition, this dissertation has given special attention to piglet castration,
as a welfare-related case study. Analyses were based on the conceptual framework that was
developed based on literature findings and that has been outlined in Part I. Both qualitative
exploratory and quantitative conclusive research methods have been carried out and statistical
analysis techniques commonly used in social sciences have been applied to process the survey data.
The relevance of addressing these objectives should be seen in the double role that is granted to
the public in the adoption of more animal welfare production practices. On one hand, societal
concerns related to farm animal welfare play a determinant role in the increased number of policies
in the area – on national, European as well as global level – and stimulate sector initiatives (e.g.
product differentiation). On the other hand, higher farm animal welfare is currently to a large
extent left to the market. In this perspective, insights in public opinions, concerns and expectations
are necessary in order to effectively address the expectations of this chain end user. Such insights
also allow to better align public perceptions with scientific facts, for instance through
communication about animal welfare criteria, whose importance is unknown by the lay public.
189
Part V
The different parts in this dissertation correspond with the different research objectives. Each part
consists of one or more chapters that are adapted from a published or submitted peer-reviewed
scientific paper. Part II is devoted to the conceptualisation of farm animal welfare from a public
point of view and is comprised of two chapters, corresponding with a qualitative and a quantitative
research approach. The qualitative research was based on secondary data sources and focus group
interviews with citizens. The quantitative study continued on the first chapter and was based on a
Flemish survey, complemented with in depth interviews with stakeholder representatives and
interest groups along the animal production chain. Multivariate analysis techniques and structural
equation modelling were combined to obtain a multi-dimensional conception of farm animal
welfare. The final concept is the resultant of an integrated approach that has started from the
public opinion and has involved expert opinions to develop a structured model of farm animal
welfare’s public conception. Its value as an advisory tool for the development of communication
strategies and information provision, for reducing the gap between public perceptions and scientific
facts through education and for supporting a constructive dialogue about the issue has been
discussed.
Part III is devoted to determinants of public attitudes, perceptions and concerns in relation with
farm animal welfare. The first two chapters focused on the discordance between producers and
citizens in their interpretation of farm animal welfare. Differences were discussed based on the
model developed in this dissertation (Chapter 3), and based on the model developed by Welfare
Quality® (Chapter 4). Additionally, the latter chapter elaborated on differences between
demographical groups other than place-based variables and detailed on the interpretation of the
concept by vegetarians. Three other chapters within this part concentrated on the issue of piglet
castration. They were positioned in this part of the dissertation because of their correspondence
with the place-based attitude modifiers. Namely, two chapters were based on consumer/citizen
studies, one on a regional level (Chapter 5) and one on European level (Chapter 6). The third
chapter was based on the opinion of Flemish pig producers (Chapter 7). Finally, two chapters were
included to deal with the other attitude modifiers described in the conceptual framework. Chapter
8 discussed the impact of social structural variables on the concern for stocking density as a wellunderstood welfare-loaded aspect. Chapter 9 used these determinants as profiling variables in a
segmentation analysis, in which respondents were grouped according to similarities on a typical
citizen’s attitude measurement versus a more consumer-oriented measurement.
In Part IV, different factors that are related to characteristics of higher welfare products as well as
to consumer attitudes are discussed for their influence on the relationship between what
individuals state in questionnaires and actually do in the shop. This part consists of one chapter
only, in which self-reported pro-welfare behaviour for eggs and chicken is related to the different
influencing factors included in the conceptual framework.
190
Discussion and conclusion
2. General discussion and policy recommendations
The conceptual framework is developed in order to address the four research objectives and the ten
research hypotheses. The next discussion is structured according to the four objectives of this
dissertation and includes the verification of the respective research hypotheses.
2.1.
Public conception of farm animal welfare
An integrated study approach has resulted in a conception for farm animal welfare, that consists of
seven dimensions on two levels: three animal-based dimensions with a direct impact on the
animal’s welfare (Ability to Engage in Natural Behaviour; Animal Health; Suffering and Stress) and
four resource- or environmental-based dimensions with an indirect impact on the animal’s welfare
(Feed and Water; Housing and Barn Climate; Human-Animal Relationship; Transport and Slaughter).
There are three general conclusions I want to bring out, corresponding with this outcome. First, the
model, although based on measurements among lay persons, has many common grounds with the
conceptions available in literature, be it in a format that betrays the limited awareness and low
practical knowledge base of the public in relation to animal production practices (Beekman et al.,
2002; Te Velde et al., 2002).
Second, the subdivision in two levels contributes to the current discussion on the relative absence
of animal-based parameters in welfare legislations, welfare assurance schemes or welfare indices10.
These queries are for instance raised in publications by Bracke (2007), Evers et al. (2005), Gottardo
et al. (2009), Knierim and Wincler (2009), Scipioni et al. (2009) and Sevi (2009). These parameters
are more reliable for their direct impact on the animal’s welfare, though are more difficult (and
costly) to obtain in a valid, reliable, repeatable and feasible way (Gottardo et al., 2009). At present,
legislation and assurance schemes are almost exclusively based on resource-based indicators, an
approach which can often cause (unintentional) adverse welfare effects. For example, ‘mortality
rate’ in 2007 was the first animal-based parameter included in a European Council Directive (Council
Directive 2007/43/EU).
Third, the model incorporates the full life-span of the animal. This is important since it avoids
potential negative side effects of an aspect or dimension that is not incorporated in the model,
though that could strongly harm the societal value and relevance of the model. For instance, if
slaughter conditions are negatively associated with the animal’s welfare, thought not part of the
model, then the model would be of no value to represent ‘farm animal welfare’.
10
Examples of protocols that take animal-based parameters into account are: Bristol University Assessment
System of Animal Welfare; protocol developed in Welfare Quality®; Wemelsfelder’s Quality Behaviour
Assessment; Bracke’s Decision Support System; Bartussek’s Animal Needs Index
191
Part V
The model and the findings of this part can be applied to address several imperfections of current
welfare-oriented initiatives that originate from a poor understanding and/or a poor addressing of
public expectations, concerns and perceptions in relation to farm animal welfare, and to positively
stimulate market adoption of higher welfare products. Different sources have already plead to
integrate the public opinion and concerns in decision making about regulatory purposes, the
development of welfare assurance schemes and product differentiation (Boogaard et al., 2008;
Fearon, 1998; Mirabito et al., 2008; Sørensen and Fraser, 2010). In this perspective, the popularity
of free range systems could be framed, given the importance attached to natural living among the
public. Garnier et al. (2003) also referenced the strength of consumer pressure in relation to a
growth of the organic production in Switzerland, Austria and Germany. In addition, assurance on
good animal welfare based on technical parameters should be communicated in a transparent,
understandable and credible manner to consumers. Therefore, a good understanding of consumer
perceptions is required. Education initiatives, communication efforts and information provision
should be developed in relation to the ‘cognitive capacity’ of consumers, by which I allude to the
limited consumer awareness and practical knowledge base in relation to animal production
practices, in combination with the specificities of the food purchasing process. A better
understanding of the public perception of the concept should also assist in reducing the discordance
between citizens and other stakeholders along the chain.
Additionally, it is important to stress that the model is based on public perception measures.
Perceptions are based on human subjectivity and therefore do not necessarily match with reality.
Perceptions differ between persons and can change or evolve over time. Given that the model is
supported by different experts along the animal production chain, it can be assumed that the
general structure of the model will be rather fixed, though the (perceived) importance of an aspect
within a dimension and the (perceived) strength of the association between the different
dimensions is likely to vary depending on the population segment considered or to be influenced by
external environmental factors. In this perspective, the model allows to register possible evolutions
and differences in public opinions.
2.2.
Determinants of public attitudes towards farm animal welfare
Public attitudes, perceptions and concerns towards farm animal welfare vary within a society.
Already documented in literature, this is also confirmed throughout the different chapters of this
dissertation. However, the findings from the different chapters were not all univocally consistent
about the impact of the determinants and did not allow to fully confirming the first three research
hypotheses. The first hypothesis, which assumed an impact of place-based variables, could only be
partly confirmed (H1 partly confirmed). Farmers and/or first degree farmer’s offspring differed
considerably from people with non-farming roots in both attitude towards, and conceptualisation of
farm animal welfare. Animal welfare was perceived much less a problem among farmers, most
strongly informed by a functional approach of the concept. Citizens from their side attribute more
importance to the ‘natural’ aspect of the animal’s life and are more negative about the (present and
192
Discussion and conclusion
perceived) level of farm animal welfare. Residency, i.e. rural or urban residency, was much less
influential. Some of this dissertation’s study results confirmed the hypothesised higher concern
among urban residents, while other studies could neither accept nor reject this hypothesis. Thus,
life farm experiences appear to be more influential as compared to residency. Possible explanations
pertain to the fact that animals are for the large majority housed indoors, such that contact with
farm animals does not differ significantly between rural and urban inhabitants and to the relativity
of the distinction between cities and the countryside in our study area. Flanders is a very densely
populated area, where real distances and differences between cities and the countryside are rather
small, especially in comparison to the United States, from where studies stemmed on which the
research hypothesis was based. This has very recently been exemplified by a Eurostat study, in
which the applied definition for ‘sparsely populated municipality’ resulted in only three rural villages
in Flanders (Belga, 03/09/2010). Next to differences between farmers and citizens, it is also
important to acknowledge variation within both population segments. Bock and van Huik (2007)
and Hubbard et al. (2007) allocate variation within the farmer’s segment to a different conception,
whereas Bruckmeier and Prutzer (2007) attribute variation to gender. Mann (2005) determined
farm size, farmers’ education, age, less favoured areas and higher investments previously made as
factors that influence the participation in agro-ethological programs. Differentiation within the
citizen sample is discussed in the next two hypotheses (H2 & H3) and in the segmentation analyses
based on animal welfare related issues (H10).
With regard to social structural variables other than place-based variables, higher concerns were
generally found among households without children and among younger respondents, two
variables which are presumably interrelated with each other (H2b and H2c confirmed). The
hypothesised higher concern among females only appeared in some of our studies, while other
studies did not point on any gender impact (H2a partly confirmed). Socio-economic status through
education level was non-significant in most studies and proportionate related to the level of
concern in one study (H2d rejected). The impact of the individual animal-related experiential
variables incorporated in this thesis followed the research hypothesis (H3 confirmed).
Vegetarianism, having a pet in the household and a higher interest in animal welfare-related
information all associated positively with a higher concern for the animal’s welfare. Interestingly, a
higher concern for farm animal welfare was most often associated with a higher importance of
natural living in the conception of farm animal welfare.
These results provide some food for thought. The classical demographic variables, though
significant in the study of Kendall et al. (2006) and in different other (European) studies, were not
very explanatory in this dissertation. This was already reported by several authors (Dagevos, 2005;
Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Pouta et al., 2010), where the usefulness of these variables as
explanatory variables for sustainable-related behaviour was explicitly questioned. Attitudes,
perceptions and concerns were much stronger influenced by variables that relate to familiarity with
the agricultural sector and to life-style values and beliefs with respect to animals, animal welfare
and animal production. These variables could to some extent be reduced to the opposition between
193
Part V
a utilitarian and a humanitarian vision, between utility versus affect, or ratio versus emotion.
Different studies already abandoned the classical demographical variables in explaining differences
in attitudes related to animal welfare or differences in sustainable behaviour. Vermeir and Verbeke
(2006) made use of the Schwarz value scale to explain sustainable behaviour, similar to Aertsens et
al. (2009) in relation to organic food consumption. Boogaard et al. (2006) applied value orientations
to explain perceptual differences in relation to farm animal welfare; Te Velde et al. (2002)
approached the discordance between farmers and consumers using a frame of reference consisting
of values, norms, convictions, interests and knowledge to analyse perceptions; and Hoogland (2007,
2005) used the Portrait Values Questionnaire to explain societal differences in animal welfare
concerns. Serpell (2004) defined, next to individual human characteristics, also animal
characteristics and cultural factors (such as religion) as modifiers for human attitudes towards
animal welfare.
These findings involve some valuable information for policy makers and for the development of
education initiatives, information provision and communication. Persons differ in their attitudes and
concerns for the animal’s welfare, as well as in relation to their conception of farm animal welfare.
This necessitates a segmented approach, in which profiling variables should go beyond the classical
demographic variables, and information provisions, communication strategies and marketing
strategies (f.e. advertising, assortment, packaging, display, product positioning, …) should address
the specific expectations of the target segments (H10 confirmed).
2.3.
Citizen attitudes versus consumer behaviour
Citizens ask collectively for more animal friendly production practices. However, the average
consumer does not act accordingly in the shop and most often chooses for the cheaper and more
convenient alternative. Better insights in this apparent opposition are needed in the context of the
increasing global dimension of trade in agricultural products, in which animal welfare is regulated
through the market. Insights can contribute to narrowing the gap that exists between the producer,
scientific evidence and the consumer, and can be supportive for future policy efforts and policy
implementations. Perceived consumer effectiveness positively moderates the relation between
attitudes and pro-welfare behaviour (H4 confirmed), analogous to green consumerism and
sustainable behaviour. Important in this perspective, Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) have
demonstrated that PCE can be successfully manipulated through communication efforts and
information provision. This suggests a positive impact of programmes oriented on public education
and raising consumer awareness and personal responsibility.
“The more consumers understand about animal welfare and animal production, the
more consumer power can make a difference” (Bill Reily, President of the British
Veterinary Association, World Poultry.net, 21 June 2010).
The hypothesised information asymmetry associated with farm animal welfare appeared
throughout the different Parts and Chapters (H5 confirmed). The participants of the different
194
Discussion and conclusion
studies share a negative evaluation of the current manner of information provision in relation to
farm animal welfare, in terms of quantity, but the more so in terms of quality. Given the WTOagreements and the interests of retailers in satisfying as many consumers as possible, it is unlikely,
in the short term, that animal food products produced with lower welfare levels, will entirely
disappear from the supermarket shelves. In this perspective, labels are commonly seen as the most
appropriate differentiation tool to market higher welfare food products. Labels, especially in the
case of credence attributes, can function as a heuristic for consumers (Ingenbleek et al., 2004;
Verbeke, 2005). Labels can be compulsory or voluntary, in which the latter is assumed most realistic
in the present global food market (McInerney, 2004; Verbeke, 2009). The content of the schemes
can vary depending on who initiates the voluntary labelling program and in this perspective
McInerney (2004) distinguishes between three types:
•
•
•
Producer-driven schemes, where the aim is to create a good sector image; to improve
competitiveness against substitute products like meat imports; and to maintain or
recapture sales volumes;
Retail-driven schemes, where the aim is to attract new consumer segments; and to
secure competitive advantage in a particular market;
Consumer-driven schemes, with the aim to deliver satisfaction through providing a
combination of tangible benefits and intangible benefits.
Specifically with regard to the content of the schemes, distinction can be made between schemes
that focus on animal welfare only (e.g. Freedom Food), schemes that focus on various aspects
including animal welfare (e.g. Certus, organic food, Marine Steward Council) and schemes that focus
on aspects other than animal welfare but that have positive side-effects on animal welfare (e.g.
traditional food products). In a similar vein, Ingenbleek et al. (2004) differentiates between four
types of labelled products, depending on the strength of the requirements and the width of the
domain that is covered with the requirements: “Idealists” are subject to high requirements and
cover a wide domain (e.g. organic); “Case solvers” have high requirements, but more narrow (e.g.
Freedom Food, Fair Trade); “Size-seekers” request lower requirements and cover a broad area (e.g.
Unilever); and “Window seekers” demand low requirements and cover a small range of
sustainability requirements. Thompson et al. (2007) from their side, define four types of standards:
“Olympic”, with a single winner; “filters”, which separate good from unacceptable and which is the
type of standard most often used; “ranks”, which categorise products from good to bad; and
“divisions”, which make categories, but do not involve per se information about superior or inferior
quality.
This brief overview of variation in scheme content already indicates the multitude of options that
are available for the consumer. This introduces the following discussion on the obstacles that the
current application of welfare-related labels faces. I will present in brief some issues that should be
taken into account for labels to be more effective. First and most importantly, the food purchasing
process is a routine process that is largely driven by habit. Meat consumption is embedded in the
gastronomic culture of the Western society and consumers buy animal food products very
195
Part V
frequently in a routine way. This involves low information processing and a quick scan of the
different alternative products on the supermarket shelves. Moreover, consumers are only limited
aware of, and knowledgeable about animal production practices. Summarising from literature and
own findings, labels should be visible at glance, simple, recognised, transparent, and credible. The
requirement for easy visibility pertains to the information overload that consumers currently face
on product packages. As postulated earlier, too much information can have an adverse effect and
results in consumers ignoring the information (Verbeke, 2005). This further involves that the label
should be present in a simple format (Harper and Henson, 2001; McInerney, 2004). With
“recognised”, I refer in the first place to the content of the scheme behind the label. It should be
based on a problem that is also recognised at consumer level, i.e. it should correspond with the
consumers’ conception of farm animal welfare. McInerney (2004) exemplifies this with the success
of free range (see also higher), and the problems that “lame-free milk” would face. Although
lameness is a problem in intensive dairy production, consumers are not or poorly aware of this.
Issues that currently appear on a large number of animal-based food products, linked to animal
welfare (in consumers’ perception) pertain to “free range”, “grass fed”, “outdoor reared”, “absence
of growth promoters” and “slower growth”. In addition, the success of a label will also depend on
its notoriety. Enneking (2004) demonstrated a higher willingness to pay for well-known labelled
quality products compared with less well-known ones. In a similar vein, harmonisation could be very
important for future market success of a welfare label and is also recognised by the European
Commission, though is challenging due to the global context of food trade and cultural and religious
specificities (Doerfler and Peters, 2006). Finally, transparency and credibility both link to the issue of
trust. Consumer trust in a label will be of paramount importance (Blokhuis et al., 2008; Nocella et
al., 2010). Misleading, vague and confusing information should be banned, together with the use of
labels as a pure marketing tool without the presence of an actual benefit (termed “valueengineering” by Veissier et al. (2008) and “greenwashing” by Lewis et al. (2008)).
Further, the hypotheses related to perceived costs and availability were confirmed in this
dissertation (H6 & H7 confirmed). Higher welfare products were in general perceived as more
expensive and less available, which acts as barriers to purchasing intention. Nonetheless, this was
less a barrier among respondents with a higher level of pro-welfare behaviour. The perception of
low availability is linked to some extent to the information asymmetry discussed above, and could
be improved accordingly. The price-issue has been covered in several studies, mostly related to
willingness to pay experiments (Bennett and Blaney, 2002; Bennett and Larson, 1996; Bennett et al.,
2002; Carlsson et al., 2007; Liljenstolpe, 2008; Nilsson et al., 2006; Olesen et al., 2010; Taylor and
Signal, 2009). In addition, some interesting reflections have been raised, that merit some extra
attention and that have some implications for market initiatives. Consumers are considered rather
‘calculating’ individuals than ‘price-conscious’ individuals. This involves that they are poorly aware
of real food prices and are guided in their choice by price-differences between available
alternatives. In this perspective, it is sometimes claimed that higher welfare products are not too
expensive, but that the mainstream products are too cheap. In addition, mainstream meat products
196
Discussion and conclusion
are very often used, through promotion actions, as a means to attract consumers to the shop, and
further enforce the price-gap. Related, Ingenbleek et al. (2006a) point on the baleful impact of the
current price-war between different retailers on the sales volume of higher welfare food products.
The inverse relation between profit and higher welfare standards is commonly acknowledged,
although Lawrence and Stott (2009) provide some examples where profits and welfare are aligned
and can be simultaneously improved by addressing system components, e.g. dairy cow health,
neonatal survival and animal temperature.
The dissociation barrier was confirmed in this dissertation, given that chicken meat consumption
was more strongly affected by animal welfare concerns than egg consumption, which is a derived
animal product (H8 confirmed). In this perspective and in correspondence with the discussion of the
fifth hypothesis, it will be important that the functional ignorance among consumers is taken into
account, in information provision, communication and the development of marketing tools.
“It is not because people want to eat a burger that they want to meet the cow” (quote from
Steve Buscemi, as ‘James McCord’ in ‘The Island’)
In this perspective, legislations requiring higher welfare standards would be most suitable, shifting
away the responsibility from the consumer. However, as discussed higher, this option is little likely,
certainly in the short run. As such, the adoption of a general, well-known and trusted label could be
valuable. The incorporation of animal welfare as part of a wider quality label scheme or a label
involving more sustainability issues could also address the dissociation barrier (and probably
address a larger population), if this does not impair a proper recognition and adoption of the label.
Altruistic concerns were more determinant for a lower ambivalence between animal welfare
concerns and stated pro-welfare behaviour as compared to anthropocentric concerns (H9
confirmed). A positive association of higher welfare products with consumer acceptability and
benefits for the animal, combined with a higher attribute importance of ethical issues, among which
animal welfare, translated more strongly in pro-welfare behaviour as compared to a high
association of higher welfare products with other product attributes such as quality, health, safety
and sensory issues. Many studies however have coupled the success of higher welfare products to a
premium value, thus relating the price premium to additional product quality benefits (‘Unique
Selling Properties’) (e.g. Binnekamp and Ingenbleek, 2006). Also in recent studies in relation to
organic food buying motives, both health and environmental traits were deemed important in the
choice for organic products, with health traits dominating (Mondelaers et al., 2009; Shepherd et al.,
2005). The dominance of health traits in the case of organic products however could be explained
by the strong association of organic products with the non-use of pesticides, which has a direct
impact on human health. Animal welfare on the other hand is mainly considered good for the
animal and by extension, not bad for the quality of the meat. Thus, altruistic concerns inducing the
purchase of higher welfare animal food products are more likely to stimulate repeat-purchase if the
products do not compromise on experience attributes as compared to of lower welfare
conventional alternatives.
197
Part V
In relation to the findings of this PhD study, it is suggested that making consumers aware of the
downsides of mainstream products in terms of health, animal welfare and environment compared
to higher welfare products – within the limits imposed by legislation on comparative advertising –
would be a more effective marketing strategy to justify the price premium than the, currently most
often used, focus on the benefits of higher welfare products in terms of health, safety, animal
welfare, environment and sensory characteristics. In other words, comparing higher welfare
products with mainstream products should take the higher welfare products as a benchmark.
Consumers assume that the products available for purchase meet the requirements in terms of
food safety and health, if not indicated otherwise. As such, a price premium on these issues is
difficult to convey to the consumer. Korthals (2003) compared this strikingly with the sales of an
airline ticket. A passenger assumes that every airline company meets all criteria to guarantee a safe
flight. As such, a marketing campaign in which an airline company would guarantee an even safer
flight (against a price premium) would doubtfully be successful. On the other hand, a cheaper flight,
marked as less safety, would probably not attract many passengers.
I further want to raise a comment on the approach in which higher welfare products are related to
better sensory properties. It has been shown that the consumer segment that most strongly values
taste and related sensory attributes is a segment of meat lovers. This segment selects their meat
based on taste as the main product attribute and wants to pay a price premium for it. However they
do not take animal welfare issues into account. As such, this strategy might target the wrong
segment and involves some marketing risks. Following on the expectancy-value or confirmationdisconfirmation theory (Oliver, 1980), a disconfirmation of higher expectations will result in
dissatisfied consumers, and lowers the chance on repeat-purchase. If this strategy is applied, thus if
the higher price is linked to tangible benefits such as taste and appearance, it will be crucial that
these benefits are actually experienced by the consumer. Given that the experienced quality is
dependent on many issues, apart from the production process (e.g. preparation) (Bernués et al.,
2003a), this seems rather hard to accomplish.
2.4.
Piglet castration
The final research objective elaborated on the theme of piglet castration. The routine practice of
surgical castration without anaesthesia and/or analgesia in Belgium as well as in many other
European countries has become a very topical debate in recent years, with an intensive search for
short and long-term feasible alternatives. In this dissertation I have mainly focused on
immunocastration as a possible alternative. One of the major concerns that are often associated
with this alternative method is whether or not consumers will readily accept and purchase pork
from immunocastrated animals. This makes it relevant to research from a consumer perspective
and adds to the existing knowledge available from sensory studies and data related to production
parameters.
198
Discussion and conclusion
Despite the debate on the issue on national and international level and the campaigns from animal
welfare organisations, the general public appeared to be poorly aware of the practice and even less
of possible alternative practices. This implies that people have to be provided with information,
before attitudes can be measured, but equally allows researchers to measure the impact of
different levels of information provisions. Throughout the different studies in this dissertation,
consumer acceptance of immunocastration was not likely to be a problem. Consumers preferred
immunocastration over surgical castration with or without anaesthesia or analgesia; a choice which
was motivated most strongly in terms of better social acceptability and better animal welfare.
Textual messages with different types of content did not have any impact on this preference. Other
recent findings, not presented in the result part of this dissertation, further show that the
introduction and the wordings used to present the practice as well as the use of audio-visual
messages are likely to play a role (Tuyttens et al., 2010b). In a study done in January 2008 where
immunocastration (which is the term used in scientific midst) was presented as “chemical castration
with synthetic vaccine”, 44.6 percent of the respondents was in favour of this practice over the
current practice, 28.2 percent was neutral, and 27.2 percent favoured the routine practice which
was surgical castration without anaesthesia or analgesia. In the study presented in Chapter 5
(March 2008), where “immunocastration” was used, these percentages were 63.7 percent, 15.5
percent and 20.8 percent. Finally, the study presented in Chapter 6 (November 2009) resulted in
72.0 percent favouring the “vaccine method” versus 11 percent favouring surgical castration. All
were thus in favour of immunocastration, though it is clear that also the word use will play a role. It
is however important to notice that the percentages are obtained from different independent
studies, such that the differences in percentages are not only due to this different word use.
Next to the impact of word use, we also found that using audio-visual material was especially
baleful for surgical castration. This actually corresponds with the conclusions in relation to the ninth
hypothesis, i.e. that the preference for immunocastration (the higher welfare alternative) is related
to a negative attitude towards surgical castration rather than to a beneficial attitude towards
immunocastration per se. This message frame was much more an emotional message as compared
to the more rational textual message (Tuyttens et al., 2010b).
Interestingly and corresponding with previous parts of this dissertation, producers’ opinion differed
from the public opinion. The producers did not associate the routine practice with a strong
impairment of the animals’ welfare. They strongly preferred the routine practice to all other
alternatives (and the production of entire males in particular), a choice that was strongly based on
economic motives and claimed uncertainty about the effective elimination of boar taint (which can
be considered an economic motive too for the producer). A successful adoption of an alternative
practice will equally depend on the farmers’ support. This dissertation’s findings suggest that a
legislative ban on the routine practice is likely to invoke farmers’ resistance and dissatisfaction,
necessitating convincing arguments and/or incentives related to possible alternatives to encourage
adoption by pig producers.
199
Part V
Specifically for immunocastration, worries also exist among retailers (who question the proper
elimination of boar taint, fearing to lose customers), slaughterhouses (who fear extra work and
costs at the slaughter line associated with by products) and the farmers’ union (who have worries
about the competitive position of their sector, related to a possible refusal of the meat in
neighbouring countries, and about the difficulty to separate meat from immunised pigs and
surgically castrated males and further question the farmers’ safety and the proper elimination of
boar taint). As such, this theme remains interesting for further research and will need pioneering
producers (e.g. pig farm ‘Wolkenhoeve’ in Geel, Belgium) and retailers (e.g. Colruyt) to make it
successful.
3. Limitations and future research
Every research is based on a specific research design and applies a certain methodology and
analysing techniques. This choice imposes some limitations on this dissertation and provides,
together with the findings from different other studies, material for future research. In this section,
limitations related to the geographical scope, sampling method, analysing techniques, conceptual
framework, scope of the research and the time frame are discussed. Finally some interesting
reflections for future research are provided.
Geographical scope. This research, with the exception of one study (Chapter 6), is limited to
Flanders, Belgium. Due to an open market however, animal welfare is actually a global matter.
Available studies in different European countries all indicate public concerns for animal welfare,
though they do not all agree to the same extent with the introduction and adoption of higher
welfare requirements (see for example Eurobarometer study on farm animal welfare (European
Commission, 2005)). Further comparison between European countries can be valuable, especially
for covering countries with importations from Belgium, but also for countries outside Europe, like
Brazil and Thailand. These countries are not subject to EU-regulations on animal welfare and are
able to market lower priced animal products on the European market due to scale economies. Also
in many countries animal welfare is not (yet) an issue. Note in this respect that a Chinese
expression for “animal welfare” still has to be invented. In addition, comparisons related to cultural
and religious differences should be further researched, given the growing and market relevant
segment of individuals with foreign origin. Also, farm animal welfare is a competence of the federal
government in Belgium. As such, possible enactments following on citizen needs urge for an
understanding of public attitudes in both parts of Belgium. Flanders and Wallonia differ
considerably on some issues that could be expected to influence public attitudes, such as
population density, ratio of extensive versus intensive animal production, types of animals and
animal production systems and practices.
Sampling method. In most of the studies presented in this dissertation, data were gathered
through convenience sampling. Resulting, findings can not be extrapolated as such to the overall
200
Discussion and conclusion
population, but only apply within the characteristics of the sample. In different studies, we have
tried to compensate this limitation through for instance the use of weighing coefficients or to make
a more representative selection of respondents within a larger sample. Still, ‘representativeness’ is
always based on a selection of criteria or characteristics, thus excluding other possibly relevant
characteristics (e.g. religion). Additionally, different studies involved a segmentation analysis,
which also compensates partly for this limitation. Segmentation analyses reveal the presence of
different market segments and allow profiling them. A non-representative sample does not
influence the existence and the profile of these segments, but does not allow making general
conclusions on segment sizes.
Also, most of the data is gathered via web surveys. This excludes persons who do not have access
to internet, but allows collecting a substantial amount of good quality data in a relatively short time
notice against low costs. The resulting samples often display some bias towards higher education.
Furthermore, the current internet penetration is much higher than a decade ago, when web
surveys were much more criticised.
Analysis techniques. Most of the analyses are performed in SPSS and pertain to the standard
univariate and multivariate analysing methods, commonly used in social sciences for measuring
and analysing attitudes and perceptions through questionnaires. Chapter 2 applied structural
equation modelling using the LISREL software, which is more advanced and currently much applied
and valued. Examples of studies that applied more advanced analysing methods to quantify
attribute importance pertain to the use of choice experiments (e.g. Christensen et al., 2006; Pouta
et al., 2010) and the application of Information Display Matrix (Zander and Hamm, 2010). Many
studies also apply contingent valuation surveys to research willingness to pay for higher welfare
products (e.g. Bennett and Larson, 1996; Carlsson et al., 2007; Liljenstolpe, 2008; Nocella et al.,
2010; Olesen et al., 2010). Other variants pertain to mixed logit models (Ubilava et al., 2008) and
Vickrey auctions (Napolitano et al., 2008). These more advanced techniques better allow taking
social desirable answering behaviour into account and approaching more adequately insights in
consumers’ behaviour or behavioural intention.
Conceptual framework. Literature provides different models to conceptualise the role of
perceptions and attitude modifiers in relation to farm animal welfare (e.g. Austin et al., 2005;
Nelson, 2004; Te Velde et al., 2002). In this dissertation, I have made use of the framework
presented by Kendall et al. (2006), which was mainly based on social structural variables. Apart
from the level of familiarity with animal production and individual animal related experiential
variables, this framework was not as explanatory in our local setting as it was in the United States.
Further research could incorporate more attitudinal variables, beliefs, life-style variables, and
value-orientations. In addition, the conceptual framework was mainly based on measuring
attitudes and perceptions, and could further be elaborated with more research into behaviour and
behavioural intention.
201
Part V
Scope of the research. Most of this dissertation focused on farm animal welfare in general. Also the
model with regard to the public conception of farm animal welfare is developed for farm animal
welfare as a general concept and “animals” as an overall subject or category. It is obvious that the
conception may differ dependent on the type of animal and housing system. As such further
specification of the model will be necessary in order to make it a useful tool. Next to further
research on attitudes depending on type of animal or housing system, it will also be relevant to
research variation in consumer attitudes and citizen expectations depending on different meat
types, like fresh meat, processed meat, meat mixtures, etc.
Time frame. Societal perceptions are constantly evolving in relation to changing life styles,
emerging innovations, demographic evolutions, media agenda, changes in knowledge, and so on.
As such every cross-sectional study on attitudes is a snapshot in time. For this dissertation this
limitation especially holds for the piglet castration theme and the respective attitudes of both
consumers/citizens and producers towards the issue. For instance the producer data was gathered
in 2007-2008. At that time immunocastration was not yet well known among producers, while at
this moment immunocastration has been introduced on the market. Repeating the study would
most probably give different results and would be interesting for comparison, especially given the
debate on which the theme has been (and still is) subject to.
Future research. Some ideas for future research have already been discussed in association with
the limitations of this dissertation. Additionally the findings of this dissertation also provide a basis
for future research, together with some recent developments that are related to some extent with
animal welfare. Further research can be relevant to double check the resulting conception as
proposed in this dissertation in order to increase its validity. For example, the resulting
conceptualisation can be presented to and discussed with citizens in a qualitative study.
Alternatively, the proposed conception can be quantitatively validated using additional consumer
segments, e.g. from different geographical settings. Otherwise in a strict sense the result reflects a
social-scientific conception rather than a citizen conception. Also, further research is necessary to
evaluate different alternatives of communicating animal welfare to the consumer, either through
wider quality label schemes, stand-alone animal welfare label schemes or the incorporation of
animal welfare in sustainable oriented label schemes. Next, different possible solutions and
strategies are presented in literature for animal welfare improvements, but are mainly discussed as
a school of thought (see Annex 1). It would be interesting to verify their practicability and the
opinion of consumers and citizens. Another issue is the price issue. Much will depend on the costs
of welfare improvements at producer and consumer level. More advanced willingness to pay
experiments and testing different price-strategies would be interesting and relevant in this
perspective. Finally, future research could anticipate on recent innovations and evolutions and
investigate the public’s opinion on for example genetic modification, cloning of animals, in vitro
meat, the consumption of insects and the role of animal welfare in the acceptance and/or rejection
of these issues.
202
Improving animal welfare – solutions and stakeholder roles
ANNEX 1. Improving animal welfare – solutions and
stakeholder roles
In this Annex a brief and descriptive overview of some literature will be given that relates to
solutions proposed to improve the level of animal welfare. First five specific studies or publications
will be grasped in which different solutions are suggested and discussed. These solutions will not be
discussed in depth here, but are incorporated because of their relevancy as a complement to the
scope of this dissertation. Also, it can be of interest for further research to explore the citizen and
consumer opinions on these propositions. In a second part, the role that different actors can play
will be outlined, referencing studies that have focused specifically on this. As such, this section is
informative and brings together existing knowledge, rather than adding knowledge.
1. Selected overview of solutions proposed to improve the
level of animal welfare
1.1.
Four ways to progress (Aerts and Lips, 2010)
In a book, entitled “Animal and Welfare” [translated from “Dier en Welzijn”], four strategies were
discussed that could make it possible to, within a certain region, actually contribute to improve the
level of farm animal welfare, within a certain region.
1. Livestock farmers should show the present, intensive animal production as it is, and point
on the existing welfare problems of the animals. This should motivate the consumer to pay
a price premium for higher welfare animal food products.
2. Legislation should suppress dishonest communication about animal products.
3. Win-win situations should be searched for, such that the animal’s welfare improves,
without an economic disadvantage for the farmer.
4. The government should pay the deficit to farmers that are willing to work with housing
systems that are better for the animal’s welfare (and that are not yet competitive).
1.2.
Defra report (McInerney, 2004)
In a report for Defra, entitled “Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy”, McInerney (2004)
distinguished between market based approaches and a focus on livestock farmers as policy
measures for welfare improvements:
203
Annex 1
Market-based approaches
Focus on livestock farmers
• Pull strategy (market-led)
• Welfare subsidies
• Farm assurance schemes
• Welfare taxes
• Information and education programmes
• Tradable permits
• Consumer subsidies
• Labelling
1.3.
EU FAIR CT98-3678 (Harper and Henson, 2001)
In the final report of a project entitled “Consumer Concern about Animal Welfare and the Impact on
Food Choice”, and financed by the European Commission’s FAIR programme, the following five
possible scenarios were developed:
1. Compulsory labelling.
2. Minimum standards.
3. Change in agriculture standards.
4. Education of consumers.
5. Voluntary code of practice.
1.4.
LEI-report a (Ingenbleek et al., 2006a)
This report is resulting from a study conducted in the Netherlands, on the authority of the Ministry
of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, and is entitled “Paying for animal welfare; Barriers and
solution directions in consumer markets and business-to-business markets” [translated from
‘Betalen voor dierenwelzijn: Barrières en oplossingsrichtingen in consumentenmarkten en businessto-business markten’]. The report is focused on how the additional costs, associated with
improvements in animal welfare, can be managed, and is based on a literature review that has
concentrated on consumers, retailers and chains. In the conclusions of the report, the following five
future directions were suggested:
1. Removal of animal welfare unfriendly products from the shelves.
2. Linking animal welfare to parallel performed cost reductions.
3. Linking animal welfare to customer value.
4. Price premiums for welfare costs.
5. Separate payments for animal welfare.
1.5.
LEI-report b (de Bakker and Dagevos, 2010)
A second LEI-report, also performed on the authority of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature
and Food Quality, has explored some possibilities to realise more sustainable meat consumption
from a consumer perspective. The report is entitled “Meat lovers, meat reducers, and meat
avoiders”, with “sustainable protein consumption in a carnivorous consumption culture” as subtitle
204
Improving animal welfare – solutions and stakeholder roles
[translated from: “Vleesminnaars, vleesminderaars en vleesmijders. Duurzame eiwitconsumptie in
een carnivore eetcultuur”]. It presents eight marketing strategies for alternative protein products
that can make the consumption pattern more sustainable. Though this is not directly related to
higher welfare animal products, all of the suggested strategies associate with lowered meat
consumption, and thus a less intensive animal production. The strategies are:
1. Hybrid meat products.
2. Animal species with a lower ecological foot print.
3. Meal concept with none or less meat.
4. Vegetarian meat substitutes.
5. Sustainable farmed fish.
6. Organic meat.
7. Proteins from insects.
8. Lower meat consumption.
2. Role of different actors
In this part a literature overview is given in which the role that is allocated to different stakeholders,
interest groups, or scientific disciplines along the animal production chain are presented and
discussed. In total, I distinguished between nine groups of actors. However, it is commonly
acknowledged that the way to welfare improvements should be an integrated approach, with
constructive dialogues, and an effective and transparent transfer of information to the consumer.
2.1.
European Union
Only some decades ago, the European Union (at that time still called the European Economic
Community (EEC)) has initiated initiatives to protect animals. The main driver was related to
economics and trade, notably to avoid unfair competition within the common market due to
different national standards of farm animal welfare (Veissier et al., 2008). The first Community
legislation on animal welfare was adopted in 1974 and concerned the stunning of animals before
slaughter (Council Directive 74/577/EEC) (Blokhuis et al., 2008; Horgan and Gavinelli, 2006). Later
initiatives were increasingly informed by the animals’ interest, the more so with the recognition of
animal sentience in the “Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals” annexed to the EC Treaty
of Amsterdam in 1999, and reconfirmed in the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007. The European Union can
influence the welfare level mainly through legislation. Veissier et al. (2008) give a nice overview of
how the legislative texts are finally achieved. In brief, animal protection falls under the
responsibility of DG SANCO, which is the General Directorate for the Health and Consumer
Protection. To create a new legislation, DG SANCO consults a scientific committee as part of EFSA
(Panel on Animal Health and Welfare). This committee, in turn, appoints a working group of
scientific experts to make a scientific report with recommendations. This report is then used by DG
SANCO to draft a directive, and becomes a Council Directive when it is approved by the Council of
205
Annex 1
Ministers of the EU. These directives are then translated into national regulations. The legislation in
the different EU Member States must be at least conforming to the European regulations. Auditing
is done by the European Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office. A summary of Council Directives
is given in Veissier et al. (2008). In general, EU Directives are mainly steered by the following trends
(Veissier et al., 2008, p.282):
•
To increase space allowance per animal;
•
To permit interactions between animals, and hence to encourage group housing;
•
To give more freedom of movement;
•
To provide animals with an enriched environment;
•
To feed animals a regimen consistent with their physiological and behavioural needs;
•
To limit painful intervention.
In brief (and without the aim of being exhaustive), the following initiatives further underline the
response of the European Union to the public demand for more animal friendly production
practices:
•
Cooperation with organisations such as the OIE to promote the development and
implementation of internationally recognised animal welfare standards (Blokhuis et al.,
2008);
•
Negotiate the status of animal welfare as a non-trade concern with the WTO (Horgan and
Gavinelli, 2006);
•
Negotiate animal welfare standards to be incorporated into bilateral agreements
between the EU and Third Country suppliers of animals and animal products (Horgan and
Gavinelli, 2006);
•
Financing European projects such as Welfare Quality® (www.welfarequality.net);
•
Community
Action
Plan
on
the
Protection
and
Welfare
of
Animals
(http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/com_action_plan230106_en.pdf);
•
Feasibility study on animal welfare labelling. Given the relevance of labelling in the
context of this dissertation, I will include the summary table of this feasibility study,
discussing on different options for a European label on animal welfare (Table A1.1)
(http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/aw_labelling_report_part1.pdf);
•
Growing importance of animal welfare in recent CAP reforms (Blokhuis et al., 2008;
Horgan and Gavinelli, 2006). Rather striking, original CAP reforms were at the base of the
current intensive animal production and its related welfare problems (Winter et al.,
1998).
206
Improving animal welfare – solutions and stakeholder roles
Table A1.1. Policy options for indicating animal welfare related information on products of animal
origin
Option
Description
Baseline option
0. No change
Continuation of the current situation (status quo option)
Mandatory labelling
1. Mandatory labelling of the welfare
standards under which products of animal
origin are produced
Entailing a requirement for all relevant products of animal
origin to include a label of the standard/measure of animal
welfare achieved for farm animals
2. Mandatory labelling of the farming system
under which products of animal origin are
produced
Entailing a requirement for all relevant products of animal
origin to include a label of declaration of the system of
production of farm animals
3. Mandatory labelling of compliance with
EU minimum standards or equivalence with
those
Entailing a requirement for all relevant products of animal
origin to include a label indicating compliance with EU
minimum regulated standards (or equivalent)
Requirements for the voluntary use of claims
4. Harmonised requirements for the
voluntary use of claims in relation to animal
welfare
EU law will regulate mandatory standards that must be
achieved when suppliers voluntarily label products indicating
a certain standard/measure of animal welfare achieved for
farm animals
5. Harmonised requirements for the
voluntary use of claims in relation to farming
systems
EU law will regulate standards that must be achieved when
suppliers voluntarily label products declaring the system of
production of farm animals
Other options
6. A Community Animal Welfare Label open
for voluntary participation
A harmonised EU-wide label would be established, organised,
and/or managed in a harmonised way, providing for voluntary
participation
7. Guidelines for the establishment of animal
welfare labelling and quality schemes
Guidelines could be established at an EU level to harmonise
the establishment of animal welfare labelling and quality
schemes
2.2.
National governments
In common with the role of the European Union, the significance of national governments is mainly
related to legislation. EU Member States have to follow the minimum standards set by the EU, and
have to evaluate the impact of possible stricter regulations. I will briefly discuss some differences
between European countries, mainly based on a presentation on the second Welfare Quality®
stakeholder conference (Kjaernes et al., 2007), on a Dutch report of Ingenbleek et al. (2004), and on
an article from Berg and Hammarström (2006). Kjaernes et al. (2007) distinguish between a welfare
state, a supermarket, and a producer approach (Figure A1.1), while Berg and Hammarström (2006)
detail on the Swedish case. In general, higher concerns for animal welfare are associated with the
Northern countries, as opposed to Southern and Eastern European countries (although the assumed
difference between Northern and Southern countries has been contradicted by Blandford and
Fulponi (1999)).
207
Annex 1
The welfare state approach
Non-differentiated market
Little worry
Welfare for all via state regulation
NO
SE
HU
GB
The producer approach
Provenance and local networks
Encompassing quality
Welfare via “traditional”
production
NL
FR, IT
The supermarket approach
Segmented market
Integration in the chain
Politicisation of AW
Welfare via modernisation
Figure A1.1. Different country approaches (source: Kjaernes et al. (2007))
Norway exemplifies a welfare state approach. Norwegian standards are regulated by law at a level
that stretches beyond the requirements of the EU directives, and involves that animal welfare is a
fairly invisible product attribute. This approach works very well in Norway for some reasons.
Norwegian consumers have high trust in their government, and have a superior quality perception
of Norwegian products, which facilitates the justification of a price premium. In addition, Norway is
not an EU member, and applies taxation on imported products, which decreases the price gap with,
and the success of, cheaper animal food products. Sweden also applies a welfare state approach,
with high regulatory standards and few labels and schemes. The importance of animal welfare is
also reflected in the formation of an independent Animal Welfare Agency, where before, issues
related to housing, management and welfare were part of the wider Swedish Board of Agriculture.
Sweden, opposite to Norway, is part of an open market, and thus vulnerable for cheap imports and
discount practices among retailers.
France and Italy, two countries where gastronomic traditions prevail, are positioned alike, and
match strongly with the producer approach. Legislation does not stretch beyond EU minimum
requirements, and initiatives that are beneficial for the animal’s welfare mainly stem from
producers and producer-initiated initiatives. Animal welfare is mostly embedded in wider quality
assurance schemes or in label schemes that reflect a traditional production method (e.g. Label
rouge, origin labels). The Netherlands (e.g. Albert Heijn), Great Britain (e.g. Marks & Spencer,
Waitrose), and Switzerland (e.g. COOP) are examples of countries where a supermarket approach is
applied. Retailers take initiatives with respect to animal welfare improvement and very often
require producers to follow assurance schemes, such as Freedom Food in Great-Britain, and IKB in
208
Improving animal welfare – solutions and stakeholder roles
the Netherlands. Great Britain is positioned somewhat higher in the triangle, given that national
legislations are more often applying higher standards of animal welfare compared with the rest of
the world, including the EU. Similar to Sweden, the UK does not put restrictions on the import of
meat from countries that do not impose such standards, and where costs are as such often lower.
This approach has some important implications. Taking pork and pig production into account, half of
the pork market went overseas when sow pens and tethering were banned in the UK, while about
one third of all meat sales in the UK is currently imported (from countries with lower animal welfare
standards) (Pig progress newsletter, 19/02/2010). Finally, Hungary exemplifies the more Eastern
Europe located countries, where lower animal welfare concerns are present. This is translated in
low state interventions, and fewer producer- and retailer-led initiatives. The challenge there is to
transfer the skills and knowledge available in Western European countries, necessary to adopt more
animal friendly housing systems and production practices.
Specifically for Belgium, as the study area of this dissertation, a position in between the Netherlands
on one hand and France and Italy on the other hand can be concluded. National legislation follows
the EU minimum requirements, with some exceptions (e.g. the recent decree on the use of
anaesthesia during piglet castration), in order not to harm the competitive position. Initiatives
mainly stem from the retail sector, which enforce their delivering producers to meet quality
assurance schemes. Examples pertain to Meritus for beef, Certus for pork, and Quality Control as a
scheme specifically adopted by the Colruyt group, or to the ban of cage-eggs in different retailers.
Finally Ingenbleek et al. (2006b) reported that the role of the government could be fulfilled either
through financial measures at the producer side (e.g. investment allowance, sustainable investing,
fund as security, pilot projects, cross compliance); financial measures at the demand side (e.g.
consumer taxes, indirect taxes), or through investments in arrangements between companies,
knowledge institutes, and NGO’s. From these options, investment allowance and arrangements
were discussed as most suitable for direct application.
2.3.
Non-governmental organisations
Non-governmental organisations are a very broad category. Organisations that play a role in the
quest for more welfare friendly production practices are animal welfare organisations (e.g. GAIA in
Belgium), consumer organisations (e.g. OIVO, Test-Aankoop), independent animal-welfare related
advisory councils (e.g. Farm Animal Welfare Council), and global organisations that protect the
interests of the animals (e.g. WWF, OIE). These organisations can assert their influence on
legislative institutions, through governance, or through codes of practice.
209
Annex 1
2.4.
Retail sector
In a report of Ingenbleek et al. (2004), the important role that retailers can fulfil is related to five
specific points:
•
Retailers are faster in the development and implementation of new standards;
•
Their power is not limited to the country’s borders, because of their purchasing
network;
•
They are not restrained to the same extent to international conventions as national
governments;
•
They have a lot of power, given that they act as gatekeepers, i.e. they can refuse
suppliers who do not meet their requirements;
•
They have control mechanisms for safety, quality and hygiene standards.
In addition, the structure of the distribution chain is shaped according to a sandglass (Figure A1.2), a
position that further strengthens the power of the retail sector (Ingenbleek et al., 2004; Thompson
et al., 2007). Many suppliers have to sell their products to a limited number of distribution points,
which again is the place where many consumers can buy their products. The supermarkets decide
upon the standards that products have to meet, control shelf space, influence through advertising,
and therefore have a big influence on production practices, and consumer purchasing behaviour.
Consumers (160,000,000)
Shoppers (89,000,000)
Stores (170,000)
Formulas (600)
Buying desks (110)
Producers (8,600)
Semi-producers (80,000)
Suppliers (160,000)
Farmers/fishers etc (3,200,000)
Figure A2.2. Supply chain funnel on European level (Ingenbleek et al., 2004, p.58)
2.5.
Veterinarians
Veterinarians work very closely together with livestock producers and animals, and have as such a
direct impact on the animal’s welfare. Veterinarians themselves are well aware of this. However,
the focus from veterinarians is often criticised for being focused too strong on animal health (e.g.
Koch, 2009). In this perspective, incorporating training in animal welfare for the veterinary
profession, taking into account the physiological state of the animal next to it’s physical state is
210
Improving animal welfare – solutions and stakeholder roles
deemed important (e.g. Algers and Berg, 2001; de Lange, 2009; Ellis et al., 2009). Veterinarians
could fulfil a supervising role, work closely together with producers to share their knowledge, and
could act as an independent, impartial expert information source about farm animal welfare in
order to educate the public.
“To use a human analogy, we can consider the example of child welfare. Although we have the
choice to raise our children isolated in closets to protect them from illness and injury, we
choose instead to grant them the abilities to move around more freely and to associate with
other people. We recognise that they risk illness, injury or even death by doing so, but we feel
that such freedom and interaction are crucial to their welfare. The same principles should be
appropriate for sow welfare.” (Koch, 2009, p.199)
2.6.
Scientists
Science is a very broad concept, and covers a large variety of research disciplines that have
something in common with farm animal welfare. From literature, a role in improving the level of
farm animal welfare is appropriated to journal editors (Marusic, 2009; Osborne et al., 2009),
ethologists and animal scientists (Bertoni, 2009a, b; Fraser, 1999; Grandin, 2000; Mejdell, 2006;
Sørensen and Fraser, 2010), philosophers and ethicists (Fraser, 1999; Garner, 2010; Korthals,
2001a). Journal editors can play a role in the selection of papers accepted for publication, and the
(ethical) standards they apply for these papers. Ethology and animal science are important in the
determination of what good welfare is, how it can be improved, and how it can be objectively
obtained and measured. Finally, the philosophical and ethical reflection should not be neglected in
this whole story. Animal welfare is an ethical theme, and should not be decoupled from the animals’
interests.
2.7.
Industry / Animal production chain
The industry itself, among them the farmers, are the most closely related to the animals. The impact
of the relationship between the farmer and his animals (e.g. Hemsworth and Coleman, 1998;
Windschnurer et al., 2008), and the management as a whole (e.g. Abeni and Bertoni, 2009;
Anonymous, 2001; Mench, 2004), has received a lot of attention, and is commonly recognised as
important for the animals’ welfare and for inclusion in welfare assessment schemes. These issues
are also captured in the final model of farm animal welfare developed in this dissertation. In a
Belgian project where the role for the different actors was discussed among different stakeholders,
the following points come affront for the producers and the industry (Goris and Baeten, 2005):
•
Open house;
•
Work on the existing negative image;
•
Learn to communicate: what, how, why;
•
Transparency;
•
Allowing more guidance by veterinarians or company management.
211
Annex 1
Higher costs associated with more welfare friendly production systems and low producers margins
however, often are a burden for producers to apply more welfare friendly production systems. In
addition, producers have little confidence in the consumers’ willingness to pay, and have little
freedom because of their dependency on the supplier of feed, slaughterhouses, and banks.
2.8.
Media
The media plays a determinant role in the current (rather negative and often distorted) public
perception of animal production, as the sector is mainly brought into the attention of the public and
the consumers in times of food scares or scandals (Niesten et al., 2003; Verbeke and Viaene,
1999b). Nonetheless, given the large impact of media in the current society, a more nuanced
representation could strongly contribute to educating the public and raising their awareness of
agricultural life and animal production practices.
2.9.
Citizens and consumers
The role and importance of citizens and consumers has been intensively investigated and discussed
in this dissertation. Citizens have an important role in pronouncing the existing public concerns,
more from a political perspective, while the consumers are the actual actors, who can strongly
stimulate the market of higher welfare products through their purchasing behaviour.
With respect to improving animal welfare through a pull-strategy, the distinction from Beekman et
al. (2002), between the short- and long term was interesting. A short term improvement was
deemed fairly difficult, given that values, perceptions and consumer behaviour is not likely to
change from one day to another. They were however positive for long term improvements in case
an intelligent mix of communicative, economic and social instruments were to be applied.
212
Summary
Summary
Western society, in a food secure environment, is the more and more interested in, and concerned
about the way their food is produced, and how this impacts on the environment and the animals’
welfare. In order to actively and effectively involve the chain end user in strategies that have the
goal to improve the animals’ welfare, it is important to have thorough insights in how the public
thinks about farm animal welfare, and in their attitudes, perceptions, and concerns in relation to
farm animal welfare. Urbanisation and public alienation from animal production and animal
production practices have created a burden between producers and consumers/citizens, resulting in
a different (and often non-compatible) view on the concept of farm animal welfare. The public
conception of farm animal welfare, along with the variety in societal attitudes towards animal
welfare and the ambivalence between citizen sayings and consumer doings have been the key
points of interest in this doctoral research. The overall objective of this PhD-dissertation has as such
been defined as to contribute to a better understanding of the public conception of, and the public
perception towards farm animal welfare. In addition this doctoral research has focused on the issue
of piglet castration, and the role of the public in the search for alternatives to surgical castration
without anaesthesia and analgesia. The research is based on both primary and secondary data,
which have been collected in the scope of six different studies that are executed independently
from each other, and include different sets of respondents. Both qualitative exploratory (focus
group discussions and in depth interviews) and quantitative conclusive (survey) research methods
have been carried out. Five studies were limited to Flanders, a sixth study involved data gathered in
Belgium, France, Germany and The Netherlands. The main findings and conclusions are highlighted
hereunder, following the four research objectives of this doctoral research.
The first objective was related to unravelling the public conception of farm animal welfare. An
integrated study approach has resulted in a conception for farm animal welfare, consisting of seven
dimensions on two levels: three animal-based dimensions with a direct impact on the animal’s
welfare (Ability to Engage in Natural Behaviour; Animal Health; Suffering and Stress), and four
resource- or environmental-based dimensions with an indirect impact on the animal’s welfare (Feed
and Water; Housing and Barn Climate; Human-Animal Relationship; Transport and Slaughter). This
model, although based on measurements among lay persons, has many common grounds with the
conceptions available in literature, be it in a format that betrays the limited awareness and low
practical knowledge base of the public in relation to animal production practices. Also, the
subdivision in two levels contributes to the current discussion on the relative absence of animalbased parameters in welfare legislations, welfare assurance schemes and welfare indices. The
model and the findings of this part can be applied to address several imperfections of current
welfare-oriented initiatives that originate from a poor understanding and/or a poor addressing of
public expectations, concerns and perceptions in relation to farm animal welfare, and to better align
public perceptions with scientific evidence.
213
Summary
The second objective consisted of the aim to reveal determinants of differing attitudes and
concerns in relation to farm animal welfare within a society. Classical demographic variables were
not very explanatory in this dissertation. Attitudes, perceptions and concerns were more strongly
influenced by variables that relate to familiarity with the agricultural sector, and to life-style values
and beliefs with respect to animals, animal welfare and animal production. These findings involve
some valuable information for policy makers and for the development of education initiatives,
information provision and communication. Persons differ in their attitudes and concern for the
animal’s welfare, as well as in relation to their conception of farm animal welfare. This necessitates
a segmented approach, in which profiling variables should go beyond the classical demographic
variables, and information provisions, communication strategies and marketing strategies (e.g.
advertising, assortment, packaging, display, product positioning, …) should address the specific
expectations of the target segments.
The third objective pertained to getting a better understanding of some influencing factors that
contribute to the poor reflection of the public’s interest in, and concerns for animal welfare in
actual food purchasing behaviour. The findings confirmed the hypothesised impact of the different
influencing factors, and were linked to some suggestions to better align citizen sayings with
consumer doings. Opportunities from initiatives that raise public awareness and consumer
involvement in relation to farm animal welfare issues and that narrow the distance with the
producer were concluded from the positive influence of perceived consumer effectiveness;
suggestions in terms of price strategies followed on the revealed differences in price perception of
higher welfare products among consumers with a high versus low engagement in pro-welfare
behaviour; recommendations for marketing strategies, mainly with regard to labelling and
communication, were derived from findings in relation to the public’s opinion and perception
towards animal welfare-related information, product availability, dissociation, and product attribute
importance.
The fourth objective was related to the issue of piglet castration, and on immunocastration as a
possible alternative practice. The practice of male piglet castration without anaesthesia or analgesia
– a routine practice to avoid boar taint, and applied in many European countries, among which
Belgium (anno 2010) – became widely contested for its compromise to the piglet’s welfare and
integrity during the course of this dissertation. Consumers were scarcely aware of the practice and
its possible alternatives. The reserved attitude of the different stakeholders along the pig
production chain towards immunocastration, because of uncertainty about consumer acceptance
could not be confirmed. To the contrast, throughout the different studies and independent from
the information provided, consumers preferred immunocastration over surgical castration with or
without anaesthesia or analgesia; a choice which was motivated most strongly in terms of better
social acceptability and better animal welfare. Farmers were more reticent to alternative practices,
mainly related to uncertainty about economic implications in terms of cost and work load. It could
be concluded that the adoption of immunocastration is unlikely to result in marketplace loss of any
particular target segment, but will need pioneering producers and retailers to make it successful.
214
Samenvatting
Samenvatting
In de Westerse samenleving is een steeds meer uitgesproken interesse en bezorgdheid vast te
stellen met betrekking tot de manier waarop voedsel wordt geproduceerd en wat de impact van
deze productie is op het milieu en het dierenwelzijn. Om de eindgebruiker van de voedselketen op
een meer actieve en efficiënte manier te betrekken in strategieën om het dierenwelzijn te
verbeteren is een goed inzicht nodig in de manier waarop mensen denken over dierenwelzijn en in
de maatschappelijke attitudes en bezorgdheden betreffende dierenwelzijn. Een sterke
verstedelijking en de daaraan gekoppelde vervreemding van dierlijke productie heeft een kloof
gecreëerd tussen producent en consument. Dit heeft er mede toe geleid dat beiden een andere
visie hebben op dierenwelzijn. De publieke opvatting over het welzijn van landbouwhuisdieren,
verschillen in maatschappelijke standpunten en de ambivalentie tussen wat een individu zegt als
burger en doet als consument vormen de centrale onderzoeksthema’s. De overkoepelende
doelstelling van dit doctoraat is in die zin gedefinieerd als het bijdragen tot een beter begrip van de
publieke opvatting over, en de publieke perceptie ten aanzien van het welzijn van
landbouwhuisdieren. Bijkomend is in dit doctoraatsonderzoek aandacht besteed aan het thema
biggencastratie en de rol van de maatschappij in de zoektocht naar mogelijke alternatieven voor het
onverdoofd chirurgische castrateren (huidige praktijk).
De bevindingen binnen dit doctoraatsonderzoek zijn gebaseerd op zowel primaire als secundaire
gegevens, die verzameld zijn in het kader van zes onafhankelijke studies. Zowel kwalitatief
verkennende (via focus groep discussies en diepte-interviews) als kwantitatief besluitende (via
enquêtes) onderzoeksmethodes zijn toegepast. Vijf studies waren beperkt tot Vlaanderen, terwijl
bij een zesde studie data zijn verzameld in België (beide landsdelen), Frankrijk, Duitsland en
Nederland. De hoofdbevindingen en conclusies worden hieronder weergegeven en sluiten aan bij
de vier onderzoeksdoelstellingen die in deze thesis zijn opgesteld.
In de eerste doelstelling werd de publieke opvatting over het welzijn van landbouwhuisdieren
onderzocht. Een geïntegreerde studieopzet resulteerde in een model met zeven dimensies op twee
niveaus: drie diergerelateerde dimensies met een directe impact op het dierenwelzijn (Vermogen
om natuurlijk gedrag te vertonen; Diergezondheid; Lijden en stress) en vier omgevingsgerelateerde
dimensies met een indirecte impact op het dierenwelzijn (Voeder en water; Huisvesting en
stalklimaat; Mens-dier relatie; Transport en slacht). Dit model toont sterke gelijkenissen met
bestaande experten definities, maar is gekenmerkt door een beperkte familiariteit met de dierlijke
productie. Daarnaast draagt de opdeling in twee niveaus bij tot de huidige discussie in verband met
de relatieve afwezigheid van diergerelateerde parameters in welzijnswetgevingen, maatstaven en
indicatoren. Het model en de bevindingen uit dit deel kunnen aangewend worden om in te spelen
op verschillende tekortkomingen van huidige welzijnsgeoriënteerde initiatieven. Vaak zijn deze het
resultaat van een gebrekkig begrip en adressering van publieke verwachtingen, bezorgdheden en
215
Samenvatting
percepties in relatie met dierenwelzijn. Ook kunnen deze resultaten dienen om publieke percepties
en (wetenschappelijke) feiten dichter bij elkaar te brengen.
In de tweede doelstelling werden verschillen in maatschappelijke houding ten aanzien van
dierenwelzijn onderzocht. Klassieke demografische variabelen bleken niet erg verklarend in
tegenstelling tot familiariteit met de landbouwsector, waarden in het leven en overtuigingen met
betrekking tot dieren, dierenwelzijn en dierlijke productie. Deze bevindingen zijn waardevol voor
beleidsmakers en marketeers en voor een efficiënte communicatie naar de eindgebruiker. Personen
verschillen in hun attitudes, bezorgdheden en opvattingen ten aanzien van dierenwelzijn. Dit
noodzaakt een gesegmenteerde benadering, waarbij men rekening dient te houden met de
specifieke verwachtingen van de verschillende doelsegmenten bij het opstellen van informatie-,
communicatie- en marketingstrategieën (bv. reclame, productassortiment, verpakking, labelling, ...).
In de derde doelstelling werd de ambivalentie tussen burgers en consumenten bestudeerd. De
bevindingen bevestigden de veronderstelde impact van verschillende factoren, en konden gelinkt
worden aan enkele suggesties om hetgeen een individu als consument doet in de winkel beter af te
stemmen op wat datzelfde individu zegt als burger. De resultaten toonden een positieve invloed
van de “perceived consumer effectiveness” op de ambivalentie tussen burger en consument. Zo kan
verwacht worden dat (consumenten)gedrag beter zal aansluiten bij (burger)houding onder impuls
van initiatieven om het publieke bewustzijn betreffende dierenwelzijn te verhogen. Het verschil in
prijsperceptie van welzijnsvriendelijke voedingsproducten tussen consumenten die veel versus
weinig diervriendelijke producten kopen werd gekoppeld aan mogelijk te volgen prijsstrategieën.
Aanbevelingen voor communicatie en labels volgden uit resultaten omtrent de publieke perceptie
ten aanzien van welzijnsgerelateerde informatie, productbeschikbaarheid, het loskoppelen van het
stukje vlees van het dier en het belang van productattributen.
De vierde doelstelling was gerelateerd aan biggencastratie. Deze praktijk is sterk ter discussie
komen te staan tijdens de loop van dit doctoraat omwille van de negatieve impact op het
biggenwelzijn. Consumenten bleken slechts beperkt op de hoogte te zijn van deze praktijk en nog
minder van mogelijke alternatieven. De eerder gereserveerde houding van de sector ten aanzien
van immunocastratie (een alternatief waar binnen dit onderzoek dieper op is ingegaan) omwille van
onzekerheid omtrent consumentenacceptatie kon niet bevestigd worden. Integendeel, resultaten
wezen op een consumentenvoorkeur voor immunocastratie boven chirurgische castratie. Deze
voorkeur was het sterkst gemotiveerd in termen van een betere maatschappelijke acceptatie en
beter dierenwelzijn. Producenten waren eerder terughoudend ten aanzien van verschillende
alternatieve praktijken, een houding die kon gelinkt worden aan onzekerheid inzake economische
parameters. Er kon besloten worden dat het onwaarschijnlijk is dat de invoering van
immunocastratie zal leiden tot een marktverlies bij om het even welk doelsegment, maar dat er
producenten en retailers zullen moeten zijn die het voortouw nemen om deze praktijk succesvol te
maken.
216
References
References
Abeni, F., and G. Bertoni. 2009. Main causes of poor welfare in intensively reared dairy cows. Italian
Journal of Animal Science 8: 45-66.
Adams, C. J., and J. Donovan. 1995. Animals and women. Feminist theoretical explorations. Durham:
Duke University Press, 396 pages.
Adams, T. E. 2005. Using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) and GnRH analogs to modulate
testis function and enhance the productivity of domestic animals. Animal Reproduction
Science 88: 127-139.
Aerts, S., and D. Lips. 2010. Dierenwelzijn en consumptie. In: J. De Tavernier, D. Lips and S. Aerts
(eds.) Dier en welzijn. p 85-100. Tielt: Uitgeverij Terra-Lannoo nv.
Aertsens, J., W. Verbeke, K. Mondelaers, and G. Van Huylenbroeck. 2009. Personal determinants of
organic food consumption: A review. British Food Journal 111: 1140-1167.
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50: 179-211.
Ajzen, I. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 27-58.
Algers, B., and C. Berg. 2001. Monitoring animal welfare on commercial broiler farms in sweden.
Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section a-Animal Science: 88-92.
Algers, B., and P. Jensen. 1991. Teat stimulation and milk-production during early lactation in sows effects of continuous noise. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71: 51-60.
Allison, J. et al. 2009. Impact of using vaccination with Improvac® on the sensory perception of meat
from finishing male pigs. Proceedings of the 55th International Congress of Meat Science and
Technology (ICOMST), 15-21 August, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anonymous. 2001. Scientist' assessment of the impact of housing and management on animal
welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 3-52.
Appleby, M. C. 1999a. Definitions of welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 159-160.
Appleby, M. C. 1999b. Tower of babel: variation in ethical approaches, concepts of welfare and
attitudes to genetic manipulation. Animal Welfare 8: 381-390.
Appleby, M. C. 2004. Considerations of the relationship between food prices and animal welfare.
Journal of Dairy Science 87: 238-238.
Austin, E. J., I. J. Deary, G. Edwards-Jones, and D. Arey. 2005. Attitudes to farm animal welfare:
factor structure and personality correlates in farmers and agriculture students. Journal of
Individual Differences 26: 107-120.
Bagozzi, R. P., Y. J. Li, and L. W. Phillips. 1991. Assessing construct-validity in organizational research.
Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 421-458.
Banks, E. M. 1982. Behavioral research to answer questions about animal welfare. Journal of Animal
Science 54: 434-446.
217
References
Bartussek, H. 1999. A review of the Animal Needs Index (ANI) for the assessment of animals' wellbeing in the housing systems for austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock
Production Science 61: 179-192.
Baumgartner, J. et al. 2010. The behaviour of male fattening pigs following either surgical castration
or vaccination with a GnRF vaccine. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 124: 28-34.
Bayvel, A. C. D. 2005. The use of animals in agriculture and science: historical context, international
considerations and future direction. Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International
Des Epizooties 24: 791-797.
Beardsworth, A. et al. 2002. Women, men and food: the significance of gender for nutritional
attitudes and choices. British Food Journal 104: 470 – 491.
Beekman, V., M. B. M. Bracke, T. Van Gaasbeek, and S. Van der Kroon. 2002. Begint een beter
dierenwelzijn bij onszelf? LEI, Den Haag, Rapport 7.02.02, 94 pages.
Belga. 2010. Belgische gezinnen kopen vaker bio. Het Nieuwsblad (01/04/2010).
Belga. 2010. Vlaanderen telt geen platteland meer. VILT nieuwsbrief (03/09/2010).
Bennett, R., and R. Blaney. 2002. Social consensus, moral intensity and willingness to pay to address
a farm animal welfare issue. Journal of Economic Psychology 23: 501-520.
Bennett, R., and D. Larson. 1996. Contingent valuation of the perceived benefits of farm animal
welfare legislation: an exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics 47: 224-235.
Bennett, R., J. Anderson, and R. J. P. Blaney. 2002. Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning
farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of
Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 15: 187-202.
Berg, C., and A. Hammarström. 2006. The process of building a new governmental authority based
on public demands for improved animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 297-302.
Berger, I. E., and R. M. Corbin. 1992. Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as
moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
11: 79-89.
Bernués, A., A. Olaizola, and K. Corcoran. 2003a. Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of
quality in Europe: an application for market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 14:
265-276.
Bernués, A., A. Olaizola, and K. Corcoran. 2003b. Labelling information demanded by european
consumers and relationships with purchasing motives, quality and safety of meat. Meat
Science 65: 1095-1106.
Bertoni, G. 2009a. Ethical motivations (consumers) of animal welfare and the interest for farmers.
Italian Journal of Animal Science 8: 897-899.
Bertoni, G. 2009b. Special issue criteria and methods for the assessment of animal welfare preface.
Italian Journal of Animal Science 8: 5-8.
Binnekamp, M., and P. Ingenbleek. 2006. Market barriers for welfare product innovations. NjasWageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54: 169-178.
218
References
Binnekamp, M., P. Ingenbleek, H. van Trijp, and K. de Vlieger. 2005. Dierenwelzijn in de markt. Agrimonitor, Februari 2005, p 1-2.
Birke, L. 1993. Review essay. Society & Animals 1: 191-206.
Blandford, D., and L. Fulponi. 1999. Emerging public concerns in agriculture: domestic policies and
international trade commitments. European Review of Agricultural Economics 26: 409-424.
Blokhuis, H. J., L. J. Keeling, A. Gavinelli, and J. Serratosa. 2008. Animal welfare's impact on the food
chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology 19: S79-S87.
Bock, B. B., and M. M. van Huik. 2007. Animal welfare: The attitudes and behaviour of European pig
farmers. British Food Journal 109: 931-944.
Bock, B. B., M. M. van Huik, M. Prutzer, F. Kling Eveillard, and A. C. Dockes. 2007. Farmers
relationship with different animals: the importance of getting close to animals - case studies
of French, Swedish and Dutch cattle, pig and poultry farmers. International Journal of
Sociology of Agriculture and Food 15: 108-125.
Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley, 528 pages.
Boogaard, B. K., B. B. Bock, S. J. Oosting, and E. Krogh. 2010. Visiting a farm: an exploratory study of
the social construction of animal farming in norway and the netherlands based on sensory
perception. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 17: 24-50.
Boogaard, B. K., S. J. Oosting, and B. B. Bock. 2006. Elements of societal perception of farm animal
welfare: A quantitative study in the netherlands. Livestock Science 104: 13-22.
Boogaard, B. K., S. J. Oosting, and B. B. Bock. 2008. Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural
concept: citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the netherlands. Livestock Science 117: 24-33.
Borgen, S. O., and G. A. Skarstad. 2007. Norwegian pig farmers' motivations for improving animal
welfare. British Food Journal 109: 891-905.
Botreau, R., P. Perny, and I. Veissier. 2008. Reports on the construction of welfare criteria to
different livestock species, part 3: Criteria construction for all animal types on farm.
Deliverable 2.8b, subtask 2.3.1.2, Welfare Quality® (EU FOOD-CT-2004-506508).
Botreau, R., I. Veissier, A. Butterworth, M. B. M. Bracke, and L. J. Keeling. 2007. Definition of criteria
for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225-228.
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 613 pages.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 333 pages.
Bracke, M. B. M., K. Greef, and H. Hopster. 2005. Qualitative stakeholder analysis for the
development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal welfare. Journal of
Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 18: 27-56.
Bracke, M. B. M. 2007. Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal
welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 229-231.
Bracke, M. B. M., B. M. Spruijt, and J. H. M. Metz. 1999. Overall welfare reviewed. Part 3: Welfare
assessment based on needs and supported by expert opinion. Njas-Wageningen Journal of
Life Sciences 47: 307-322.
219
References
Bradshaw, J. W. S., and E. S. Paul. 2010. Could empathy for animals have been an adaptation in the
evolution of homo sapiens? Animal Welfare 19: 107-112.
Brambell, F. R. 1965. The report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals
kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. London: H.M.S.O. Command paper no.
2836.
Brom, F. W., T. Visak, and F. Meijboom. 2007. Food, citizens and the market: The quest for
responsible consuming. In: L. Frewer and H. Van Trijp (eds.) Understanding consumers of
food products. p 610-623. Cambridge, MA: Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press.
Brom, F. W. 2000. Food, consumer concerns, and trust: food ethics for a globalizing market. Journal
of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 12: 127-139.
Broom, D. M. 1986. Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142: 524-526.
Broom, D. M. 1991. Animal-welfare - concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69:
4167-4175.
Broom, D. M. 2001. Coping, stress and welfare. In: D. M. Broom (ed.) Coping with challenge:
Welfare in animals including humans. p 1-9. Berlin: Dahlem University Press.
Browne, M., and R. Cudeck. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K. A. Bollen and J. Long
(eds.) Testing structural equation models. p 136-162. California, CA: Sage Publications.
Bruckmeier, K., and M. Prutzer. 2007. Swedish pig producers and their perspectives on animal
welfare: A case study. British Food Journal 109: 906-918.
Buller, H. 2009. What can we tell consumers and retailers? Proceedings of the Final Stakeholder
Conference ‘Delivering animal welfare and quality: transparancy in the food production
chain’, Welfare Quality®, 8-9 October, Uppsala, Sweden, p 43-46.
Buller, H., and C. Cesar. 2007. Eating well, eating fare: farm animal welfare in France. International
Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 15: 45-58.
Burrell, A., and B. Vrieze. 2003. Ethical motivation of Dutch egg consumers. Tijdschrift voor Sociaal
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek voor de Landbouw 18: 30-42.
Butterworth, A. 2009. Feeding support information back to management. Proceedings of the Final
Stakeholder Conference ‘Delivering animal welfare and quality: transparancy in the food
production chain’, Welfare Quality®, 8-9 October, Uppsala, Sweden, p 33-37.
Caporale, V., B. Alessandrini, P. Dalla Villa, and S. Del Papa. 2005. Global perspectives on animal
welfare: Europe. Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties 24:
567-577.
Carenzi, C., and M. Verga. 2009. Animal welfare: review of the scientific concept and definition.
Italian Journal of Animal Science 8: 21-30.
Carlsson, F., P. Frykblom, and C. J. Lagerkvist. 2007. Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal
welfare: Mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of
Agricultural Economics 34: 321-344.
Casimir, G., and C. Dutilh. 2003. Consument en burger vanuit een genderperspectief. In: H. Dagevos
and L. Sterrenberg (eds.) Burgers en consumenten. p 99-110. Wageningen, The
Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
220
References
Castellini, C., C. Berri, E. Le Bihan-Duval, and G. Martino. 2008. Qualitative attributes and consumer
perception of organic and free-range poultry meat. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 64: 500512.
Christensen, T., M. Mørbak, S. Denver, and B. Hasler. 2006. Preferences for food safety and animal
welfare - a choice experiment study comparing organic and conventional consumers.
Proceedings of the 1st Joint European Organic Congress, Odense, Denmark, 2 pages.
Clarke, L. et al. 2008. Inherent food safety of a synthetic gonadotropin-releasing factor (GnRF)
vaccine for the control of boar taint in entire male pigs. International Journal of Applied
Research in Veterinary Medicine 6: 7-14.
Codron, J. M., L. Siriex, and T. Reardon. 2006. Social and environmental attributes of food products
in an emerging mass market: challenges of signaling and consumer perception, with
European illustrations. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 283-297.
Cohen, N. E., M. A. P. M. van Asseldonk, and E. N. Stassen. 2007. Social-ethical issues concerning the
control strategy of animal diseases in the European Union: a survey. Agriculture and Human
Values 24: 499-510.
Coleman, G. 2007. Public perceptions of animal pain and animal welfare. Proceedings of the
Australian Animal Welfare Strategy Science Summit on Pain and Pain Management, 27 May,
Melbourne, Australia, 8 pages.
Colman, E., A. Dhondt, C. De Moor, S. Tanghe, and E. Vandamme. 2007. Dierenwelzijn en
consumentengedrag. Student project within the Master’s Programme to obtain the degree
of Bio-Engineer, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University.
Cronin, G. M. et al. 2003. The effects of immuno- and surgical-castration on the behaviour and
consequently growth of group-housed, male finisher pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science
81: 111-126.
Dagevos, H. 2005. Consumers as four-faced creatures. Looking at food consumption from the
perspective of contemporary consumers. Appetite 45: 32-39.
Dagevos, H., and L. Sterrenberg. 2003. Burgers en consumenten: tussen tweedeling en tweeeenheid. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 160 pages.
Dawkins, M. S. 2006. A user's guide to animal welfare science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 7782.
Dawkins, M. S. 2008. The science of animal suffering. Ethology 114: 937-945.
de Bakker, E., and H. Dagevos. 2010. Vleesminnaars, vleesminderaars en vleesmijders. Duurzame
eiwitconsumptie in een carnivore eetcultuur. LEI, Den Haag, LEI-rapport 2010-003, 207
pages.
De Jonge, F., and E. Goewie. 2000. In het belang van het dier: over het welzijn van dieren in de
veehouderij. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag, 130 pages.
de Lange, K. 2009. Animal welfare high on the agenda at fve assembly. Veterinary Record 165: 734735.
de Roest, K., C. Montanari, T. Fowler, and W. Baltussen. 2009. Resource efficiency and economic
implications of alternatives to surgical castration without anaesthesia. Animal 3: 1522-1531.
221
References
De Tavernier, J., D. Lips, and S. Aerts. 2010. Dier en welzijn. Tielt: Uitgeverij Terra-Lannoo nv., 215
pages.
Degrazia, D. 1998. Animal ethics around the turn of the twenty-first century. Journal of Agricultural
& Environmental Ethics 11: 111-129.
Delezie, E., W. Verbeke, J. De Tavernier, and E. Decuypere. 2006. Consumers' preferences toward
techniques for improving manual catching of poultry. Poultry Science 85: 2019-2027.
Demeritt, L. 2005. Understanding consumers goes beyond demographics and lifestyles. Available on
http://www.djc.com/news/en/11170267.html (last consulted: 15/09/2010).
Diamantopoulos, A., B. B. Schlegelmilch, R. R. Sinkovics, and G. M. Bohlen. 2003. Can sociodemographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an
empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research 56: 465-480.
Dickson, M. A. 2001. Utility of no sweat labels for apparel consumers: profiling label users and
predicting their purchases. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 35: 96-119.
Diederen, P. 2003. Burger, laat die consument met rust! In: H. Dagevos and L. Sterrenberg (eds.)
Burgers en consumenten: Tussen tweedeling en twee-eenheid. p 19-30. Wageningen, The
Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Dockes, A. C., and F. Kling-Eveillard. 2006. Farmers' and advisers' representations of animals and
animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 243-249.
Doerfler, R. L., and K. J. Peters. 2006. The relativity of ethical issues in animal agriculture related to
different cultures and production conditions. Livestock Science 103: 257-262.
Duncan, I. J. H. 1996. Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica
Section a-Animal Science: 29-35.
Duncan, I. J. H. 2005. Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm animals. Revue Scientifique
Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties 24: 483-492.
Duncan, I. J. H., and D. Fraser. 1997. Understanding animal welfare. In: M. Appleby and B. O. Hughes
(eds.) Animal welfare. p 19-31. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Dunshea, F. R. et al. 2001. Vaccination of boars with a GnRH vaccine (Improvac) eliminates boar
taint and increases growth performance. Journal of Animal Science 79: 2524-2535.
Eastwood, P. J. 1995. Farm animal welfare, Europe and the meat manufacturer. British Food Journal
97: 4-11.
Edwards, J. D., and H. P. Schneider. 2005. The World Veterinary Association and animal welfare.
Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties 24: 639-646.
EFSA. 2004. Welfare aspects of the castration of piglets. Scientific report of the scientific panel for
animal health and welfare on a request from the commission related to welfare aspects of
the castration of piglest. EFSA - AHAW/04-087, Parma, Italy. Available on
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/91.htm (last consulted: 18/09/2010).
Eijck, I., C. van der Peet-Schwering, M. Kiezebrink, and A. Vink. 2007. Effect of castration of organic
swine with anesthesia on the veterinary costs and physical work load of pig farmers.
Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 12: 476-479.
222
References
Elder, G., J. Wolch, and J. Emel. 1998. Le pratique sauvage: Race, place, and the human-animal
divide. In: J. Wolch and J. Emel (eds.) Animal geographies: Place, politics, and identity in the
nature-culture borderlands. p 72-90. New York, NY: Verso.
Ellen, P. S., J. L. Weiner, and C. Cobb-Walgren. 1991. The role of perceived consumer effectiveness
in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 10:
102-117.
Ellis, K. A., K. Billington, B. McNeil, and D. E. F. McKeegan. 2009. Consumer perceptions of dairy
welfare and production: A role for vets in public education? Cattle Practice 17: 148-152.
Engel, J. F., P. W. Miniard, and R. D. Blackwell. 1990. Consumer behavior. Chicago: The Dryden
Press, 790 pages.
Enneking, U. 2004. Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: The
case of the Q&S label. European Review of Agricultural Economics 31: 205-223.
Estevez, I. 2007. Density allowances for broilers: where to set the limits? Poultry Science 86: 12651272.
European Commission. 2005. Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals.
Special
Eurobarometer
229.
Avalaible
on
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en.pdf
(last
consulted:
15/09/2010).
European Commission. 2006a. Commission working document on a Community Action Plan on the
Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010. Strategic basis for the proposed actions.
Available
on
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/work_doc_strategic_basis230106_en.pdf
(last
consulted: 18/09/2010).
European Commission. 2006b. Risk issues. Special Eurobarometer 238. Available on
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/resources/specialeurobarometer_riskissues20060206_en.pdf (last consulted: 18/09/2010).
European Commission. 2007. EU consumers willing to pay for better animal welfare. Press release
22/03/2007.
Available
on
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/398&type=HTML&aged=0
&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (last consulted: 18/09/2010).
Evers, J., D. Lips, J. De Tavernier, J. Buyse, and E. Decuypere. 2005. Extension of the Animal Needs
Index for laying hens with animal-related parameters. Animal Science Papers and Reports
Quarterly 23: 271-272.
Fàbrega, E., A. Velarde, J. Cros, M. Gispert, P. Suárez, J. Tibau, and J. Soler. 2010. Effect of
vaccination against gonadotropin-releasing hormone, using ImprovacTM, on growth
performance, body composition, behaviour and acute phase proteins. Livestock Science,
doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2010.04.021.
FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council). 1993. Report on priorities for animal welfare research and
development. Surbiton, UK.
FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council). 2006. Report on welfare labelling, 40 pages.
223
References
Fearon, J. D. 1998. Deliberation as discussion. In: J. Elster (ed.) Deliberative democracy. p 44-68.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Festinger, L. 1964. Conflict, decision and dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 163
pages.
Fishbein, M. 1967. Attitude and predicting behaviour. In: M. Fishbein (ed.) Reading in attitude
theory and measurement. p 389-400. New York, NY: Wiley.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory
and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 578 pages.
Fisher, M. W. 2009. Defining animal welfare - does consistency matter? New Zealand Veterinary
Journal 57: 71-73.
Flynn, L. R., and R. E. Goldsmith. 1999. A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. Journal of
Business Research 46: 57-66.
Font i Furnols, M. et al. 2008. Consumers' sensory acceptability of pork from immunocastrated male
pigs. Meat Science 80: 1013-1018.
Fraser, D. 1995. Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the 'inextricable connection'. Animal
Welfare 4: 103-117.
Fraser, D. 1999. Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 65: 171-189.
Fraser, D. 2001. The "new perception" of animal agriculture: legless cows, featherless chickens, and
a need for genuine analysis. Journal of Animal Science 79: 634-641.
Fraser, D. 2003. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and
values. Animal Welfare 12: 433-443.
Fraser, D. 2004. Applying science to animal welfare standards. Proceedings of the Global Conference
on Animal Welfare: an OIE initiative, 23-25 February, Paris, France, p 121-127.
Fraser, D. 2006. Animal welfare assurance programs in food production: A framework for assessing
the options. Animal Welfare 15: 93-104.
Fraser, D. 2007. Animal welfare and intensive animal production: Are they compatible? In: W.
Zollitsch, C. Winckler, S. Waiblinger and A. Haslberger (eds.) Sustainable food production
and ethics: Preprints of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food
Ethics (EURSAFE). p 31-36. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic
Publishers.
Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 50: S1.
Fraser, D., and I. J. H. Duncan. 1998. 'Pleasures','pains' and animal welfare: toward a natural history
of affect. Animal Welfare 7: 383-396.
Fraser, D., D. M. Weary, E. A. Pajor, and B. N. Milligan. 1997. A scientific conception of animal
welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187-205.
Fredriksen, B. et al. 2009. Practice on castration of piglets in Europe. Animal 3: 1480-1487.
224
References
Fredriksen, B., and O. Nafstad. 2006. Surveyed attitudes, perceptions and practices in Norway
regarding the use of local anaesthesia in piglet castration. Research in Veterinary Science
81: 293-295.
Fredriksen, B., A. M. Sibeko Johnsen, and E. Skuterud. 2010. Consumer attitudes towards castration
of piglets and alternatives to surgical castration. Research in Veterinary Science doi:
10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.06.018.
Frewer, L. 1999. Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision making:
Implications for emerging technologies. Ambio 28: 569-574.
Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd. 1997a. Consumer attitudes towards
different food-processing technologies used in cheese production - the influence of
consumer benefit. Food Quality and Preference 8: 271-280.
Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd. 1997b. The elaboration likelihood model
and communication about food risks. Risk Analysis 17: 759-770.
Frewer, L. J., A. Kole, S. M. A. Van De Kroon, and C. De Lauwere. 2005. Consumer attitudes towards
the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural &
Environmental Ethics 18: 345-367.
Furniere, D. 2008. Consumentengedrag ten aanzien van immunocastratie als alternatief voor
chirurgische castratie bij biggen. Thesis to obtain the degree of Bio-Engineer, master
Agriculture, Ghent University.
Garner, R. 2010. Animals, ethics and public policy. The Political Quarterly 81: 123-130.
Garnier, J. P., R. Klont, and G. Plastow. 2003. The potential impact of current animal research on the
meat industry and consumer attitudes towards meat. Meat Science 63: 79-88.
Giddens, A. 1986. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Berkely, CA:
University of California Press, 274 pages.
Giffin, B. J., J. R. D. Allison, S. Martin, P. Ward, and A. Tschopp. 2008. Consumer acceptance of the
use of vaccination to control boar taint. Proceedings of the 20th International Pig
Veterinarian Science (IPVS) Congress, 22-25 June, Durban, South Africa.
Goris, S., and J. Baeten. 2005. Maatschappelijke indicatoren voor dierenwelzijn. DP21 (Dierlijke
Productie in de 21ste eeuw), projectbrochure.
Gottardo, F., M. Brscic, B. Contiero, G. Cozzi, and I. Andrighetto. 2009. Towards the creation of a
welfare assessment system in intensive beef cattle farms. Italian Journal of Animal Science
8: 325-342.
Grandin, T. 2000. Livestock handling and transport. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, 464 pages.
Griffith, M., J. Wolch, and U. Lassiter. 2002. Animal practices and the racialization of Filipinas in Los
Angeles. Society and Animals 10: 221-248.
Grunert, K. G. 2006. Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat
Science 74: 149-160.
Grunert, K. G., T. Bech-Larsen, and L. Bredahl. 2000. Three issues in consumer quality perception
and acceptance of dairy products. International Dairy Journal 10: 575-584.
225
References
Grunert, K. G., L. Bredahl, and K. Brunsø. 2004. Consumer perception of meat quality and
implications for product development in the meat sector - a review. Meat Science 66: 259272.
Grunert, K. G., and C. Valli. 2001. Designer-made meat and dairy products: consumer-led product
development. Livestock Production Science 72: 83-98.
Hair, J., W. Black, B. Babin, R. Anderson, and R. Tatham. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, 928 pages.
Hall, C., and V. Sandilands. 2007. Public attitudes to the welfare of broiler chickens. Animal Welfare
16: 499-512.
Hamilton, M. 2006. Disgust reactions to meat among ethically and health motivated vegetarians.
Ecology of Food and Nutrition 45: 125-158.
Hansen, J., L. Holm, L. Frewer, P. Robinson, and P. Sandøe. 2003. Beyond the knowledge deficit:
recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41: 111-121.
Hansman, H. 1999. De consument gevangen in cijfers: Zoektocht naar het bestaan van
consumentenbeelden. LEI, Den Haag, Rapport 3.99.07, 77 pages.
Harper, G., and S. Henson. 2001. Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food
choice. Final report (EU
FAIR
CT98-3678), 38
pages. Available
on
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/eu_fair_project_en.pdf
(last
consulted:
26/05/2010).
Harper, G., and A. Makatouni. 2002. Consumer perception of organic food production and farm
animal welfare. British Food Journal 104: 287-299.
Harrison, R. A. 1964. Animal machines: the new factory farming industry. London, UK: Vincent
Stuart Ltd, 186 pages.
Haynes, R. P. 2008. Animal welfare: competing conceptions and their ethical implications.
Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 162 pages.
Heid, A., and U. Hamm. 2009. Consumer acceptance of alternatives to piglet castration without
anaesthesia. Fleischwirtschaft 89: 93-98.
Heinritzi, K., M. Ritzmann, and W. Otten. 2006. Alternatives of castration of suckling piglets,
determination of catecholamines and woundhealing after castration of suckling piglets at
different points of time. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 113: 94-97.
Heleski, C. R., A. G. Mertig, and A. J. Zanella. 2004. Assessing attitudes toward farm animal welfare:
a national survey of animal science faculty members. Journal of Animal Science 82: 28062814.
Heleski, C. R., A. G. Mertig, and A. J. Zanella. 2006. Stakeholder attitudes toward farm animal
welfare. Anthrozoos 19: 290-307.
Hemsworth, P., and G. Coleman. 1998. Human-livestock interactions: the stockperson and the
productivity and welfare of intensively farmed animals. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing,
176 pages.
226
References
Hennessy, D., and R. Newbold. 2004. Consumer attitudes to a boar taint vaccine, Improvac® - a
qualitative study. Proceedings of the 18th International Pig Veterinarian Society (IPVS)
Congress, 27 June – 1 July, Hamburg, Germany, p 612.
Hewson, C. J. 2003a. Can we assess welfare? Canadian Veterinary Journal-Revue Veterinaire
Canadienne 44: 749-753.
Hewson, C. J. 2003b. What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequences
- introduction. Canadian Veterinary Journal-Revue Veterinaire Canadienne 44: 496-499.
Hewson, C. J. 2004. What's animal welfare science all about? Canadian Veterinary Journal-Revue
Veterinaire Canadienne 45: 254-258.
Hills, A. M. 1993. The motivational bases of attitudes toward animals. Society and Animals 1: 111128.
Honkanen, P., and S. O. Olsen. 2009. Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice: the
case of farmed fish. British Food Journal 111: 293-309.
Hoogland, C. T., J. de Boer, and J. J. Boersema. 2005. Transparency of the meat chain in the light of
food culture and history. Appetite 45: 15-23.
Hoogland, C. T., J. de Boer, and J. J. Boersema. 2007. Food and sustainability: do consumers-package
information mers recognize, understand and value on production standards? Appetite 49:
47-57.
Hopkins, P. D., and A. Dacey. 2008. Vegetarian meat: could technology save animals and satisfy
meat eaters? Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 21: 579-596.
Horgan, R., and A. Gavinelli. 2006. The expanding role of animal welfare within EU legislation and
beyond. Livestock Science 103: 303-307.
Hubbard, C., M. Bourlakis, and G. Garrod. 2007. Pig in the middle: Farmers and the delivery of farm
animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109: 919-930.
Huber-Eicher, B., and P. Spring. 2008. Attitudes of swiss consumers towards meat from entire or
immunocastrated boars: a representative survey. Research in Veterinary Science 85: 625627.
Huber, A., and D. W. Fölsch. 1978. Akustische Ethogramme von Hühnern. Die Auswirkungen
verschiedener Haltungssysteme. Basel und Stuttgart: Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel und Stuttgart,
50 pages.
Hughes, D. 1995. Animal welfare: the consumer and the food industry. British Food Journal 97: 3-7.
IGD (The Institute of Grocery Distribution). 2007. Consumer attitudes to animal welfare. A report for
Freedom
Food
by
IGD.
Available
on
http://www.igd.com/index.asp?id=1&fid=1&sid=8&tid=33&cid=311
(last
consulted:
15/09/2010).
Ingenbleek, P., M. Binnekamp, and H. Van Trijp. 2006a. Betalen voor dierenwelzijn. Barrières en
oplossingsrichtingen in consumenten- en business-to-business markten. LEI, Den Haag,
Rapport 5.06.02, 96 pages.
227
References
Ingenbleek, P., M. Binnekamp, J. Van Trijp, and J. de Vlieger. 2004. Dierenwelzijn in de markt. Een
drieluik van consumenten, retailers en belangenorganisaties in Europa. LEI, Den Haag,
Rapport 5.04.11, 129 pages.
Ingenbleek, P. et al. 2006b. Dierenwelzijn in transitie; thema's rond de implementatie van de
dierenwelzijnsindex. LEI, Den Haag, Rapport 5.06.03, 103 pages.
Ingenbleek, P., and V. M. Immink. 2010. Managing conflicting stakeholder interests: an exploratory
case analysis of the formulation of corporate social responsibility standards in The
Netherlands. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 29: 52-65.
Jaros, P. et al. 2005. Effect of active immunization against GnRH on androstenone concentration,
growth performance and carcass quality in intact male pigs. Livestock Production Science
92: 31-38.
Jasper, J. M., and D. Nelkin. 1992. The animal rights crusade - the growth of a moral protest. New
York, NY: The Free Press, 214 pages.
Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch, and R. H. Thaler. 1990. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and
the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98: 1325-1348.
Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch, and R. H. Thaler. 1991. Anomalies - the endowment effect, loss
aversion, and status-quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 193-206.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory - analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica
47: 263-291.
Kaiser, M. 2005. Assessing ethics and animal welfare in animal biotechnology for farm production.
Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties 24: 75-87.
Kanis, E., A. F. Groen, and K. H. De Greef. 2003. Societal concerns about pork and pork production
and their relationships to the production system. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental
Ethics 16: 137-162.
Kendall, H. A., L. M. Lobao, and J. S. Sharp. 2006. Public concern with animal well-being: Place, social
structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology 71: 399-428.
Kennedy, O. B., B. J. Stewart-Knox, P. C. Mitchell, and D. I. Thurnham. 2004. Consumer perceptions
of poultry meat: a qualitative analysis. Nutrition and Food Science 34: 122-129.
Kiley-Worthington, M. 1989. Ecological, ethological and ethically sound environments for animals:
towards symbiosis. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 2: 223-247.
Kilgour, R. 1978. The application of animal behavior and the humane care of farm animals. Journal
of Animal Science 46: 1478-1486.
Kim, Y., and S. M. Choi. 2005. Antecedents of green purchase behaviour: an examination of
collectivism, environmental concern and PCE. Advances in Consumer Research 32: 592-597.
Kjaernes, U., E. Roe, and B. Bock. 2007. Societal concerns on farm animal welfare. Powerpointpresentation on the Second Stakeholder Conference ‘Assuring animal welfare: from societal
concerns to implementation’, Welfare Quality®, 3-4 May, Berlin, Germany.
Kling-Eveillard, F., A. C. Dockes, and C. Souquet. 2007. Attitudes of French pig farmers towards
animal welfare. British Food Journal 109: 859-869.
228
References
Knierim, U., and C. Wincler. 2009. On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and
feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality®
approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451-458.
Koch, V. W. 2009. American veterinarians' animal welfare limitations. Journal of Veterinary
Behavior-Clinical Applications and Research 4: 198-202.
Korte, S. M., B. Olivier, and J. M. Koolhaas. 2007. A new animal welfare concept based on allostasis.
Physiology & Behavior 92: 422-428.
Korthals, A. 2001a. Ethical dilemmas in sustainable agriculture. International Journal of Food
Science and Technology 36: 813-820.
Korthals, M. 2001b. Taking consumers seriously: Two concepts of consumer sovereignty. Journal of
Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 14: 201-215.
Korthals, M. 2002. Voor het eten: Filosofie en ethiek van voeding. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Broom,
250 pages.
Korthals, M. 2003. Kunnen consumenten iets meer dan eten? In: H. Dagevos and L. Sterrenberg
(eds.) Burgers en consumenten: tussen tweedeling en twee-eenheid. p 43-56. Wageningen,
The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Korthals, M. 2005. Ethics of food production and consumption. Available on
http://www.app.wur.nl/NR/rdonlyres/E96C8F3F-A0A4-48C3-956C355C676B1836/24283/MichielKorthalsEthicsofFoodProductionandConsumptio.doc
(last
consulted: 18/09/2010).
Korzen, S., and J. Lassen. 2010. Meat in context. On the relation between perceptions and contexts.
Appetite 54: 274-281.
Krueger, R. A. 1988. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, 197 pages.
Krystallis, A., M. D. de Barcellos, J. O. Kuegler, W. Verbeke, and K. G. Grunert. 2009. Attitudes of
European citizens towards pig production systems. Livestock Science 126: 46-56.
Kubberød, E., Ø. Ueland, Å. Tronstad, and E. Risvik. 2002. Attitudes towards meat and meat-eating
among adolescents in Norway: a qualitative study. Appetite 38: 53-62.
Lagerkvist, C., F. Carlsson, and D. Viske. 2006. Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and
biotech: a choice experiment. AgBioforum 9: 51-58.
Laskova, A. 2007. Perceived consumer effectiveness and environmental concerns. Proceeding of the
13th Asia Pacific Management Conference (APMC), 18-20 November, Melbourne, Australia.
p 206-209.
Lassen, J., P. Sandøe, and B. Forkman. 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal
welfare. Livestock Science 103: 221-230.
Lawrence, A. B., and A. W. Stott. 2009. Profiting from animal welfare: an animal-based perspective.
Available
on
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/lawrence%2009.pdf
(last
consulted: 18/09/2010).
229
References
Lea, E., and A. Worsley. 2002. The cognitive contexts of beliefs about the healthiness of meat. Public
Health Nutrition 5: 37-45.
Lewis, K. A., J. Tzilivakis, A. Green, D. Warner, and A. Coles. 2008. Farm assurance schemes: can they
improve farming standards? British Food Journal 110: 1088-1105.
Liljenstolpe, C. 2008. Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish
pig production. Agribusiness 24: 67-84.
Lindeman, M., and M. Väänänen. 2000. Measurement of ethical food choice motives. Appetite 34:
55-59.
LNV Consumentenplatform. 2005. Dierenwelzijn, willen we dat weten? Beleidsdossier, Den Haag, 10
juni 2005, 15 pages. Available on http://www.minlnv.nl (last consulted: 15/09/2010).
Lund, V., G. Coleman, S. Gunnarsson, M. C. Appleby, and K. Karkinen. 2006. Animal welfare science working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 97: 37-49.
Lundstrom, K., K. R. Matthews, and J. E. Haugen. 2009. Pig meat quality from entire males. Animal 3:
1497-1507.
MacArthur Clark, J. 2008. Making sustainable improvements in animal welfare. Available on
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1046712/60-judy-macarthurclark.pdf (last consulted: 18/09/2010) .
Mackinnon, J. D., and M. C. Pearce. 2007. ImprovacTM (Pfizer Animal Health): an immunological
product for the control of boar taint in male pigs. Boar taint and its control and the mode of
action, safety and efficacy of ImprovacTM. The Pig Journal 59: 29-67.
Makatouni, A. 1999. What motivates consumers to buy organic food in the UK? British Food Journal
104: 345-352.
Malhotra, N. K., and M. Peterson. 2005. Basic marketing research: a decision-making approach.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 672 pages.
Mann, S. 2005. Ethological farm programs and the "market" for animal welfare. Journal of
Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 18: 369-382.
Manning, L., R. N. Baines, and S. A. Chadd. 2006. Ethical modelling of the food supply chain. British
Food Journal 108: 358-370.
Maria, G. A. 2006. Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livestock Science 103: 250256.
Marie, M. 2006. Ethics: the new challenge for animal agriculture. Livestock Science 103: 203-207.
Marusic, A. 2009. Can journal editors police animal welfare? Three Es for three Rs in scientific
journals. American Journal of Bioethics 9: 66-67.
Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50: 370-396.
Mason, G., and M. Mendl. 1993. Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal
Welfare 2: 301-319.
230
References
Mayfield, L. E., R. M. Bennett, R. B. Tranter, and M. J. Wooldridge. 2007. Consumption of welfarefriendly food products in Great Britain, Italy and Sweden, and how it may be influenced by
consumer attitudes to, and behaviour towards, animal welfare attributes. International
Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 15: 59-73.
McCarthy, M., M. de Boer, S. O'Reilly, and L. Cotter. 2003. Factors influencing intention to purchase
beef in the Irish market. Meat Science 65: 1071-1083.
McDonald, B. 2000. "Once you know something, you can't not know it" - an empirical look at
becoming vegan. Society & Animals 8: 1-23.
McEachern, M. G., and M. J. A. Schröder. 2002. The role of livestock production ethics in consumer
values towards meat. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 15: 221-237.
McGlone, J. J. 2001. Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: Toward sustainable
systems. Livestock Production Science 72: 75-81.
McInerney, J. 1991. A socioeconomic perspective on animal-welfare. Outlook on Agriculture 20: 5156.
McInerney, J. 2004. Animal welfare, economics and policy. Report on a study undertaken for the
Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of DEFRA. Available on
http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/animalwelfar
e.pdf (last consulted: 18/09/2010).
McMillan, F. D. 2000. Quality of life in animals. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association 216: 1904-1910.
Mejdell, C. M. 2006. The role of councils on animal ethics in assessing acceptable welfare standards
in agriculture. Livestock Science 103: 292-296.
Mench, J. 2004. Management, handling, and transport of farm animals. Proceedings of the Global
Conference on Animal Welfare: an OIE initiative, 23-25 February, Paris, France, p 149-155.
Menghi, A. 2007. Italian pig producers' attitude toward animal welfare. British Food Journal 109:
870-878.
Meulenberg, T. 2003. 'Consument en burger', betekenis voor de markt van landbouwproducten en
voedingsmiddelen. Tijdschrift voor Sociaal Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek van de Landbouw
18: 43-54.
Meuwissen, M., and I. Van der Lans. 2004. Trade-offs between consumer concerns: an application
for pork production. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Chain and Network
Management in Agribusiness and the Food Industry, 27-28 May, Ede, The Netherlands, 9
pages.
Miele, M. 1998. Literature review and policy aspects. Italy, 1st report, ‘Consumer concerns about
animal welfare and the impact on food choice’ (EU FAIR CT 98-3678), published by
University of Pisa.
Miele, M. 2001. Italian survey report, ‘Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on
food choice’ (EU FAIR CT 98-3678), published by University of Pisa..
231
References
Miele, M., and A. Evans. 2005. European consumers' views about farm animal welfare. Proceedings
of the First Stakeholder Conference ‘Science and society improving animal welfare’, Welfare
Quality®, 9-25 November, Brussels, Belgium.
Milne, C. E., G. E. Dalton, and A. W. Stott. 2007. Integrated control strategies for ectoparasites in
Scottish sheep flocks. Livestock Science 106: 243-253.
Mirabito, L., J. Capdeville, A. C. Dockès, F. Kling Eveillard, and A. Brule. 2008. Assessment of cattle
welfare on farms: an example of cooporation with consumers. Proceedings of the 4th
International Workshop on Animal Welfare Assessment at Farm or Group Level (WAFL), 1013 September, Ghent, Belgium, p 61.
Mittal, B., and M. S. Lee. 1989. A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of Economic
Psychology 10: 363-389.
Mondelaers, K., W. Verbeke, and G. Van Huylenbroeck. 2009. Importance of health and
environment as quality traits in the buying decision of organic products. British Food Journal
111: 1120-1139.
Morgan-Davies, C., A. Waterhouse, C. E. Milne, and A. W. Stott. 2006. Farmers' opinions on welfare,
health and production practices in extensive hill sheep flocks in Great Britain. Livestock
Science 104: 268-277.
Napolitano, F., C. Pacelli, A. Girolami, and A. Braghieri. 2008. Effect of information about animal
welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 910-917.
Nelson, K. A. 2004. Consumer decision making and image theory: understanding value-laden
decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14: 28-40.
Nibert, D. 1994. Animal rights and human social issues. Society and Animals 2: 115-124.
Niesten, E., J. Raymaekers, and Y. Segers. 2003. Lekker dier!? Dierlijke productie en consumptie in
de 19de en 20ste eeuw. Leuven: CAG, 192 pages.
Nilsson, T., K. Foster, and J. L. Lusk. 2006. Marketing opportunities for certified pork chops.
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie 54: 567583.
Nocella, G., L. Hubbard, and R. Scarpa. 2010. Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and
trust: results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32: 275297.
Nordenfelt, L. 2006. Animal and human health and welfare: a comparative philosophical analysis.
Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, 204 pages.
Nussbaum, M. C. 2006. Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge,
UK: Harvard University Press, 520 pages.
Olesen, I., F. Alfnes, M. B. Røra, and K. Kolstad. 2010. Eliciting consumers' willingness to pay for
organic and welfare-labelled salmon in a non-hypothetical choice experiment. Livestock
Science 127: 218-226.
Oliver, R. L. 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions.
Journal of Marketing Research 17: 460-469.
232
References
Oma, K. A. 2010. Between trust and domination: social contracts between humans and animals.
World Archaeology 42: 175-187.
Osborne, N. J., D. Payne, and M. L. Newman. 2009. Journal editorial policies, animal welfare, and the
3 Rs. American Journal of Bioethics 9: 55-59.
Ouedraogo, A. et al. 2009. Survey on the attitudes of stakeholders in relation to piglet castration
and alternatives in different regions of Europe. Report of PIGCAS, WP1: Attitude, PIGCASproject, sine loco.
Passantino, A., F. Conte, and M. Russo. 2008. Animal welfare labelling and the approach of the
European Union: an overview on the current situation. Journal Für Verbraucherschutz Und
Lebensmittelsicherheit – Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety 3: 396-399.
Patterson, R. L. S. 1968. 5alpha-androst-16-ene-3-1: compound responsible for taint in boar fat.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 19: 31-37.
Paul, E. S., and A. L. Podberscek. 2000. Veterinary education and students' attitudes towards animal
welfare. Veterinary Record 146: 269-272.
Peek, C. W., C. C. Dunham, and B. E. Dietz. 1997. Gender, relational role orientation, and affinity for
animal rights. Sex roles 37: 905-920.
Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 19: 123-205.
Phan-Huy, S. A., and R. B. Fawaz. 2003. Swiss market for meat from animal-friendly production responses of public and private actors in Switzerland. Journal of Agricultural &
Environmental Ethics 16: 119-136.
Plous, S. 1993. Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Journal of Social Issues 49:
11-52.
Postollec, G., E. Boilletot, R. Maurice, and V. Michel. 2008. The effect of pen size and an enrichment
structure (elevated platform) on the performances and the behaviour of fattening rabbits.
Animal Welfare 17: 53-59.
Pouta, E., J. Heikkila, S. Forsman-Hugg, M. Isoniemi, and J. Makela. 2010. Consumer choice of broiler
meat: the effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Quality and Preference
21: 539-546.
Prabha, C., L. S. Connaway, L. Szewski, and L. R. Jenkins. 2007. What is enough? Satisficing
information needs. Journal of Documentation 63: 74-89.
Prunier, A., and M. Bonneau. 2006. Alternatives to piglet castration. Productions Animales 19: 347356.
Prunier, A. et al. 2006. A review of the welfare consequences of surgical castration in piglets and the
evaluation of non-surgical methods. Animal Welfare 15: 277-289.
Quintili, R., and G. Grifoni. 2004. Consumer concerns for animal welfare: from psychosis to
awareness. Proceedings of the Global Conference on Animal Welfare: an OIE initiative, 2325 February, Paris, France, p 93-96.
Ransom, E. 2007. The rise of agricultural animal welfare standards as understood through a neoinstitutional lens. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 15: 26-44.
233
References
Regan, T. 1983. The case for animal rights. California, US: University of California Press, 425 pages.
Ritzer, G. 2001. Explorations in the sociology of consumption: fast food, credit cards and casinos.
London, Sage Publications, 274 pages.
Roberts, J. A. 1995. Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer behavior: a cluster analytic
approach and its implications for marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 3: 97118.
Robinson, R., and C. Smith. 2003. Associations between self-reported health conscious
consumerism, body-mass index, and attitudes about sustainably produced foods.
Agriculture and Human Values 20: 177-187.
Rollin, B. E. 1981. Animal rights and human mortality. New York, NY: Prometheus Books, 182 pages.
Rushen, J. 2003. Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: bridging the gap between applied and
basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 199-214.
Rushen, J., and A. M. B. Depassille. 1992. The scientific assessment of the impact of housing on
animal-welfare - a critical-review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 721-743.
Safran Foer, J. 2009. Eating animals. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, Hachette Book
Group, 341 pages.
Salaün, Y., and K. Flores. 2001. Information quality: meeting the needs of the consumer.
International Journal of Information Management 21: 21-37.
Sandøe, P., and H. B. Simonsen. 1992. Assessing animal welfare: where does science end and
philosophy begin? Animal Welfare 1: 257-267.
Schlozman, K. L., N. Burns, S. Verba, and J. Donahue. 1995. Gender and citizen participation: Is there
a different voice? American Journal of Political Science 39: 267-293.
Scipioni, R., G. Martelli, and L. A. Volpelli. 2009. Assessment of welfare in pigs. Italian Journal of
Animal Science 8: 117-137.
Seamer, J. H. 1998. Human stewardship and animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59:
201-205.
Serpell, J. 1996. In the company of animals. A study of the human-animal relationships. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 320 pages.
Serpell, J. 1999. Sheep in wolves' clothing? Attitudes to animals among farmers and scientists. In: F.
L. Dolins (ed.) Attitudes to animals: Views in animal welfare. p 26-33. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Serpell, J. A. 2004. Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal 13.
Sevi, A. 2009. Animal-based measures for welfare assessment. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8:
904-911.
Shepherd, R., M. Magnusson, and P. O. Sjödén. 2005. Determinants of consumer behavior related to
organic foods. Ambio 34: 352-359.
Shrum, L. J. 1995. Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for advertising
strategy. Journal of Advertising 24: 71-82.
234
References
Singer, P. 1975. Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York, NY: New
York Review/Random House, 301 pages.
Skarstad, G. Å., L. Terragni, and H. Torjusen. 2007. Animal welfare according to Norwegian
consumers and producers: definitions and implications. International Journal of Sociology of
Agriculture and Food 15: 74-90.
Sørensen, J. T., and D. Fraser. 2010. On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: issues and
possible solutions. Livestock Science 131: 1-7.
Spaargaren, G. 2003. Duurzaam consumeren of ecologisch burgerschap? In: H. Dagevos and L.
Sterrenberg (eds.) Burgers en consumenten: tussen tweedeling en twee-eenheid. p 70-84.
Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Spinu, M., S. Benveneste, and A. A. Degen. 2003. Effect of density and season on stress and
behaviour in broiler breeder hens. British Poultry Science 44: 170-174.
Spoolder, H. A. M., S. A. Edwards, and S. Corning. 1999. Effects of group size and feeder space
allowance on welfare in finishing pigs. Animal Science 69: 481-489.
Spring, P., T. Kupper, and C. Pauly. 2009. Proschwein: Alternatives to the conventional castration of
piglets. Agrarforschung 16: 16-21.
Stafleu, F. R., F. J. Grommers, and J. Vorstenbosch. 1996. Animal welfare: evolution and erosion of a
moral concept. Animal Welfare 5: 225-234.
Storstad, O., and H. Bjørkhaug. 2003. Foundations of production and consumption of organic food in
Norway: common attitudes among farmers and consumers? Agriculture and Human Values
20: 151-163.
Sundrum, A. 2007. Conflicting areas in the ethical debate on animal health and welfare. In: W.
Zollitsch, C. Winckler, S. Waiblinger and A. Haslberger (eds.) Sustainable food production
and ethics: Preprints of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food
Ethics (EURSAFE). p 257-262. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic
Publishers.
Swinnen, J., J. McCluskey, and N. Francken. 2005. Food safety, the media and the information
market. Agricultural Economics 32: 175-188.
Tannenbaum, J. 1991. Ethics and animal-welfare - the inextricable connection. Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association 198: 1360-1376.
Taylor, N., and T. D. Signal. 2009. Willingness to pay: Australian consumers and "on the farm"
welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12: 345-359.
Te Velde, H. T., N. Aarts, and C. Van Woerkum. 2002. Dealing with ambivalence: farmers' and
consumers' perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural &
Environmental Ethics 15: 203-219.
Thompson, P., C. Harris, D. Holt, and E. A. Pajor. 2007. Livestock welfare product claims: the
emerging social context. Journal of Animal Science 85: 2354-2360.
Tilly, C. 1999. Durable inequality. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 316 pages.
Turkstra, J. A. et al. 2002. Performance of male pigs immunised against GnRH is related to the time
of onset of biological response. Journal of Animal Science 80: 2953-2959.
235
References
Tuyttens, F. et al. 2008. Broiler chicken health, welfare and fluctuating asymmetry in organic versus
conventional production systems. Livestock Science 113: 123-132.
Tuyttens, F., F. Vanhonacker, E. Van Poucke, and W. Verbeke. 2010a. Quantitative verification of the
correspondence between the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal
welfare and the opinion of the Flemish farmers, citizens and vegeterians. Livestock Science
131: 108-114.
Tuyttens, F. A. M. et al. 2010b. Level of information provisioning affects consumers' attitude
towards surgical castration of male piglets and alternative strategies for dealing with boar
taint. Research in Veterinary Science submitted.
Ubilava, D., K. A. Foster, J. L. Lusk, and T. Nilsson. 2008. Effects of income and social awareness on
heterogeneous consumers' WTP for informational attributes. Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics 33: 504-504.
Uyeki, E. S., and L. J. Holland. 2000. Diffusion of pro-environment attitudes. American Behavioral
Scientist 43: 646-662.
van Bruchem, C. 2003. Hoe krijgen we burger en consument op één lijn? In: H. Dagevos and L.
Sterrenberg (eds.) Burgers en consumenten: tussen tweedeling en twee-eenheid. p 111122. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Van Calker, K. J., P. B. M. Berentsen, G. W. J. Giesen, and R. B. M. Huirne. 2005. Identifying and
ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agriculture and
Human Values 22: 53-63.
Van de Velde, L., W. Verbeke, M. Popp, and G. Van Huylenbroeck. 2010. The importance of the
message frame in the case of information provision related to energy and environmental
problems. Energy Policy 38: 5541-5549.
Van Huik, M., and B. Bock. 2006. Attitudes of organic pig farmers towards animal welfare. In: H. M.
Kaiser and M. Lein (eds.) Ethics and the politics of food: Preprints of the 6th Congress of the
European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EURSAFE). p 550-554. Wageningen, The
Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Van Poucke, E. et al. 2006. Defining the concept of animal welfare: integrating the opinion of
citizens and other stakeholders. In: H. M. Kaiser and M. Lien (eds.) Ethics and the politics of
food: Preprints of the 6th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics
(EURSAFE). p 555-559. Wageningen, The Netherlands, Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Van Tichelen, S. 2009. An NGO view. Proceedings of the Final Stakeholder Conference ‘Delivering
animal welfare and quality: transparancy in the food production chain’, Welfare Quality®, 89 October, Uppsala, Sweden, p 83-84.
Vanhonacker, F., and W. Verbeke. 2009. Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish
consumers who do and do not. Poultry Science 88: 2702-2711.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2009. Belgian consumers' attitude towards
surgical castration and immunocastration of piglets. Animal Welfare 18: 371-380.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2007. Segmentation based on
consumers' perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International
Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 15: 91-107.
236
References
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2008. Do citizens and farmers
interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116: 126-136.
Veissier, I., A. Butterworth, B. Bock, and E. Roe. 2008. European approaches to ensure good animal
welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 279-297.
Veissier, I., and A. Evans. 2007. Rationale behind the Welfare Quality® assessment of animal
welfare. Proceedings of the Second Stakeholder Conference ‘Assuring animal welfare: from
societal concerns to implementation’, Welfare Quality®, 3-4 May, Berlin, Germany, p 19-22.
Velarde, A. et al. 2008. The effect of immunocastration on the behaviour of pigs. EAAP-meeting
‘Production and Utilisation of Meat from Entire Male Pigs’, 26-27 March, Gerona, Spain.
Verbeke, W. 2002. A shift in public opinion. Pig Progress 18: 25-27.
Verbeke, W. 2005. Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European Review of
Agricultural Economics 32: 347-368.
Verbeke, W. 2009. Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal
Welfare 18: 325-333.
Verbeke, W., L. J. Frewer, J. Scholderer, and H. F. De Brabander. 2007a. Why consumers behave as
they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica Chimica Acta 586: 2-7.
Verbeke, W., F. J. A. Perez-Cueto, M. D. de Barcellos, A. Krystallis, and K. G. Grunert. 2010. European
citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science 84:
284-292.
Verbeke, W., and I. Vackier. 2004. Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat
Science 67: 159-168.
Verbeke, W., and I. Vackier. 2005. Individual determinants of fish consumption: Application of the
theory of planned behaviour. Appetite 44: 67-82.
Verbeke, W., F. Vanhonacker, I. Sioen, J. Van Camp, and S. De Henauw. 2007b. Perceived
importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: a consumer behavior perspective.
Ambio 36: 580-585.
Verbeke, W., I. Vermeir, and K. Brunso. 2007c. Consumer evaluation of fish quality as basis for fish
market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 18: 651-661.
Verbeke, W., and J. Viaene. 1999a. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption
in belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food Quality and Preference 10:
437-445.
Verbeke, W., and J. Viaene. 1999b. Consumer attitude to beef quality labeling and associations with
beef quality labels. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing 10: 45-65.
Verbeke, W., and J. Viaene. 2000. Ethical challenges for livestock production: meeting consumer
concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental
Ethics 12: 141-151.
Verbeke, W., J. Viaene, and O. Guiot. 1999. Health communication and consumer behavior on meat
in Belgium: from BSE until dioxin. Journal of Health Communication 4: 345-357.
237
References
Verbeke, W., and R. W. Ward. 2001. A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating
negative TV press and advertising impact. Agricultural Economics 25: 359-374.
Verhille, B. 2008. Bevraging van Vlaamse varkenshouders over hun houding t.o.v. chirurgische
castratie zonder verdoving en zijn alternatieven. Thesis to obtain the degree of Master in
bio-sciences, option agriculture, Hogeschool Ghent.
Verhue, D., and D. Verzeijden. 2003. Burgeroordelen over de veehouding, uitkomsten
publieksonderzoek. Onderzoeksrapport, Amsterdam.
Vermeir, I., and W. Verbeke. 2006. Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer "attitude
- behavioral intention" gap. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 19: 169-194.
VILT (Vlaams infocentrum land- en tuinbouw). 2009. Alternatieve eieren halen marktaandeel van 86
procent. VILT nieuwsbrief (8/04/2009).
VILT (Vlaams infocentrum land- en tuinbouw). Belg eet in 2009 iets minder vlees, maar varieert
meer. VILT nieuwsbrief (18/03/2010).
VILT (Vlaams infocentrum land- en tuinbouw). Veggie-organisatie EVA analyseert de diverse
sectoren. VILT nieuwsbrief (22/09/2010).
Vold, E. 1970. Fleischproduktionseigenschaften bei Ebern und Kastraten. IV. Organoleptische und
gaschromatografische Untersuchungen Wasserdampfflüchtiger Stoffe des Rückenspeckes
von Ebern. Meldinger Nordlandbrukshoegskole 49: 1-25.
Von Alvensleben, R. 1997. Consumer behaviour. In: D. Padberg, C. Ritson and L. Albisu (eds.) Agrofood marketing. p 209-224. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
von Borell, E. et al. 2009. Animal welfare implications of surgical castration and its alternatives in
pigs. Animal 3: 1488-1496.
von Borell, E., M. Oliver, B. Fredriksen, S. Edwards, and M. Bonneau. 2008. Standpoints , practices
and state of information for pig castration in Europe (PIGCAS) - project targets and first
results. Journal Für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit-Journal of Consumer
Protection and Food Safety 3: 216-220.
Walstra, P., and G. Maarse. 1970. Onderzoek geslachtsgeur van mannelijke mestvarkens, Zeist, The
Netherlands.
Watson, D. 1992. Correcting for acquiescent response bias in the absence of a balanced scale - an
application to class-consciousness. Sociological Methods & Research 21: 52-88.
Webster, J. 2005a. Animal welfare: limping towards eden. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 304
pages.
Webster, J. 2005b. The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: theory into practice.
Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties 24: 723-734.
Wells, D. L., and P. G. Hepper. 1997. Pet ownership and adults' views on the use of animals. Society
& Animals 5: 45-63.
Wilson, T. 1981. On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation 37: 3-15.
238
References
Windschnurer, I., C. Schmied, X. Boivin, and S. Waiblinger. 2008. Reliability and inter-test
relationship of tests for on-farm assessment of dairy cows' relationship to humans. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science 114: 37-53.
Winter, M., C. Fry, and S. P. Carruthers. 1998. European agricultural policy and farm animal welfare.
Food Policy 23: 305-323.
Worsley, A., and E. Lea. 2003. Consumers' personal values and sources of nutrition information.
Ecology of Food and Nutrition 42: 129-151.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research 12:
341-352.
Zajonc, R. B. 1980. Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychology 35:
151-175.
Zamaratskaia, G. et al. 2008. Long-term effect of vaccination against gonadotropin-releasing
hormone, using ImprovacTM, on hormonal profile and behaviour of male pigs. Animal
Reproduction Science 108: 37-48.
Zamaratskaia, G., and E. J. Squires. 2009. Biochemical, nutritional and genetic effects on boar taint
in entire male pigs. Animal 3: 1508-1521.
Zander, K., and U. Hamm. 2010. Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic
food. Food Quality and Preference 21: 495-503.
Zimmerman, P. H. et al. 2006. The effect of stocking density, flock size and modified management
on laying hen behaviour and welfare in a non-cage system. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 101: 111-124.
239
Curriculum vitae
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal information
First names:
Filiep Pieter Remi
Last name:
Vanhonacker
Adress:
Zwevegemsestraat 114
8530 Harelbeke (S)
Date of birth:
April 19, 1982
Place of birth:
Kortrijk
Nationality:
Belgian
Sex:
Male
Marital status:
Married to Joke Pannecoucque
Telephone:
003256295796
GSM:
0032485425398
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Education
2000: Secondary education, Sint-Jozefscollege, Kortrijk
2003: Bachelor degree in Bioscience engineering, Ghent University (distinction)
2005: Master degree in Bioscience engineering, Ghent University (great distinction)
Dissertation: Role and impact of communication on fish consumption behaviour, 106 pages,
promotor: Prof. Wim Verbeke, Department of Agricultural Economics
Additional diplomas
2006: Advanced Methods of Market Research I, Ghent University
2007: Advanced Methods of Market Research II, Ghent University
240
Curriculum Vitae
Career
September 2005 – October 2008
Doctoral researcher, Dept. Agricultural Economics, Ghent University
October 2008 – present
Full time assistant, Dept. Agricultural Economics, Ghent University
Involved in exercises and practicals of the courses:
Food and Nutrition Policies
Food Marketing and Consumer Behaviour
Applied Rural Economic Research Methods
Kwaliteitsbeheer en Risico-analyse
Consumentengedrag en Marketing van Bio-Industriële Producten
Publications
Articles in peer-reviewed international journals included in the Science Citation Index
Verbeke, W., F. Vanhonacker, I. Sioen, J. Van Camp, and S. De Henauw S. 2007. Perceived
importance of sustainability and ethics related to fish: a consumer behaviour perspective.
Ambio, 36(7): 580-585.
Verbeke, W., F. Vanhonacker, L. Frewer, I. Sioen, S. De Henauw, and J. Van Camp. 2008.
Communicating risks and benefits from fish consumption: impact on Belgian consumers’
perception and intention to eat fish. Risk Analysis 28(4): 951-967.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2008. Do citizens and farmers
interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116: 126-136.
Sioen, I., J. Van Camp, F. Verdonck, W. Verbeke, F. Vanhonacker, J. Willems, and S. De Henauw.
2008. Probabilistic intake assessment of multiple compounds as a tool to quantify the
nutritional-toxicological conflict related to seafood consumption. Chemosphere 71: 10561066.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, S. Buijs, and F. A.M. Tuyttens. 2009. Societal concern
related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock
Science 123: 16-22.
Guerrero, L., M.D. Guardia, J. Xicola, W. Verbeke, F. Vanhonacker, S. Zakowska-Biemans, M.
Sajdakowska, C. Sulmont-Rossé, S. Issanchou, M. Contel, M. L. Scalvedi, B. S. Granli, and M.
Hersleth. 2009. Consumer-driven definition of traditional food products and innovation in
traditional foods. A qualitative cross-cultural study. Appetite 52: 345-354.
241
Curriculum vitae
Guerrero, L., A. Claret, W. Verbeke, G. Enderli, S. Zakowska-Biemans, F. Vanhonacker, S. Issanchou,
M. Sajdakowska, B. S. Granli, L. Scalvedi, M. Contel, and M. Hersleth. 2009. Perception of
traditional food products in six European regions using free word association. Food Quality
and Preference 21(2): 225-233.
Pieniak, Z., W. Verbeke, F. Vanhonacker, L. Guerrero, and M. Hersleth. 2009. Association between
traditional food consumption and motives for food choice in six European countries. Appetite
53: 101-108.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2009. Belgian consumers’ attitude towards
surgical castration and immunocastration of piglets. Animal Welfare 18: 371-380.
Vanhonacker, F., and W. Verbeke. 2009. Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish
consumers who do and do not. Poultry Science 88: 2702-2711.
Tuyttens, F.A.M., F. Vanhonacker, E. Van Poucke, and W. Verbeke. 2010. Quantitative verification of
the correspondence between the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal
welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livestock Science
131(1): 108-114.
Kühne, B., F. Vanhonacker, X. Gellynck, and W. Verbeke. 2010. Innovation in traditional food
products in Europe: Do sector innovation activities match consumers’ acceptance? Food
Quality and Preference 21(6): 629-638.
Altintzoglou, T., W. Verbeke, F. Vanhonacker, and J. Luten. 2010. The image of fish from aquaculture
among Europeans: impact of exposure to balanced information. Journal of Aquatic Food
Product Technology 19(2): 103-119.
Vanhonacker, F., T. Altintzoglou, J. Luten, and W. Verbeke. 2010. Does fish origin matter to
European consumers? Insights from a consumer survey in Belgium, Norway and Spain. British
Food Journal 112(8): 871-886.
Vanhonacker, F., E. Van Poucke, F. A. M. Tuyttens, and W. Verbeke. 2010. Citizens’ views on farm
animal welfare and related information provision: exploratory insights from Flanders,
Belgium. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 23(6): 551-569.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, L. Guerrero, A. Claret, M. Contel, L. Scalvedi, S. Zakowska-Biemans, K.
Gutkowska, C. Sulmont-Rossé, J. Raude, B. S. Granli, and M. Hersleth. 2010. How European
consumers define the concept of traditional food: evidence from a survey in six countries.
Agribusiness 26(4): 453-476.
Vanhonacker, F., V. Lengard Almli, M. Hersleth, and W. Verbeke. 2010. Profiling European
traditional food consumers. British Food Journal 112(8-9): 871-886.
Lengard Almli, V., W. Verbeke, F. Vanhonacker, T. Naes, and M. Hersleth. 2011. General image and
attribute perception of traditional foods in six European countries. Food Quality and
Preference 22: 129-138.
Molnár, A., X. Gellynck, F. Vanhonacker, T. Gagalyuk, and W. Verbeke. 2010. Are chain goals
matching with consumer perceptions? The case of the traditional food sector in the EU.
Agribusiness doi: 10.1002/agr.20260.
242
Curriculum Vitae
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, Z. Pieniak, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2010. The concept of
farm animal welfare: citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium.
Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics doi 10.1007/s10806-010-9299-6.
Vanhonacker, F., and W. Verbeke. 2011. Consumer reactions towards the possible use of a vaccine
method to control boar taint versus physical piglet castration with anaesthesia: A quantitative
pan-European study. Animal accepted.
Altintzoglou, T., F. Vanhonacker, W. Verbeke, and J. Luten. 2011. Association of health involvement
and attitudes towards eating fish on farmed and wild fish consumption in Belgium, Norway
and Spain. Aquaculture International accepted.
Tuyttens, F. A. M., F. Vanhonacker, B. Verhille, D. De Brabander, and W. Verbeke. 2011. Pig
producer attitude towards surgical castration of piglets without anaesthesia versus alternative
strategies. Research in Veterinary Science resubmitted.
Tuyttens, F. A. M., F. Vanhonacker, K. Langendries, M. Aluwé, S. Millet, K. Bekaert, and W. Verbeke.
2011. Level of information provisioning affects attitude towards surgical castration of male
piglets and alternative strategies for dealing with boar taint. Research in Veterinary Science
resubmitted.
Articles in peer-reviewed international journals not included in the Science Citation Index
Sioen, I., J. Van Camp, F. Verdonck, N. Van Thuyne, P. A. Vanrolleghem, F. Vanhonacker, W.
Verbeke, and S. De Henauw. 2006. Risk-benefit analysis regarding seafood consumption: a
tool for combined intake assessment. Organohalogen Compounds 68: 379-382.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2007. Segmentation based on
consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International
Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15(3): 91-107.
Molnár, A., X. Gellynck, F. Vanhonacker, and W. Verbeke. 2010. Towards the development of
innovative strategies for traditional food chains in the EU. International Journal of Food
System Dynamics 1: 1-12.
Vanhonacker, F., Z. Pieniak, and W. Verbeke. 2010. Fish market segmentation base don consumers’
motives, barriers and risk perception in Belgium. Journal of Food Products Marketing 16: 166183.
Articles in national journals (A3)
Sioen, I., J. Van Camp, F. Verdonck, F. Vanhonacker, W. Verbeke and S. De Henauw. 2006.
Nutritional-toxicological conflict of seafood consumption: a tool for combined intake
assessment. Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences 71(1): 263-266.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, L. Guerrero, A. Claret, M. Contel, M. L. Scalvedi, S. Zakowska-Biemans,
K. Gutkowska, C. Sulmont-Rossé, J. Raude, B. S. Granli, and M. Hersleth. 2009. I prodotti
alimentary tradizonali dal punto di vista del consumatore: un’indagine in sei paesi europei.
Agriregionieuropa 5: 16.
243
Curriculum vitae
Conference proceedings covered in the Science Citation Index (P1)
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, and I. Sioen. 2006. Consumer perception about ethical and
sustainability issues of fish. In: H. M. Kaiser and M. Lien (eds.) Ethics and the politics of food:
Preprints of the 6th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics
(EURSAFE). p 464-469. Wageningen, The Netherlands, Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Van Poucke, E., F. Vanhonacker, G. Nijs, J. Braeckman, W. Verbeke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2006.
Defining the concept of animal welfare: integrating the opinion of citizens and other
stakeholders. In: H. M. Kaiser and M. Lien (eds.) Ethics and the politics of food: Preprints of
the 6th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EURSAFE). p 555559. Wageningen, The Netherlands, Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Vanhonacker, F., E. Van Poucke, G. Nijs, J. Braeckman, F. A. M. Tuyttens, and W. Verbeke. 2006.
Defining animal welfare from a citizen and consumer perspective: exploratory findings from
Belgium. In: H. M. Kaiser and M. Lien (eds.) Ethics and the politics of food: Preprints of the 6th
Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EURSAFE). p 580-582.
Wageningen, The Netherlands, Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Book chapters (B2)
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, V. Lengard Almli, L. Guerrero, and M. Hersleth. 2008. Consumerbased definition and general image of traditional foods in Europe. In: Perspectives of
Traditional Food Supply Chains on the European Market. Banterle, A. and Gellynck, X. (Eds.),
pp 13-29. Roma, Italy, Aracne editrice.
Attended international conferences and seminars with oral or poster presentation
Vanhonacker, F., and W. Verbeke. 2006. Relevance of ethics and sustainability as consumer issues in
fish consumption decisions. Oral presentation on AQUA 2006, Florence, Italy, May 9-13, 2006.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, and I. Sioen. 2006. Content and source impact of risk/benefit
information on consumer attitude and behaviour towards fish. Poster presentation on AQUA
2006, Florence, Italy, May 9-13, 2006.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, and I. Sioen. 2006. Consumer perception about ethical and
sustainability issues of fish. Oral presentation on the 6th Congress of the European Society for
Agricultural and Food Ethics (EURSAFE), Oslo, Norway, June 22-24, 2006.
Vanhonacker, F., E. Van Poucke, G. Nijs, J. Braeckman, F. A. M. Tuyttens, and W. Verbeke. 2006.
Defining animal welfare from a citizen and consumer perspective: exploratory findings from
Belgium. Poster presentation on the 6th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and
Food Ethics (EURSAFE), Oslo, Norway, June 22-24, 2006.
Van Poucke, E., F. Vanhonacker, G. Nijs, J. Braeckman, W. Verbeke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2006.
Defining the concept of farm animal welfare. Oral presentation on 6th Congress of the
European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EURSAFE), Oslo, Norway, June 22-24, 2006.
(presented by Els Van Poucke)
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2007. Consumers versus
producers: a different view on farm animal welfare? Oral presentation on the 7th Congress of
244
Curriculum Vitae
the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EURSAFE), Vienna, Austria, September
13-15 September 2007.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2007. Market segmentation
based on perceived importance and evaluation of farm animal welfare. Oral presentation on
the 7th Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EURSAFE), Vienna,
Austria, September 13-15 September 2007.
Vanhonacker, F., and W. Verbeke. 2007. Content and source impact of risk-benefit information on
consumer perception and behaviour towards fish consumption. Oral presentation on the
World Seafood Congress, Dublin, Ireland, September 25-27, 2007.
Vanhonacker, F., Z. Pieniak, and W. Verbeke. 2007. Fish market segmentation based on motives,
barriers and risk perception in Flanders. Oral presentation on 37th WEFTA Annual Meeting,
Lisbon, Portugal, October 24-27, 2007.
Vanhonacker, F., and W. Verbeke. 2007. Are aquaculture products adapted to consumer demands?
Oral presentation on PROFET workshop, Athens, Greece, November 22-23, 2007.
Tuyttens, F.A.M., B. Verhille, M. Van Oeckel, S. Isebaert, D. De Brabander, and F. Vanhonacker.
2008. Attitudes of Flemish pig producers concerning the surgical castration of piglets and its
alternatives. Poster presentation on EAAP Working Group Meeting, Girona, Spain, March 2628, 2008. (presented by Frank Tuyttens)
Altintzoglou, T., F. Vanhonacker, J. Luten, and W. Verbeke. 2008. Testing balanced messages among
European consumers about health, safety and sustainability from aquaculture. Presentation
on CONSENSUS Final Stakeholder Meeting, Ostend, Belgium, April 23-25, 2008. (co-presented
with Themis Altintzoglou)
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Lengard, V., Guerrero, L., Hersleth, M., 2008. Consumer-based
definition and general image of traditional foods in Europe. Oral presentation on the 12th
EAAE Congress, Ghent, Belgium, August 26-29, 2008.
Vanhonacker, F., V. Lengard Almli, L. Guerrero, M. L. Scalvedi, J. Raude, S. Zakowska-Biemans, M.
Hersleth, and W. Verbeke. 2008. Europeans and traditional foods: definition and image from
the consumers’ perspective. Poster presentation on the 12th EAAE Congress, Ghent, Belgium,
August 26-29, 2008.
Vanhonacker, F., Z. Pieniak, and W. Verbeke. 2008. Fish market segmentation based on consumers’
motives, barriers and risk perception in Belgium. Poster presentation on the 5th SEAFOODplus
Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 8-11, 2008.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2008. Consumer attitude towards the surgical
castration of piglets and immunocastration. Oral presentation on the 4th International
Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level (WAFL), Ghent,
Belgium, September 10-13, 2008.
Vanhonacker, F., E. Van Poucke, F. A. M. Tuyttens, and W. Verbeke. 2008. What is the relevancy of
space allowance in communicating farm animal welfare to the consumer? Poster presentation
on the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group
Level (WAFL), Ghent, Belgium, September 10-13, 2008.
245
Curriculum vitae
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2008. Farm animal welfare
through the eyes of citizens and producers: similarities and dissimilarities. Poster presentation
on the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group
Level (WAFL), Ghent, Belgium, September 10-13, 2008.
Vanhonacker, F., F. A. M. Tuyttens, J. Scholderer, K. Grunert, and W. Verbeke. 2010. European
consumers’ attitude towards surgical castration and immunocastration of piglets. Oral
presentation on the EAAP Working Group Meeting, Bristol, UK, March 18-19, 2010.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, T. Altintzoglou, and J. Luten. 2010. Do European consumers care
about fish origin? Oral presentation on the 2nd International Feed for health conference,
Tromsø, Norway, June 14-15, 2010.
Altintzoglou, T., W. Verbeke, F. Vanhonacker, and J. Luten. 2010. How Europeans think of fish from
aquaculture after exposure to balanced information. Oral presentation on the 2nd
International Feed for health conference, Tromsø, Norway, June 14-15, 2010. (presented by
Themis Altintzoglou)
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2010. Consumer attitude and acceptance of
immunocastration as an alternative for surgical castration. Oral presentation on the 14th
International Conference on Production Diseases in Farm Animals, Ghent, Belgium, June 2024, 2010.
Attended national seminars, conferences or events
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2009. Attitude of Flemish citizens towards
surgical castration and immunocastration of piglets. Poster presentation on BAMST studiedag,
Melle, Belgium, October 8, 2009.
Vanhonacker, F., and W. Verbeke. 2009. Society’s view on farm animal welfare: Defining the
concept of animal welfare and case studies. Poster presentation on the 15th Symposium on
Applied Biological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium, November 6, 2009.
Verbeke, W., and F. Vanhonacker. 2009. Consumenten versus het vermijden van berengeur: Kennis
en acceptatie? Presentation for Pfizer in Sint-Laureins, Belgium, December 15, 2009.
(presented by Wim Verbeke)
Vanhonacker, F. 2010. Castreren of niet: de mening van consumenten. Presentation at the press
event ‘Varkensbedrijf Wolkenhoeve gaat voor niet-gecastreerde varkens’, Geel, Belgium, May
20, 2010.
Attended workshops
IOPS course on Structural Equation Modeling, Leiden, The Netherlands, February 12-13, 2007.
Seminar ‘Applying PLS Path Modeling: Introduction and Extensions’, Hamburg, Germany, June 2021, 2008.
246
Curriculum Vitae
Supervision of master students
Olivier Buyse (2005-2006). Impact van informatie op het consumentengedrag t.a.v. groenten en
fruit. Promotor: Prof. W. Verbeke. Thesis to obtain the degree of Bio-Engineer, master
Agriculture.
Ken De Backer (2006-2007). Traditionele voeding en innovatie gedefinieerd door consumenten.
Promotor: Prof. W. Verbeke. Thesis to obtain the degree of Bio-Engineer, master Agriculture.
Davy Furniere (2007-2008). Consumentenperceptie ten aanzien van immunocastratie als alternatief
voor chirurgische castratie bij biggen. Promotor: Prof. W. Verbeke. Thesis to obtain the
degree of Bio-Engineer, master Agriculture.
Ilse Delcour (2008-2009). Het imago van aquacultuur en consumenteninteresse in een
duurzaamheidslabel. Promotor: Prof. W. Verbeke. Thesis to obtain the degree of BioEngineer, master Agriculture.
Laurens Delameilleure (2009-2010). De effectiviteit van communicatie van kwaliteitslabels.
Promotor: Prof. W. Verbeke. Thesis to obtain the degree of Bio-Engineer, master Agriculture.
Allen Katale (2009-2010). Cross country comparison of consumers’ perception towards farmed fish,
sea bass and sea bream. Promotor: Prof. W. Verbeke. Thesis to obtain the degree of Master of
Human Nutrition and rural development.
Shanshan Chen (2009-2010). Consumers’ perception and attitudes towards farm animal welfare.
Promotor: Prof. W. Verbeke. Thesis to obtain the degree of Master of Human Nutrition.
247