Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Consumer attitudes towards farm animals and their welfare: a pig production case study

Consumer attitudes towards farm animals and their welfare: a pig production case study Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 10.1093/biohorizons/hzq020 Advance Access publication 18 May 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Research article Consumer attitudes towards farm animals and their welfare: a pig production case study Jacqueline Tawse* University of Chester, Chester, Cheshire, UK. * Corresponding author: Skadbergveien 105, 4050 Sola, Norway. Tel: þ47 51656017. Email: j_tawse@hotmail.com Project Supervisor: Dr Lottie Hosie, University of Chester, Chester, Cheshire CH1 4BJ, UK. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Recent years have seen an increase in public concern for farm animal welfare in the UK. However, sales of higher welfare meat and other animal-based food products are typically lower than their standard counterparts. The aim of this study was to determine both the preva- lence of concern for farm animal welfare in a population, as well as the reasons for higher concern in some consumers as compared with others. In addition, the study focused on consumer attitudes towards pigs (Sus scrofa scrofa), and concern for their welfare, in particular, in order to identify areas which, if addressed, may help to increase consumer concern for pig welfare on farms, as well as increase con- sumer demand for higher welfare pork products. A questionnaire was designed with this in mind and disseminated to undergraduate students at the University of Chester. Concern for farm animal welfare, concern for the welfare of pigs on farms and reported willingness to pay extra for higher welfare pork products were all found to be influenced by consumer attitudes towards pigs, participant pro- gramme of study, awareness of pork production methods and previous exposure to a conventional pig farm. In addition, the results of the study indicate that a high level of ignorance regarding pork production methods is prevalent amongst UK consumers. In order to increase concern for pig welfare on farms, and thereby increase demand for higher welfare pork products, it was suggested that campaigns should aim to make clear the production methods used in conventional pork production systems in the UK. Key words: farm animals, farm animal welfare, consumer attitudes, pig production. Submitted on 29 September 2009; accepted on 20 April 2010 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 – 6 farm animal welfare. Several surveys show that consumers Introduction 7 –9 are concerned about the welfare of farmed animals, The management of production animals has changed signifi- and a considerable amount of scientific research has cantly across the European Union (EU) over the past five focused on the welfare of animals on farms in the last 20 3, 10, 11 decades. Over this time, animal agriculture has intensified years. This in turn has led to an increased public and the number of animals per farm has increased, while demand for stricter welfare standards in farming, as is 7, 8 the ratio of stockmen to animals has drastically decreased. evident by the increase in policy debate and the introduc- 12 –14 In addition, more and more animals have been moved to tion of new legislation. indoor housing systems with higher stocking densities, the However, while consumers often report high concern for use of prophylactic medicines and growth promoters has farm animal welfare, most consumers do not purchase increased and animals are transported for longer distances higher welfare products, and only 10% of consumers as abattoirs have dropped in numbers but increased in actively search for this information when making their 2 –4 size. This intensification of the industry has led to an food purchases. This would suggest that consumers are increase in animal productivity, but a decrease in the monet- either unwilling to pay for the extra cost involved in produ- ary value of any given animal. Interest in farm animal cing meat under higher welfare schemes, or are unaware of welfare has risen in response to this change as evidence has the welfare issues involved in conventional farming systems shown that intensive systems may lead to a reduction in (conventional farming systems were referred to as ‘standard, ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 156 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... non-free range farms’ in the questionnaire). Evidence would merely indicate to what extent concern for farm animals indicate that the former is unlikely, as willingness to pay and their welfare is prevalent in a population, without iden- (WTP) research has shown that consumers are happy to tifying reasons why some consumers show greater concern 7– 9 pay extra for non-battery eggs. than others. The closest thing to research of this type is a The success of a farm animal welfare campaign, however, limited number of studies done on personality correlates is contingent upon not only its ability to reach a considerable and concern for animals. Mathews and Herzog investi- proportion of consumers, but also to present information, gated personality traits and attitudes towards non-human which will affect those consumers powerfully enough to animals, and Austin et al. identified personality traits alter their buying habits. As such, it is imperative to under- associated with a higher concern for farm animal welfare stand what causes consumers to be concerned with the in farmers and agriculture students. Identifying personality welfare of farm animals and ultimately, what motivates traits, which are associated with concern for farm animals them to purchase higher welfare products. however, does not improve our ability to increase concern amongst the general public through education. It is essential Pigs and their welfare on farms to gain an understanding of what motivates certain individ- Pigs are the most common intensively raised mammal in the uals to be concerned with animal welfare to a greater extent world, with around 9 million pigs being reared annually in than others as this information can help to create more tar- the UK alone. Legislation to protect the welfare of these geted campaigns to raise public awareness about farm pigs currently goes beyond that required by EU law (e.g. animal welfare issues and, in turn, increase the demand for Animal Welfare Act 2006, Welfare of Farmed Animals higher welfare products. The aim of the current study there- (England) Regulations 2007), but does not solve all of the fore, was to identify not only the prevalence of concern for welfare concerns associated with conventional pig pro- farm animal welfare in a population, but also the possible duction. In addition, there are several voluntary farm assur- reasons for that concern or lack thereof, using pigs and ance schemes relating to the production of pork (e.g. pork production as a case study. Three main areas were RSPCA’s Freedom Foods, Farm Assured British Pigs), investigated, through the use of a questionnaire, in a which set higher standards for pork production and pig sample of undergraduate students at the University of welfare. As a result, there is a wide variety of labels on Chester, in order to pinpoint which may be linked to an pork product packaging, making consumer choice particu- increased concern for farm animals and pig welfare on farms: larly important. (i) consumer awareness of pork production methods; If consumers are concerned about farm animal welfare (ii) consumer attitudes towards pigs; and wish to make purchasing decisions in keeping with (iii) consumer interest in animals and food. their values, then they must demand higher welfare standards for pigs on UK farms. Studies have shown that on the one hand, consumers value schemes to improve the welfare of Consumer awareness of pork production methods laying hens, dairy cows and broiler chickens significantly 20, 21 It is possible that the discrepancies between consumer concern more than one to improve the welfare of pigs, but on for farm animal welfare and demand for higher welfare pro- the other, consumers stated that they would stop buying ducts mentioned above comes down to a lack of awareness. pork if its packaging featured images of pigs kept tethered Consumers may be under the impression that animals on or in stalls. This indicates that awareness may be key to intensive farms experience high welfare, and so may continue changing consumer buying habits in order to better the to purchase standard products without intentionally going welfare of pigs on farms. against their stated concern for farm animal welfare. Indeed, Consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare evidence suggests that ignorance and/or misconceptions regarding livestock production are prevalent amongst consu- What constitutes acceptable treatment of farm animals is 15, 16, 25, 26 7, 22 mers, and those who are more aware are more determined by legislation and consumer choice. 27, 28 likely to shop for higher welfare products. However, consumers can only act in accordance with their animal welfare values if they are aware of the welfare Consumer attitudes towards pigs issues surrounding livestock production. It is therefore vital that the information which, if effectively disseminated to It is known that people vary in their attitudes towards the public, may lead to a change in demand for higher animals depending on the species in question. Likeability welfare products be identified, in order to improve the may affect consumer attitudes towards pigs in particular as welfare of animals on farms. the English language contains more metaphors, similes and 7 –9 Bennett has conducted several surveys on consumer idioms about pigs than any other non-human animal, and attitudes towards the welfare of farm animals and WTP to the overwhelming majority of these are negative. Pigs improve farm animal welfare. However, these surveys may be disliked or misunderstood by consumers due to this ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 157 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 1. Awareness questions negative view of them manifested in British English language and culture. This may in turn be why consumers have not Question Answer been as quick to demand higher welfare pork products as ................................................................................................................ compared with higher welfare eggs for example. 1. Gestation crates (also called sow stalls) are routinely used No on pig farms in the UK. Consumer interest in animals and food 2. Farrowing crates are routinely used on pig farms in the UK. Yes In addition to concerns about farm animal welfare, concerns 3. Pigs are given enough room to turn around at all times on No about food quality and food safety have also increased in pig farms in the UK. recent years. Studies show that consumers often consider 4. Pigs have permanent access to suitable bedding (e.g. Yes food safety and quality among the most important attributes straw) on pig farms in the UK. of fresh meat. Both of these qualities are thought to be 5. Pigs are able to see other pigs at all times on pig farms in No greater in higher welfare, as compared with standard, meat the UK. 5, 6, 31, 32 products. As such, consumers may show a heigh- tened level of concern for farm animal welfare, and purchase better welfare products, for fear of poor meat quality and/or The correct answers were based on the minimum require- safety. ments which all UK pig farms must adhere to in accordance with the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. Correct answers were given a score of 1, while Materials and methods incorrect and ‘Don’t know’ answers were given a score of 0, resulting in a combined score of between 0 and Questionnaire design 5. Those who scored 3 or above were considered ‘high In order to collect the appropriate information from partici- awareness’ participants, and those who scored 2 or fewer pants, the questionnaire was divided into four parts. Part A were considered ‘low awareness’ participants for the presented participants with a list of 16 adjectives. purpose of later statistical analyses. The last question in Participants were asked which word or words they associated this section asked whether participants had any previous with domestic pigs in order to gain an understanding of par- exposure to a working farm. ticipants’ attitudes towards pigs in general. Eight of the The final section asked for personal details. These were chosen adjectives were ‘negative’ descriptors (given a score collected in order to separate participants into the three of 21), while the other eight were ‘positive’ descriptors of study programme groups (animal behaviour/animal be- pigs (given a score of þ1). All negative scores were then sub- haviour and welfare [AB/ABW], nutrition/nutrition and tracted from all positive scores for every participant, giving dietetics [N/ND] and the control group of students on each a pig likeability index (PLI) of between 28 and þ8. any other undergraduate degree programme, as well as In addition, participants who scored a PLI below 0 were con- ensure participants met the minimum age requirement of sidered low PLI participants, while those who scored 0 or 18 years. higher were considered high PLI participants. Part B of the questionnaire aimed to measure participant Participants attitudes towards pig welfare on farms, as well as farm animal welfare in general. Likert scaled questions were Paper-based questionnaires were completed by students at used as the Likert procedure is the most appropriate for the University of Chester. Most of the AB/ABW (n ¼ 56) exploring theories of attitudes. It involves presenting par- and N/ND (n ¼ 65) participants were recruited through lec- ticipants with a series of statements along with a five-point tures, while most of the control group participants (n ¼ 52) scale on which they can indicate the extent to which they were approached on a one-to-one basis, resulting in an 34 37 agree or disagree with each respective statement. An opportunity sample. All participants had to meet a equal number of negatively weighted and positively weighted minimum age criterion of 18 years, be enrolled on an under- statements were used alternately in order to combat order graduate course at the University, and be a consumer of effect, acquiescence and pattern answering as much as poss- pork. Eleven questionnaires were removed from analysis ible. The scores given for the negatively weighted state- due to participants not meeting one or more of these require- ments were later reverse coded so that a high response (i.e. ments, or because they were incomplete. The eventual 5) indicated high concern for farm animal and pig welfare, sample consisted of 173 undergraduate students at the while a low response (i.e. 1) indicated low concern in University of Chester. This sample size exceeds those 7, 38 order to test for reliability. reported in published studies investigating similar topics Part C of the questionnaire aimed to assess participant and so was considered suitably large. Ethical approval was knowledge and understanding of pork production methods granted by the University of Chester’s Research Ethics in the UK through multiple choice questions (Table 1). Committee before any data were collected. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 158 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 2. Spearman’s correlation coefficients for answers to Likert statements and PLI Statement r p Significant level ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ I am concerned about farm animal welfare. 0.290 0.000 P , 0.01 Farm animal welfare legislation does not need to be improved in the UK. 20.244 0.001 P , 0.01 I am willing to pay extra for higher welfare pork products. 0.350 0.000 P , 0.01 The welfare of pigs on farms does not matter. 20.417 0.000 P , 0.01 It is important that the pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives. 0.290 0.000 P , 0.01 The taste of pork is more important than its origin. 20.222 0.003 P , 0.01 I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig farming is cruel. 0.378 0.000 P , 0.01 It does not matter how pigs are reared as they do no t know any better. 20.459 0.000 P , 0.01 Pigs should be able to express natural behaviours on farms. 0.353 0.000 P , 0.01 Pet animals deserve better treatment than farm animals. 20.257 0.001 P , 0.01 Results All data collected were entered into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 16.0 for analysis. PLI, age and total Likert score (TLS—the sum of ratings for all state- ments) were all tested for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As the tests showed that TLS, D(173) ¼ 1.064, P . 0.05, was normally distributed, para- metric tests were used in any analyses involving TLS, whereas PLI, D(173) ¼ 1.377, P, 0.05 and age, D(173) ¼ 3.861, P, 0.05, were not normally distributed and so non- parametric tests were used in any analyses involving these variables. However, some authors question the use of para- metric tests for combined Likert scores as they argue that they cannot be considered truly interval data. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated using the reverse-coded scores for the negatively weighted Likert state- ments from Part B of the questionnaire. The scores were Figure 1. Scatterplot showing a significantly positive correlation between reversed as Cronbach’s alpha can only be calculated using PLI and TLS (n ¼ 173). scores which all carry the same meaning. In other words, a response of 5, for example, must indicate high concern for High vs. low PLI participants farm animal welfare for both the positively and negatively High PLI participants were compared with low PLI partici- weighted Likert statements. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated pants with respect to their answers given to the Likert state- to test item–item correlations in order to measure the overall ments in Part B of the questionnaire using Mann–Whitney reliability of the scale. As the alpha value (a ¼ 0.832) was U-tests. All results were significant at the 0.05 level and greater than the minimum threshold value of 0.7, the scaled many were also significant at the 0.01 level, showing that questions were considered reliable. high PLI participants showed greater concern for farm animal and pig welfare than did low PLI participants, as PLI correlations summarized in Table 3. Furthermore, an independent samples t-test showed that high PLI participants (M ¼ Spearman’s correlation coefficients were calculated to 41.17, SD ¼ 4.102) had a significantly higher mean TLS examine whether PLI was correlated with answers given in than did low PLI participants (M ¼ 37.53, SD ¼ 5.055), Part B of the questionnaire. As can be seen in Table 2, PLI t(171) ¼ 25.107, P, 0.01. was significantly positively correlated with all of the posi- tively weighted statements, while PLI was significantly nega- Awareness of pork production methods tively correlated with all of the negatively weighted statements. TLS was also significantly positively correlated Mann–Whitney U-tests compared high awareness and low with PLI, r ¼ 0.451, n ¼ 173, p ¼ 0.000, as P, 0.01, as awareness participants with respect to their PLIs as well as demonstrated by Fig. 1. their answers to individual Likert scaled questions from ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 159 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 3. Mann–Whitney U-tests to compare Likert statement answers from HPLI participants to LPLI participants Statement Mdn (HPLI) Mdn (LPLI) Up Significant level ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ I am concerned about farm animal welfare. 4 4 2735.500 0.026 P , 0.05 Farm animal welfare legislation does not need to be improved in the UK. 2 3 2652.000 0.010 P , 0.05 I am willing to pay extra for higher welfare pork products. 4 4 2511.500 0.002 P , 0.01 The welfare of pigs on farms does not matter. 1 2 2135.500 0.000 P , 0.01 It is important that the pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives. 4 4 2585.500 0.005 P , 0.01 The taste of pork is more important than its origin. 2 2 2567.000 0.005 P , 0.01 I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig farming is cruel. 4 4 2291.500 0.000 P , 0.01 It does not matter how pigs are reared as they do not know any better. 1 2 2068.500 0.000 P , 0.01 Pigs should be able to express natural behaviours on farms. 5 4 2466.000 0.001 P , 0.01 Pet animals deserve better treatment than farm animals. 2 2 2714.500 0.015 P , 0.05 HPLI, high PLI (n ¼ 113); LPLI, low PLI (n ¼ 60). Table 4. Mann–Whitney U-tests to compare PLIs and Likert statement answers in HA participants to LA participants Variable/statement Mdn (HA) Mdn (LA) Up Significant level ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ PLI. 3 1 791.000 0.001 P , 0.01 I am concerned about farm animal welfare. 4 4 1011.500 0.019 P , 0.05 Farm animal welfare legislation does not need to be improved in the UK. 2 3 827.000 0.001 P , 0.01 I am willing to pay extra for higher welfare pork products. 4 4 832.500 0.001 P , 0.01 The welfare of pigs on farms does not matter. 1 2 903.500 0.002 P , 0.01 It is important that the pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives. 5 4 863.500 0.001 P , 0.01 The taste of pork is more important than its origin. 1 2 786.000 0.000 P , 0.01 I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig farming is cruel. 5 4 1085.500 0.046 P , 0.05 It does not matter how pigs are reared as they do not know any better. 1 2 1067.000 0.032 P , 0.05 Pigs should be able to express natural behaviours on farms. 5 4 921.500 0.002 P , 0.01 Pet animals deserve better treatment than farm animals. 2 2 865.500 0.001 P , 0.01 HA, high awareness participants (n ¼ 19); LA, low awareness participants (n ¼ 154). Part B of the questionnaire. All results were significant at the Programme of study 0.05 level (most were also significant at the 0.01 level) and The three student groups were compared with respect to are summarized in Table 4. High awareness participants their PLIs as well as their answers to the individual state- (M ¼ 44.58, SD ¼ 4.834) also had a significantly higher ments in part B of the questionnaire, using a Kruskal– mean TLS than did low awareness participants (M ¼ Wallis test. All of the results were significant at the 0.05 39.33, SD ¼ 4.773) as calculated by an independent level (and all but one were significant at the 0.01 level) and samples t-test, t(171) ¼ 24.515, P, 0.01. are summarized in Table 6. Finally, participants who had visited a conventional pig In order to investigate whether all of the three groups farm were compared with participants who had not. Mann– differed significantly from one another, Mann–Whitney Whitney U-tests compared the two groups of participants U-tests were performed to compare each group of stu- with respect to their PLIs and responses to the individual dents to each other respective group. All results of tests Likert scaled questions. Just over half of the variables comparing AB/ABW students to N/ND students were showed that participants with previous experience of a significant at the 0.01 level, while all results of tests working pig farm showed significantly more concern for pig comparing AB/ABW students to control students were and farm animal welfare, as shown in Table 5. In addition, significant at the 0.05 level (most were also significant an independent samples t-test found that participants who at the 0.01 level). Tests comparing N/ND students to had visited a pig farm (M ¼ 41.83, SD ¼ 4.902) scored a sig- control students, however, were mostly non-significant with only two showing a significant difference at the nificantly higher mean TLS than did those who had not 0.05 level. (M ¼ 39.40, SD ¼ 4.973), t(171) ¼ 2.619, P, 0.05. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 160 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 5. Mann–Whitney U-tests to compare PLIs and Likert statement answers in participants who had visited a standard, working farm to those who had not a b Variable/statement Mdn (yes ) Mdn (no ) Up Significant level ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ PLI. 2 1 1797.000 0.012 P , 0.05 I am concerned about farm animal welfare. 4 4 1757.500 0.005 P , 0.01 Farm animal welfare legislation does not need to be improved in the UK. 2 3 2154.000 0.203 ns I am willing to pay extra for higher welfare pork products. 4 4 1854.000 0.013 P , 0.05 The welfare of pigs on farms does not matter. 1 1 2292.500 0.462 ns It is important that the pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives. 4 4 1952.000 0.035 P , 0.05 The taste of pork is more important than its origin. 2 2 2214.000 0.318 ns I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig farming is cruel. 4 4 2189.000 0.259 ns It does not matter how pigs are reared as they do not know any better. 1 2 2121.500 0.151 ns Pigs should be able to express natural behaviours on farms. 5 4 1963.500 0.029 P , 0.05 Pet animals deserve better treatment than farm animals. 2 2 1947.000 0.028 P , 0.05 Yes, participants who answered yes to the question ‘have you ever visited a working, non-free range, pig farm?’ (n ¼ 36). No, participants who answered no to the question ‘have you ever visited a working, non-free range, pig farm?’ (n ¼ 137). Table 6. Kruskal–Wallis tests to compare PLIs and Likert statement answers across study programmes Variable/statement Mdn (AB/W) Mdn (N/D) Mdn (C) Hp Significant level ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ PLI. 2 21 1 19.618 0.000 P , 0.01 I am concerned about farm animal welfare. 4 4 4 20.318 0.000 P , 0.01 Farm animal welfare legislation does not need to be improved in the UK. 2 3 3 8.359 0.015 P , 0.05 I am willing to pay extra for higher welfare pork products. 4 4 4 17.396 0.000 P , 0.01 The welfare of pigs on farms does not matter. 1 2 2 24.500 0.000 P , 0.01 It is important that the pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives. 4.5 4 4 24.573 0.000 P , 0.01 The taste of pork is more important than its origin. 2 2 2 18.429 0.000 P , 0.01 I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig farming is cruel. 5 4 4 26.041 0.000 P , 0.01 It does not matter how pigs are reared as they do not know any better. 1 2 2 20.809 0.000 P , 0.01 Pigs should be able to express natural behaviours on farms. 5 4 4 36.249 0.000 P , 0.01 Pet animals deserve better treatment than farm animals. 2 2 2 21.618 0.000 P , 0.01 AB/W, n ¼ 56; N/D, n ¼ 65; C, n ¼ 52. A one-way ANOVA test showed that the three groups dif- consumers who show the highest levels of concern are fered significantly in their mean TLSs, F(2, 170) ¼ 28.407, more likely to associate positive attributes with pigs, more p ¼ 0.000, at the 0.01 significance level. A Tukey HSD test likely to be interested in animals, more likely to be aware allowed post hoc comparisons to be made. It showed that of modern pork production methods, and are more likely the mean TLSs were significantly different in AB/ABW stu- to have been exposed to a working pig farm sometime in dents (M ¼ 43.48, SD ¼ 4.251) as compared with N/ND the past. students (M ¼ 37.69, SD ¼ 3.925) and control students (M ¼ 38.83, SD ¼ 5.044), respectively, while N/ND stu- Awareness of pork production methods dents’ mean TLS was not significantly different from the Students who showed a greater awareness of pork pro- mean TLS of control students, as can be seen in Fig. 2. duction methods had significantly higher PLIs, showed a greater concern for farm animal welfare, showed a greater concern for pig welfare on farms and were more willing Discussion to pay extra (Participants were asked to rate the extent to The aim of this study was to identify possible influences on which they agreed with the statement ‘I am willing to pay consumer concern for pig welfare on farms, as well as farm extra for higher welfare pork products.’ Willingness to pay animal welfare more generally. The results suggest that extra was not measured using WTP methodology.) for ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 161 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... pork production methods amongst the public may therefore lead to an increase in demand for higher welfare pork pro- ducts. However, it is important to remember that consumer ethical values, religious beliefs and culture may also play a role in consumer purchasing decisions. A related issue, though not investigated here, is that of lab- elling. A recent survey commissioned by the RSPCA found that only 2 per cent of those questioned understood the meaning of the terms ‘outdoor bred,’ ‘free range’ and ‘outdoor reared.’ This is consistent with the results of a study by Schro¨ der and McEachern who interviewed 30 Scottish meat consumers about their value conflicts sur- rounding their food purchases. Most of those interviewed stated that their understanding of meat quality logos was poor and that they felt misled by labels. It is clearly impor- Figure 2. Bar chart with standard error bars showing a significant difference tant therefore, that any effort to increase concern for farm in the mean TLS in AB/ABW (n ¼ 56) as compared with N/ND (n ¼ 65) and animal welfare amongst the public in order to increase control students (n ¼ 52), but not between N/ND students and control demand for higher welfare products, be coupled with a students. demand for clearer labelling. Only if consumers understand the terms used on meat product labels can they make higher welfare pork products than students who showed a informed decisions in keeping with their animal welfare lower level of awareness of pork production methods. values. Bennett has pointed out previously that concern for Whether or not students have previously visited a farm animal welfare amongst the public revolves around conventional working pig farm also appears to be a signifi- awareness. Similarly, Beardsworth and Keil interviewed cant factor in relation to concern for farm animal welfare, 76 vegetarians and found that one of the major factors pig welfare on farms and willingness to pay extra for which led to their cessation of meat consumption was an higher welfare pork products. This relates to awareness of increased awareness of the effects of farming on animals. production methods as those students who reported having The results of this study would support such findings. visited a conventional pig farm would have been exposed However, as can be seen in Table 4, the high awareness to the conditions and management practices common to group consisted of only 19 students. This means that out conventional pork production in the UK. A recent of 173 participants, of which 56 were enrolled on an AB/ Eurobarometer survey focused on attitudes towards farm ABW undergraduate course, only 19 answered 3 or more animal welfare in consumers across the EU and found that of the 5 awareness questions correctly. Furthermore, none visits to farms where animals were reared increased both of the participants answered all of the five questions cor- awareness of, and concern for, the welfare of animals on rectly, and only one answered four questions correctly. farms. Furthermore, as the number of visits to working This indicates a substantial lack of knowledge amongst farms increased, so too did willingness to pay extra for 27, 28 the consumers surveyed in this study. Indeed, several other higher welfare products. The authors suggest the possi- studies have reported high levels of ignorance and/or mis- bility of an awareness campaign to promote concern for farm conceptions among consumers regarding livestock pro- animal welfare through visits to farms. The results of the 15, 16, 25, 26 duction methods. As almost a third of the present study support this idea, as they indicate that exposure students surveyed were enrolled on an AB/ABW course at to a working farm leads to increased concern for farm animal the University of Chester, it is reasonable to assume that welfare and willingness to pay more for improved welfare an even greater lack of awareness would be found if this products. study was repeated on a representative sample of the general public. As such, there is a clear need to improve Pig likeability index public understanding and awareness of pork production methods in the UK to allow consumers to make informed It is perhaps unsurprising that participants who scored decisions when purchasing pork. If consumers are higher PLIs showed greater concern for pig welfare on unaware of production methods but at the same time are farms. Indeed, there appears to be a link between a given concerned about the welfare of pigs on farms (as was the species’ likeability and concern for its welfare amongst the case of the sample surveyed in this study) they may be public. Evidence suggests that attitudes towards animal use making purchases, which are not in keeping with their atti- vary among individuals, depending on the animal species 29, 44 tudes towards farm animal welfare. Increasing awareness of in question, with those animals that are more familiar ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 162 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... to, and generally more liked by, the public being more 0.05) and ‘I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig ‘worthy’ of protection than others. farming is cruel’ (P, 0.01). However, the control students It is possible that consumers show greater levels of agreed with both of these statements significantly more concern for those production animals of which they are than the N/ND students despite better welfare being linked 31, 32, 47 more fond. This could in turn lead to a greater willingness to increased meat quality, and consumers typically to pay for higher welfare products produced from those associating more intensive production systems with a 5, 6, 48, 49 animals. It is interesting to note in this respect, that the reduction in meat safety. It is possible that N/ND Mann–Whitney U-tests comparing high PLI participants to students did not differ significantly from the control students low PLI participants differed in their significance depending because they were unaware of the interconnectedness of farm on whether the Likert statement asked about farm animals or animal welfare and issues of meat quality and safety. pigs specifically. As can be seen in Table 3, the three state- Alternatively, they may be fully aware that meat produced ments concerning farm animals differed significantly at the under circumstances, which promote better animal welfare 0.05 level, while those statements that concerned pigs dif- is often better in quality and safer for human consumption, fered at the 0.01 level, suggesting that PLI was specifically but may simply not value these qualities or be unwilling to linked to increased concern for pig welfare on farms, as pay the extra cost involved in producing meat under such opposed to all farm animals. systems. In any case, this study failed to find any evidence Studies show that stock people who express positive atti- that consumers interested in human health and nutrition tudes towards livestock are more likely to treat their value animal welfare on farms any more than a group of 45, 46 animals more humanely. This is similar to the findings control consumers. of the current study as those participants who associated the greatest number of positive attributes with pigs (high Conclusion PLI participants) reported the greatest level of concern for pig welfare on farms as well as a greater willingness This study found that higher PLIs, being enrolled on an to pay for higher welfare pork products. Concern for the AB/ABWcourse,higherlevelsofawarenessofporkpro- welfare of farm animals has been shown to be positively duction methods, and a previous visit to a conventional correlated with a greater willingness to pay to improve working pig farm in the past were all associated with a 7, 8 farm animal welfare in previous studies. Thus, more greater concern for farm animal welfare, pig welfare on positive attitudes towards pigs in consumers may lead to farms and an increased willingness to pay extra for more positive ‘treatment’ of pigs through purchasing higher welfare pork products in a sample of undergradu- choices. ate students. This study highlights potential areas of inter- est to groups working to secure higher welfare standards Programme of study for livestock in the UK. However, due to the nature of AB/ABW students reported significantly higher concern for the sample population used in this study, it is impossible farm animal welfare generally and pig welfare on farms, a to consider such results more than preliminary. If studies greater willingness to pay for higher welfare pork products, using more representative samples find similar results and significantly higher PLIs than did N/ND students or then this would indicate the need to test whether increas- control students, respectively. This is perhaps an unsurpris- ing awareness on these issues could lead to an increased ing finding, and is likely due to a number of factors. level of concern for pig welfare on farms, and an increased Firstly, AB/ABW students are likely more concerned with demand for higher welfare pork products. As such, future issues of animal welfare in general, regardless of the research could involve evaluating the effectiveness of cam- animal in question or use thereof. Also, AB/ABW students paigns at increasing concern for farm animal welfare and likely feel more positively towards animals in general. demand for higher welfare products through reducing Secondly, AB/ABW students were likely more aware of public ignorance regarding farm animals and their pork production methods and so may have been more con- welfare. cerned about pig welfare on farms due to a greater awareness of the issues surrounding pork production in the UK. Indeed, Acknowledgements 15 of the 19 students who were in the high awareness group were AB/ABW students, representing some 79% of all high I would like to thank Dr Lottie Hosie for her support, awareness students. encouragement and feedback. N/ND students did not differ significantly in their responses when compared with control students. Significant Author biography differences did exist between N/ND students and the control students on the statements ‘it is important that the Jacqueline Tawse graduated from the University of pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives’ (P, Chester, where she gained a first-class BSc with honours ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 163 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21. Burgess D, Hutchinson WG, McCallion T, Scarpa R (2003) Investigating choice in Animal Behaviour and Welfare, in 2009. After finishing rationality in stated preference methods for enhanced farm animal welfare. her course, she moved home to Norway where she is cur- CSERGE Working Paper, ECM 03–02. rently working towards completing a 13 month apprentice- 22. Bennett R (1995) The value of farm animal welfare. J Agr Econ 46: ship at Fjellanger Dog Training Academy. Jacqueline has 46–60. volunteered at rescue centres both in the UK and abroad, 23. Mathews S, Herzog HA (1997) Personality and attitudes toward the treat- and hopes to find employment with an animal welfare ment of animals. Soc Anim 5: 169–175. charity in the future. 24. Austin EJ, Deary IJ, Edwards-Jones G, Arey D (2005) Attitudes to farm animal welfare: factor structure and personality correlates in farmers and agriculture students. J Indiv Differ 26: 107–120. References 25. Hubbard C, Bourlakis M, Garrod G (2007) Pig in the middle: farmers 1. Blokhuis HJ, Jones RB, Geers R, Miele M, Veissier I (2003) Measuring and and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. Br Food J 109: monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality 919–930. chain. Anim Welfare 12: 445–455. 26. McEachern MG, Schro¨ der MJA (2002) The role of livestock production 2. Fraser D (2003) Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the ethics in consumer values towards meat. J Agr Environ Ethics 15: interplay of science and values. Anim Welfare 12: 433–443. 221–237. 3. Sandøe P, Christiansen SB, Appleby MC (2003) Farm animal welfare: the 27. Eurobarometer (2005) Attitudes of Consumers towards the Welfare of Farmed interaction of ethical questions and animal welfare science. Anim Welfare Animals. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en. 12: 469–478. pdf (accessed 6 December 2008). 4. Winter M, Fry C, Carruthers SP (1998) European agricultural policy and farm 28. Eurogroup (2005) Demanding Change at the Checkout: Europeans are Ready animal welfare. Food Pol 23: 305–323. to Pay for Animal Welfare—is the Market Ready for Them?. http://www. 5. Blandford D, Fulponi L (1999) Emerging public concerns in agriculture: dom- uzzpro.sr.gov.yu/kzpeu/taiex_prezentacije/060901beograd/eurogroup_ estic policies and international trade commitments. Europ Rev Agr Econ 26: paper_annex.pdf (accessed 6 December 2008). 409–424. 29. Driscoll JW (1995) Attitudes toward animals: species ratings. Soc Anim 3: 6. Harper GC, Makatouni A (2002) Consumer perception of organic food pro- 139–150. duction and farm animal welfare. Br Food J 104: 287–299. 30. Stibbe A (2003) As charming as a pig: the discursive construction of the 7. Bennett RM (1996) People’s willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Anim relationship between pigs and humans. Soc Anim 11: 375–392. Welfare 5: 3–11. 31. Beattie VE, O’Connell NE, Moss BW (2000) Influence of environmental enrich- 8. Bennett RM (1997) Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Pol 22: ment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. 281–288. Livest Prod Sci 65: 71–79. 9. Bennett R (1998) Measuring public support for animal welfare legislation: a 32. Castellini C, Mugnai C, Dal Bosco A (2002) Effect of organic case study of cage egg production. Anim Welfare 7: 1–10. production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Sci 60: 10. Sandøe P, Simonsen HB (1992) Assessing animal welfare: where does 219–225. science end and philosophy begin? Anim Welfare 1: 257–267. 33. Oppenheim AN (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude 11. Stafleu FR, Grommers FJ, Vorstenbosch J (1996) Animal welfare: evolution Measurement. London: Continuum. and erosion of a moral concept. Anim Welfare 5: 225–234. 34. Bernard HR (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative 12. Bornett HLI, Guy JH, Cain PJ (2003) Impact of animal welfare on costs Approaches. London: SAGE. and viability of pig production in the UK. J Agr Environ Ethics 16: 35. Brace I (2004) Questionnaire Design: how to Plan, Structure, and 163–186. Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research, London: Kogan Page 13. Mayfield LE, Bennett RM, Tranter RB, Wooldridge MJ (2007) Consumption of Publishers. welfare-friendly food products in Great Britain, Italy and Sweden, and how it 36. Office of Public Sector Information (2007) The Welfare of Farmed Animals may be influenced by consumer attitudes to, and behaviour towards, animal (England) Regulations 2007. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/pdf/ welfare attributes. Int J Sociology Food Agr 15: 59–73. uksi_20072078_en.pdf (accessed 20 July 2008). 14. Moynagh J (2000) EU regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. 37. Sapsford R (2007) Survey Research, 2nd edn. London: SAGE. AgBioForum 3: 107–114. 38. Bennett R, Blaney R (2002) Social consensus, moral intensity and 15. Webster AJF (2001) Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free willingness to pay to address a farm animal welfare issue. J Econ Psychol market. Vet J 161: 229–237. 23: 501–520. 16. Schro¨ der MJA, McEachern MG (2004) Consumer value conflicts surrounding 39. Field AP (2005) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd edn. ethical food purchase decisions: a focus on animal welfare. Int J Cons Stud London: SAGE. 28: 168–177. 40. Parker PI (2004) Principles of measurement, research and statistics. 17. Arey D, Brooke P (2006) Animal Welfare Aspects of Good Agricultural Practice: In Leach RA ed, The Chiropractic Theories: a Textbook of Scientific Research Pig Production. Petersfield, UK: Compassion in World Farming Trust. 2004. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, pp. 57–80. 18. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2009) UK Shoppers— 41. deVaus D (2002) Surveys in Social Research, 5th edn. London: Routledge. Pig Ignorant? http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlblob& blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=RSPCABlob& 42. Beardsworth AD, Keil ET (1993) Contemporary vegetarianism in the U.K.: blobwhere=1227717130301&ssbinary=true (accessed 6 March 2009). challenge and incorporation? Appetite 20: 229–234. 19. Pettitt RG (2001) Traceability in the food animal industry and supermarket 43. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2009) Are UK chains. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz 20: 584–597. Shoppers Pig Ignorant? http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?articleId= 1227717127046&pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=NewsFeature 20. Burgess D, Hutchinson WG (2005) Do people value the welfare of farm animals? EuroChoices 4: 36–42. (accessed 7 March 2009). ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 164 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44. Serpell JA (2004) Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their 47. Wood JD, Enser M, Fisher AV, Nute GR, Richardson RI, Sheard PR (1999) welfare. Anim Welfare 13: s145–151. Manipulating meat quality and composition. P Nutr Soc 58: 363–370. 45. Coleman GJ, McGregor M, Hemsworth PH, Boyce J, Dowling S (2003) The 48. McEachern MG, Seaman C (2005) Consumer perceptions of meat pro- relationship between beliefs, attitudes and observed behaviours of abattoir duction. Br Food J 107: 572–593. personnel in the pig industry. Appl Anim Behav Sci 82: 189–200. 49. Verbeke WAJ, Viaene J (2000) Ethical challenges for livestock production: 46. Hemsworth PH (2003) Human-animal interactions in livestock production. meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. J Agr Appl Anim Behav Sci 81: 185–198. Environ Ethics 12: 141–151. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Bioscience Horizons Oxford University Press

Consumer attitudes towards farm animals and their welfare: a pig production case study

Bioscience Horizons , Volume 3 (2) – Jun 18, 2010

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/consumer-attitudes-towards-farm-animals-and-their-welfare-a-pig-p850A9njKd

References (50)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press
Subject
Research articles
eISSN
1754-7431
DOI
10.1093/biohorizons/hzq020
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 10.1093/biohorizons/hzq020 Advance Access publication 18 May 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Research article Consumer attitudes towards farm animals and their welfare: a pig production case study Jacqueline Tawse* University of Chester, Chester, Cheshire, UK. * Corresponding author: Skadbergveien 105, 4050 Sola, Norway. Tel: þ47 51656017. Email: j_tawse@hotmail.com Project Supervisor: Dr Lottie Hosie, University of Chester, Chester, Cheshire CH1 4BJ, UK. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Recent years have seen an increase in public concern for farm animal welfare in the UK. However, sales of higher welfare meat and other animal-based food products are typically lower than their standard counterparts. The aim of this study was to determine both the preva- lence of concern for farm animal welfare in a population, as well as the reasons for higher concern in some consumers as compared with others. In addition, the study focused on consumer attitudes towards pigs (Sus scrofa scrofa), and concern for their welfare, in particular, in order to identify areas which, if addressed, may help to increase consumer concern for pig welfare on farms, as well as increase con- sumer demand for higher welfare pork products. A questionnaire was designed with this in mind and disseminated to undergraduate students at the University of Chester. Concern for farm animal welfare, concern for the welfare of pigs on farms and reported willingness to pay extra for higher welfare pork products were all found to be influenced by consumer attitudes towards pigs, participant pro- gramme of study, awareness of pork production methods and previous exposure to a conventional pig farm. In addition, the results of the study indicate that a high level of ignorance regarding pork production methods is prevalent amongst UK consumers. In order to increase concern for pig welfare on farms, and thereby increase demand for higher welfare pork products, it was suggested that campaigns should aim to make clear the production methods used in conventional pork production systems in the UK. Key words: farm animals, farm animal welfare, consumer attitudes, pig production. Submitted on 29 September 2009; accepted on 20 April 2010 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 – 6 farm animal welfare. Several surveys show that consumers Introduction 7 –9 are concerned about the welfare of farmed animals, The management of production animals has changed signifi- and a considerable amount of scientific research has cantly across the European Union (EU) over the past five focused on the welfare of animals on farms in the last 20 3, 10, 11 decades. Over this time, animal agriculture has intensified years. This in turn has led to an increased public and the number of animals per farm has increased, while demand for stricter welfare standards in farming, as is 7, 8 the ratio of stockmen to animals has drastically decreased. evident by the increase in policy debate and the introduc- 12 –14 In addition, more and more animals have been moved to tion of new legislation. indoor housing systems with higher stocking densities, the However, while consumers often report high concern for use of prophylactic medicines and growth promoters has farm animal welfare, most consumers do not purchase increased and animals are transported for longer distances higher welfare products, and only 10% of consumers as abattoirs have dropped in numbers but increased in actively search for this information when making their 2 –4 size. This intensification of the industry has led to an food purchases. This would suggest that consumers are increase in animal productivity, but a decrease in the monet- either unwilling to pay for the extra cost involved in produ- ary value of any given animal. Interest in farm animal cing meat under higher welfare schemes, or are unaware of welfare has risen in response to this change as evidence has the welfare issues involved in conventional farming systems shown that intensive systems may lead to a reduction in (conventional farming systems were referred to as ‘standard, ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 156 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... non-free range farms’ in the questionnaire). Evidence would merely indicate to what extent concern for farm animals indicate that the former is unlikely, as willingness to pay and their welfare is prevalent in a population, without iden- (WTP) research has shown that consumers are happy to tifying reasons why some consumers show greater concern 7– 9 pay extra for non-battery eggs. than others. The closest thing to research of this type is a The success of a farm animal welfare campaign, however, limited number of studies done on personality correlates is contingent upon not only its ability to reach a considerable and concern for animals. Mathews and Herzog investi- proportion of consumers, but also to present information, gated personality traits and attitudes towards non-human which will affect those consumers powerfully enough to animals, and Austin et al. identified personality traits alter their buying habits. As such, it is imperative to under- associated with a higher concern for farm animal welfare stand what causes consumers to be concerned with the in farmers and agriculture students. Identifying personality welfare of farm animals and ultimately, what motivates traits, which are associated with concern for farm animals them to purchase higher welfare products. however, does not improve our ability to increase concern amongst the general public through education. It is essential Pigs and their welfare on farms to gain an understanding of what motivates certain individ- Pigs are the most common intensively raised mammal in the uals to be concerned with animal welfare to a greater extent world, with around 9 million pigs being reared annually in than others as this information can help to create more tar- the UK alone. Legislation to protect the welfare of these geted campaigns to raise public awareness about farm pigs currently goes beyond that required by EU law (e.g. animal welfare issues and, in turn, increase the demand for Animal Welfare Act 2006, Welfare of Farmed Animals higher welfare products. The aim of the current study there- (England) Regulations 2007), but does not solve all of the fore, was to identify not only the prevalence of concern for welfare concerns associated with conventional pig pro- farm animal welfare in a population, but also the possible duction. In addition, there are several voluntary farm assur- reasons for that concern or lack thereof, using pigs and ance schemes relating to the production of pork (e.g. pork production as a case study. Three main areas were RSPCA’s Freedom Foods, Farm Assured British Pigs), investigated, through the use of a questionnaire, in a which set higher standards for pork production and pig sample of undergraduate students at the University of welfare. As a result, there is a wide variety of labels on Chester, in order to pinpoint which may be linked to an pork product packaging, making consumer choice particu- increased concern for farm animals and pig welfare on farms: larly important. (i) consumer awareness of pork production methods; If consumers are concerned about farm animal welfare (ii) consumer attitudes towards pigs; and wish to make purchasing decisions in keeping with (iii) consumer interest in animals and food. their values, then they must demand higher welfare standards for pigs on UK farms. Studies have shown that on the one hand, consumers value schemes to improve the welfare of Consumer awareness of pork production methods laying hens, dairy cows and broiler chickens significantly 20, 21 It is possible that the discrepancies between consumer concern more than one to improve the welfare of pigs, but on for farm animal welfare and demand for higher welfare pro- the other, consumers stated that they would stop buying ducts mentioned above comes down to a lack of awareness. pork if its packaging featured images of pigs kept tethered Consumers may be under the impression that animals on or in stalls. This indicates that awareness may be key to intensive farms experience high welfare, and so may continue changing consumer buying habits in order to better the to purchase standard products without intentionally going welfare of pigs on farms. against their stated concern for farm animal welfare. Indeed, Consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare evidence suggests that ignorance and/or misconceptions regarding livestock production are prevalent amongst consu- What constitutes acceptable treatment of farm animals is 15, 16, 25, 26 7, 22 mers, and those who are more aware are more determined by legislation and consumer choice. 27, 28 likely to shop for higher welfare products. However, consumers can only act in accordance with their animal welfare values if they are aware of the welfare Consumer attitudes towards pigs issues surrounding livestock production. It is therefore vital that the information which, if effectively disseminated to It is known that people vary in their attitudes towards the public, may lead to a change in demand for higher animals depending on the species in question. Likeability welfare products be identified, in order to improve the may affect consumer attitudes towards pigs in particular as welfare of animals on farms. the English language contains more metaphors, similes and 7 –9 Bennett has conducted several surveys on consumer idioms about pigs than any other non-human animal, and attitudes towards the welfare of farm animals and WTP to the overwhelming majority of these are negative. Pigs improve farm animal welfare. However, these surveys may be disliked or misunderstood by consumers due to this ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 157 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 1. Awareness questions negative view of them manifested in British English language and culture. This may in turn be why consumers have not Question Answer been as quick to demand higher welfare pork products as ................................................................................................................ compared with higher welfare eggs for example. 1. Gestation crates (also called sow stalls) are routinely used No on pig farms in the UK. Consumer interest in animals and food 2. Farrowing crates are routinely used on pig farms in the UK. Yes In addition to concerns about farm animal welfare, concerns 3. Pigs are given enough room to turn around at all times on No about food quality and food safety have also increased in pig farms in the UK. recent years. Studies show that consumers often consider 4. Pigs have permanent access to suitable bedding (e.g. Yes food safety and quality among the most important attributes straw) on pig farms in the UK. of fresh meat. Both of these qualities are thought to be 5. Pigs are able to see other pigs at all times on pig farms in No greater in higher welfare, as compared with standard, meat the UK. 5, 6, 31, 32 products. As such, consumers may show a heigh- tened level of concern for farm animal welfare, and purchase better welfare products, for fear of poor meat quality and/or The correct answers were based on the minimum require- safety. ments which all UK pig farms must adhere to in accordance with the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. Correct answers were given a score of 1, while Materials and methods incorrect and ‘Don’t know’ answers were given a score of 0, resulting in a combined score of between 0 and Questionnaire design 5. Those who scored 3 or above were considered ‘high In order to collect the appropriate information from partici- awareness’ participants, and those who scored 2 or fewer pants, the questionnaire was divided into four parts. Part A were considered ‘low awareness’ participants for the presented participants with a list of 16 adjectives. purpose of later statistical analyses. The last question in Participants were asked which word or words they associated this section asked whether participants had any previous with domestic pigs in order to gain an understanding of par- exposure to a working farm. ticipants’ attitudes towards pigs in general. Eight of the The final section asked for personal details. These were chosen adjectives were ‘negative’ descriptors (given a score collected in order to separate participants into the three of 21), while the other eight were ‘positive’ descriptors of study programme groups (animal behaviour/animal be- pigs (given a score of þ1). All negative scores were then sub- haviour and welfare [AB/ABW], nutrition/nutrition and tracted from all positive scores for every participant, giving dietetics [N/ND] and the control group of students on each a pig likeability index (PLI) of between 28 and þ8. any other undergraduate degree programme, as well as In addition, participants who scored a PLI below 0 were con- ensure participants met the minimum age requirement of sidered low PLI participants, while those who scored 0 or 18 years. higher were considered high PLI participants. Part B of the questionnaire aimed to measure participant Participants attitudes towards pig welfare on farms, as well as farm animal welfare in general. Likert scaled questions were Paper-based questionnaires were completed by students at used as the Likert procedure is the most appropriate for the University of Chester. Most of the AB/ABW (n ¼ 56) exploring theories of attitudes. It involves presenting par- and N/ND (n ¼ 65) participants were recruited through lec- ticipants with a series of statements along with a five-point tures, while most of the control group participants (n ¼ 52) scale on which they can indicate the extent to which they were approached on a one-to-one basis, resulting in an 34 37 agree or disagree with each respective statement. An opportunity sample. All participants had to meet a equal number of negatively weighted and positively weighted minimum age criterion of 18 years, be enrolled on an under- statements were used alternately in order to combat order graduate course at the University, and be a consumer of effect, acquiescence and pattern answering as much as poss- pork. Eleven questionnaires were removed from analysis ible. The scores given for the negatively weighted state- due to participants not meeting one or more of these require- ments were later reverse coded so that a high response (i.e. ments, or because they were incomplete. The eventual 5) indicated high concern for farm animal and pig welfare, sample consisted of 173 undergraduate students at the while a low response (i.e. 1) indicated low concern in University of Chester. This sample size exceeds those 7, 38 order to test for reliability. reported in published studies investigating similar topics Part C of the questionnaire aimed to assess participant and so was considered suitably large. Ethical approval was knowledge and understanding of pork production methods granted by the University of Chester’s Research Ethics in the UK through multiple choice questions (Table 1). Committee before any data were collected. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 158 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 2. Spearman’s correlation coefficients for answers to Likert statements and PLI Statement r p Significant level ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ I am concerned about farm animal welfare. 0.290 0.000 P , 0.01 Farm animal welfare legislation does not need to be improved in the UK. 20.244 0.001 P , 0.01 I am willing to pay extra for higher welfare pork products. 0.350 0.000 P , 0.01 The welfare of pigs on farms does not matter. 20.417 0.000 P , 0.01 It is important that the pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives. 0.290 0.000 P , 0.01 The taste of pork is more important than its origin. 20.222 0.003 P , 0.01 I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig farming is cruel. 0.378 0.000 P , 0.01 It does not matter how pigs are reared as they do no t know any better. 20.459 0.000 P , 0.01 Pigs should be able to express natural behaviours on farms. 0.353 0.000 P , 0.01 Pet animals deserve better treatment than farm animals. 20.257 0.001 P , 0.01 Results All data collected were entered into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 16.0 for analysis. PLI, age and total Likert score (TLS—the sum of ratings for all state- ments) were all tested for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As the tests showed that TLS, D(173) ¼ 1.064, P . 0.05, was normally distributed, para- metric tests were used in any analyses involving TLS, whereas PLI, D(173) ¼ 1.377, P, 0.05 and age, D(173) ¼ 3.861, P, 0.05, were not normally distributed and so non- parametric tests were used in any analyses involving these variables. However, some authors question the use of para- metric tests for combined Likert scores as they argue that they cannot be considered truly interval data. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated using the reverse-coded scores for the negatively weighted Likert state- ments from Part B of the questionnaire. The scores were Figure 1. Scatterplot showing a significantly positive correlation between reversed as Cronbach’s alpha can only be calculated using PLI and TLS (n ¼ 173). scores which all carry the same meaning. In other words, a response of 5, for example, must indicate high concern for High vs. low PLI participants farm animal welfare for both the positively and negatively High PLI participants were compared with low PLI partici- weighted Likert statements. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated pants with respect to their answers given to the Likert state- to test item–item correlations in order to measure the overall ments in Part B of the questionnaire using Mann–Whitney reliability of the scale. As the alpha value (a ¼ 0.832) was U-tests. All results were significant at the 0.05 level and greater than the minimum threshold value of 0.7, the scaled many were also significant at the 0.01 level, showing that questions were considered reliable. high PLI participants showed greater concern for farm animal and pig welfare than did low PLI participants, as PLI correlations summarized in Table 3. Furthermore, an independent samples t-test showed that high PLI participants (M ¼ Spearman’s correlation coefficients were calculated to 41.17, SD ¼ 4.102) had a significantly higher mean TLS examine whether PLI was correlated with answers given in than did low PLI participants (M ¼ 37.53, SD ¼ 5.055), Part B of the questionnaire. As can be seen in Table 2, PLI t(171) ¼ 25.107, P, 0.01. was significantly positively correlated with all of the posi- tively weighted statements, while PLI was significantly nega- Awareness of pork production methods tively correlated with all of the negatively weighted statements. TLS was also significantly positively correlated Mann–Whitney U-tests compared high awareness and low with PLI, r ¼ 0.451, n ¼ 173, p ¼ 0.000, as P, 0.01, as awareness participants with respect to their PLIs as well as demonstrated by Fig. 1. their answers to individual Likert scaled questions from ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 159 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 3. Mann–Whitney U-tests to compare Likert statement answers from HPLI participants to LPLI participants Statement Mdn (HPLI) Mdn (LPLI) Up Significant level ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ I am concerned about farm animal welfare. 4 4 2735.500 0.026 P , 0.05 Farm animal welfare legislation does not need to be improved in the UK. 2 3 2652.000 0.010 P , 0.05 I am willing to pay extra for higher welfare pork products. 4 4 2511.500 0.002 P , 0.01 The welfare of pigs on farms does not matter. 1 2 2135.500 0.000 P , 0.01 It is important that the pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives. 4 4 2585.500 0.005 P , 0.01 The taste of pork is more important than its origin. 2 2 2567.000 0.005 P , 0.01 I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig farming is cruel. 4 4 2291.500 0.000 P , 0.01 It does not matter how pigs are reared as they do not know any better. 1 2 2068.500 0.000 P , 0.01 Pigs should be able to express natural behaviours on farms. 5 4 2466.000 0.001 P , 0.01 Pet animals deserve better treatment than farm animals. 2 2 2714.500 0.015 P , 0.05 HPLI, high PLI (n ¼ 113); LPLI, low PLI (n ¼ 60). Table 4. Mann–Whitney U-tests to compare PLIs and Likert statement answers in HA participants to LA participants Variable/statement Mdn (HA) Mdn (LA) Up Significant level ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ PLI. 3 1 791.000 0.001 P , 0.01 I am concerned about farm animal welfare. 4 4 1011.500 0.019 P , 0.05 Farm animal welfare legislation does not need to be improved in the UK. 2 3 827.000 0.001 P , 0.01 I am willing to pay extra for higher welfare pork products. 4 4 832.500 0.001 P , 0.01 The welfare of pigs on farms does not matter. 1 2 903.500 0.002 P , 0.01 It is important that the pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives. 5 4 863.500 0.001 P , 0.01 The taste of pork is more important than its origin. 1 2 786.000 0.000 P , 0.01 I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig farming is cruel. 5 4 1085.500 0.046 P , 0.05 It does not matter how pigs are reared as they do not know any better. 1 2 1067.000 0.032 P , 0.05 Pigs should be able to express natural behaviours on farms. 5 4 921.500 0.002 P , 0.01 Pet animals deserve better treatment than farm animals. 2 2 865.500 0.001 P , 0.01 HA, high awareness participants (n ¼ 19); LA, low awareness participants (n ¼ 154). Part B of the questionnaire. All results were significant at the Programme of study 0.05 level (most were also significant at the 0.01 level) and The three student groups were compared with respect to are summarized in Table 4. High awareness participants their PLIs as well as their answers to the individual state- (M ¼ 44.58, SD ¼ 4.834) also had a significantly higher ments in part B of the questionnaire, using a Kruskal– mean TLS than did low awareness participants (M ¼ Wallis test. All of the results were significant at the 0.05 39.33, SD ¼ 4.773) as calculated by an independent level (and all but one were significant at the 0.01 level) and samples t-test, t(171) ¼ 24.515, P, 0.01. are summarized in Table 6. Finally, participants who had visited a conventional pig In order to investigate whether all of the three groups farm were compared with participants who had not. Mann– differed significantly from one another, Mann–Whitney Whitney U-tests compared the two groups of participants U-tests were performed to compare each group of stu- with respect to their PLIs and responses to the individual dents to each other respective group. All results of tests Likert scaled questions. Just over half of the variables comparing AB/ABW students to N/ND students were showed that participants with previous experience of a significant at the 0.01 level, while all results of tests working pig farm showed significantly more concern for pig comparing AB/ABW students to control students were and farm animal welfare, as shown in Table 5. In addition, significant at the 0.05 level (most were also significant an independent samples t-test found that participants who at the 0.01 level). Tests comparing N/ND students to had visited a pig farm (M ¼ 41.83, SD ¼ 4.902) scored a sig- control students, however, were mostly non-significant with only two showing a significant difference at the nificantly higher mean TLS than did those who had not 0.05 level. (M ¼ 39.40, SD ¼ 4.973), t(171) ¼ 2.619, P, 0.05. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 160 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 5. Mann–Whitney U-tests to compare PLIs and Likert statement answers in participants who had visited a standard, working farm to those who had not a b Variable/statement Mdn (yes ) Mdn (no ) Up Significant level ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ PLI. 2 1 1797.000 0.012 P , 0.05 I am concerned about farm animal welfare. 4 4 1757.500 0.005 P , 0.01 Farm animal welfare legislation does not need to be improved in the UK. 2 3 2154.000 0.203 ns I am willing to pay extra for higher welfare pork products. 4 4 1854.000 0.013 P , 0.05 The welfare of pigs on farms does not matter. 1 1 2292.500 0.462 ns It is important that the pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives. 4 4 1952.000 0.035 P , 0.05 The taste of pork is more important than its origin. 2 2 2214.000 0.318 ns I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig farming is cruel. 4 4 2189.000 0.259 ns It does not matter how pigs are reared as they do not know any better. 1 2 2121.500 0.151 ns Pigs should be able to express natural behaviours on farms. 5 4 1963.500 0.029 P , 0.05 Pet animals deserve better treatment than farm animals. 2 2 1947.000 0.028 P , 0.05 Yes, participants who answered yes to the question ‘have you ever visited a working, non-free range, pig farm?’ (n ¼ 36). No, participants who answered no to the question ‘have you ever visited a working, non-free range, pig farm?’ (n ¼ 137). Table 6. Kruskal–Wallis tests to compare PLIs and Likert statement answers across study programmes Variable/statement Mdn (AB/W) Mdn (N/D) Mdn (C) Hp Significant level ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ PLI. 2 21 1 19.618 0.000 P , 0.01 I am concerned about farm animal welfare. 4 4 4 20.318 0.000 P , 0.01 Farm animal welfare legislation does not need to be improved in the UK. 2 3 3 8.359 0.015 P , 0.05 I am willing to pay extra for higher welfare pork products. 4 4 4 17.396 0.000 P , 0.01 The welfare of pigs on farms does not matter. 1 2 2 24.500 0.000 P , 0.01 It is important that the pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives. 4.5 4 4 24.573 0.000 P , 0.01 The taste of pork is more important than its origin. 2 2 2 18.429 0.000 P , 0.01 I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig farming is cruel. 5 4 4 26.041 0.000 P , 0.01 It does not matter how pigs are reared as they do not know any better. 1 2 2 20.809 0.000 P , 0.01 Pigs should be able to express natural behaviours on farms. 5 4 4 36.249 0.000 P , 0.01 Pet animals deserve better treatment than farm animals. 2 2 2 21.618 0.000 P , 0.01 AB/W, n ¼ 56; N/D, n ¼ 65; C, n ¼ 52. A one-way ANOVA test showed that the three groups dif- consumers who show the highest levels of concern are fered significantly in their mean TLSs, F(2, 170) ¼ 28.407, more likely to associate positive attributes with pigs, more p ¼ 0.000, at the 0.01 significance level. A Tukey HSD test likely to be interested in animals, more likely to be aware allowed post hoc comparisons to be made. It showed that of modern pork production methods, and are more likely the mean TLSs were significantly different in AB/ABW stu- to have been exposed to a working pig farm sometime in dents (M ¼ 43.48, SD ¼ 4.251) as compared with N/ND the past. students (M ¼ 37.69, SD ¼ 3.925) and control students (M ¼ 38.83, SD ¼ 5.044), respectively, while N/ND stu- Awareness of pork production methods dents’ mean TLS was not significantly different from the Students who showed a greater awareness of pork pro- mean TLS of control students, as can be seen in Fig. 2. duction methods had significantly higher PLIs, showed a greater concern for farm animal welfare, showed a greater concern for pig welfare on farms and were more willing Discussion to pay extra (Participants were asked to rate the extent to The aim of this study was to identify possible influences on which they agreed with the statement ‘I am willing to pay consumer concern for pig welfare on farms, as well as farm extra for higher welfare pork products.’ Willingness to pay animal welfare more generally. The results suggest that extra was not measured using WTP methodology.) for ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 161 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... pork production methods amongst the public may therefore lead to an increase in demand for higher welfare pork pro- ducts. However, it is important to remember that consumer ethical values, religious beliefs and culture may also play a role in consumer purchasing decisions. A related issue, though not investigated here, is that of lab- elling. A recent survey commissioned by the RSPCA found that only 2 per cent of those questioned understood the meaning of the terms ‘outdoor bred,’ ‘free range’ and ‘outdoor reared.’ This is consistent with the results of a study by Schro¨ der and McEachern who interviewed 30 Scottish meat consumers about their value conflicts sur- rounding their food purchases. Most of those interviewed stated that their understanding of meat quality logos was poor and that they felt misled by labels. It is clearly impor- Figure 2. Bar chart with standard error bars showing a significant difference tant therefore, that any effort to increase concern for farm in the mean TLS in AB/ABW (n ¼ 56) as compared with N/ND (n ¼ 65) and animal welfare amongst the public in order to increase control students (n ¼ 52), but not between N/ND students and control demand for higher welfare products, be coupled with a students. demand for clearer labelling. Only if consumers understand the terms used on meat product labels can they make higher welfare pork products than students who showed a informed decisions in keeping with their animal welfare lower level of awareness of pork production methods. values. Bennett has pointed out previously that concern for Whether or not students have previously visited a farm animal welfare amongst the public revolves around conventional working pig farm also appears to be a signifi- awareness. Similarly, Beardsworth and Keil interviewed cant factor in relation to concern for farm animal welfare, 76 vegetarians and found that one of the major factors pig welfare on farms and willingness to pay extra for which led to their cessation of meat consumption was an higher welfare pork products. This relates to awareness of increased awareness of the effects of farming on animals. production methods as those students who reported having The results of this study would support such findings. visited a conventional pig farm would have been exposed However, as can be seen in Table 4, the high awareness to the conditions and management practices common to group consisted of only 19 students. This means that out conventional pork production in the UK. A recent of 173 participants, of which 56 were enrolled on an AB/ Eurobarometer survey focused on attitudes towards farm ABW undergraduate course, only 19 answered 3 or more animal welfare in consumers across the EU and found that of the 5 awareness questions correctly. Furthermore, none visits to farms where animals were reared increased both of the participants answered all of the five questions cor- awareness of, and concern for, the welfare of animals on rectly, and only one answered four questions correctly. farms. Furthermore, as the number of visits to working This indicates a substantial lack of knowledge amongst farms increased, so too did willingness to pay extra for 27, 28 the consumers surveyed in this study. Indeed, several other higher welfare products. The authors suggest the possi- studies have reported high levels of ignorance and/or mis- bility of an awareness campaign to promote concern for farm conceptions among consumers regarding livestock pro- animal welfare through visits to farms. The results of the 15, 16, 25, 26 duction methods. As almost a third of the present study support this idea, as they indicate that exposure students surveyed were enrolled on an AB/ABW course at to a working farm leads to increased concern for farm animal the University of Chester, it is reasonable to assume that welfare and willingness to pay more for improved welfare an even greater lack of awareness would be found if this products. study was repeated on a representative sample of the general public. As such, there is a clear need to improve Pig likeability index public understanding and awareness of pork production methods in the UK to allow consumers to make informed It is perhaps unsurprising that participants who scored decisions when purchasing pork. If consumers are higher PLIs showed greater concern for pig welfare on unaware of production methods but at the same time are farms. Indeed, there appears to be a link between a given concerned about the welfare of pigs on farms (as was the species’ likeability and concern for its welfare amongst the case of the sample surveyed in this study) they may be public. Evidence suggests that attitudes towards animal use making purchases, which are not in keeping with their atti- vary among individuals, depending on the animal species 29, 44 tudes towards farm animal welfare. Increasing awareness of in question, with those animals that are more familiar ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 162 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... to, and generally more liked by, the public being more 0.05) and ‘I think intensive (standard, non-free range) pig ‘worthy’ of protection than others. farming is cruel’ (P, 0.01). However, the control students It is possible that consumers show greater levels of agreed with both of these statements significantly more concern for those production animals of which they are than the N/ND students despite better welfare being linked 31, 32, 47 more fond. This could in turn lead to a greater willingness to increased meat quality, and consumers typically to pay for higher welfare products produced from those associating more intensive production systems with a 5, 6, 48, 49 animals. It is interesting to note in this respect, that the reduction in meat safety. It is possible that N/ND Mann–Whitney U-tests comparing high PLI participants to students did not differ significantly from the control students low PLI participants differed in their significance depending because they were unaware of the interconnectedness of farm on whether the Likert statement asked about farm animals or animal welfare and issues of meat quality and safety. pigs specifically. As can be seen in Table 3, the three state- Alternatively, they may be fully aware that meat produced ments concerning farm animals differed significantly at the under circumstances, which promote better animal welfare 0.05 level, while those statements that concerned pigs dif- is often better in quality and safer for human consumption, fered at the 0.01 level, suggesting that PLI was specifically but may simply not value these qualities or be unwilling to linked to increased concern for pig welfare on farms, as pay the extra cost involved in producing meat under such opposed to all farm animals. systems. In any case, this study failed to find any evidence Studies show that stock people who express positive atti- that consumers interested in human health and nutrition tudes towards livestock are more likely to treat their value animal welfare on farms any more than a group of 45, 46 animals more humanely. This is similar to the findings control consumers. of the current study as those participants who associated the greatest number of positive attributes with pigs (high Conclusion PLI participants) reported the greatest level of concern for pig welfare on farms as well as a greater willingness This study found that higher PLIs, being enrolled on an to pay for higher welfare pork products. Concern for the AB/ABWcourse,higherlevelsofawarenessofporkpro- welfare of farm animals has been shown to be positively duction methods, and a previous visit to a conventional correlated with a greater willingness to pay to improve working pig farm in the past were all associated with a 7, 8 farm animal welfare in previous studies. Thus, more greater concern for farm animal welfare, pig welfare on positive attitudes towards pigs in consumers may lead to farms and an increased willingness to pay extra for more positive ‘treatment’ of pigs through purchasing higher welfare pork products in a sample of undergradu- choices. ate students. This study highlights potential areas of inter- est to groups working to secure higher welfare standards Programme of study for livestock in the UK. However, due to the nature of AB/ABW students reported significantly higher concern for the sample population used in this study, it is impossible farm animal welfare generally and pig welfare on farms, a to consider such results more than preliminary. If studies greater willingness to pay for higher welfare pork products, using more representative samples find similar results and significantly higher PLIs than did N/ND students or then this would indicate the need to test whether increas- control students, respectively. This is perhaps an unsurpris- ing awareness on these issues could lead to an increased ing finding, and is likely due to a number of factors. level of concern for pig welfare on farms, and an increased Firstly, AB/ABW students are likely more concerned with demand for higher welfare pork products. As such, future issues of animal welfare in general, regardless of the research could involve evaluating the effectiveness of cam- animal in question or use thereof. Also, AB/ABW students paigns at increasing concern for farm animal welfare and likely feel more positively towards animals in general. demand for higher welfare products through reducing Secondly, AB/ABW students were likely more aware of public ignorance regarding farm animals and their pork production methods and so may have been more con- welfare. cerned about pig welfare on farms due to a greater awareness of the issues surrounding pork production in the UK. Indeed, Acknowledgements 15 of the 19 students who were in the high awareness group were AB/ABW students, representing some 79% of all high I would like to thank Dr Lottie Hosie for her support, awareness students. encouragement and feedback. N/ND students did not differ significantly in their responses when compared with control students. Significant Author biography differences did exist between N/ND students and the control students on the statements ‘it is important that the Jacqueline Tawse graduated from the University of pork I eat comes from pigs that lived happy lives’ (P, Chester, where she gained a first-class BSc with honours ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 163 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21. Burgess D, Hutchinson WG, McCallion T, Scarpa R (2003) Investigating choice in Animal Behaviour and Welfare, in 2009. After finishing rationality in stated preference methods for enhanced farm animal welfare. her course, she moved home to Norway where she is cur- CSERGE Working Paper, ECM 03–02. rently working towards completing a 13 month apprentice- 22. Bennett R (1995) The value of farm animal welfare. J Agr Econ 46: ship at Fjellanger Dog Training Academy. Jacqueline has 46–60. volunteered at rescue centres both in the UK and abroad, 23. Mathews S, Herzog HA (1997) Personality and attitudes toward the treat- and hopes to find employment with an animal welfare ment of animals. Soc Anim 5: 169–175. charity in the future. 24. Austin EJ, Deary IJ, Edwards-Jones G, Arey D (2005) Attitudes to farm animal welfare: factor structure and personality correlates in farmers and agriculture students. J Indiv Differ 26: 107–120. References 25. Hubbard C, Bourlakis M, Garrod G (2007) Pig in the middle: farmers 1. Blokhuis HJ, Jones RB, Geers R, Miele M, Veissier I (2003) Measuring and and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. Br Food J 109: monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality 919–930. chain. Anim Welfare 12: 445–455. 26. McEachern MG, Schro¨ der MJA (2002) The role of livestock production 2. Fraser D (2003) Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the ethics in consumer values towards meat. J Agr Environ Ethics 15: interplay of science and values. Anim Welfare 12: 433–443. 221–237. 3. Sandøe P, Christiansen SB, Appleby MC (2003) Farm animal welfare: the 27. Eurobarometer (2005) Attitudes of Consumers towards the Welfare of Farmed interaction of ethical questions and animal welfare science. Anim Welfare Animals. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en. 12: 469–478. pdf (accessed 6 December 2008). 4. Winter M, Fry C, Carruthers SP (1998) European agricultural policy and farm 28. Eurogroup (2005) Demanding Change at the Checkout: Europeans are Ready animal welfare. Food Pol 23: 305–323. to Pay for Animal Welfare—is the Market Ready for Them?. http://www. 5. Blandford D, Fulponi L (1999) Emerging public concerns in agriculture: dom- uzzpro.sr.gov.yu/kzpeu/taiex_prezentacije/060901beograd/eurogroup_ estic policies and international trade commitments. Europ Rev Agr Econ 26: paper_annex.pdf (accessed 6 December 2008). 409–424. 29. Driscoll JW (1995) Attitudes toward animals: species ratings. Soc Anim 3: 6. Harper GC, Makatouni A (2002) Consumer perception of organic food pro- 139–150. duction and farm animal welfare. Br Food J 104: 287–299. 30. Stibbe A (2003) As charming as a pig: the discursive construction of the 7. Bennett RM (1996) People’s willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Anim relationship between pigs and humans. Soc Anim 11: 375–392. Welfare 5: 3–11. 31. Beattie VE, O’Connell NE, Moss BW (2000) Influence of environmental enrich- 8. Bennett RM (1997) Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Pol 22: ment on the behaviour, performance and meat quality of domestic pigs. 281–288. Livest Prod Sci 65: 71–79. 9. Bennett R (1998) Measuring public support for animal welfare legislation: a 32. Castellini C, Mugnai C, Dal Bosco A (2002) Effect of organic case study of cage egg production. Anim Welfare 7: 1–10. production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Sci 60: 10. Sandøe P, Simonsen HB (1992) Assessing animal welfare: where does 219–225. science end and philosophy begin? Anim Welfare 1: 257–267. 33. Oppenheim AN (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude 11. Stafleu FR, Grommers FJ, Vorstenbosch J (1996) Animal welfare: evolution Measurement. London: Continuum. and erosion of a moral concept. Anim Welfare 5: 225–234. 34. Bernard HR (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative 12. Bornett HLI, Guy JH, Cain PJ (2003) Impact of animal welfare on costs Approaches. London: SAGE. and viability of pig production in the UK. J Agr Environ Ethics 16: 35. Brace I (2004) Questionnaire Design: how to Plan, Structure, and 163–186. Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research, London: Kogan Page 13. Mayfield LE, Bennett RM, Tranter RB, Wooldridge MJ (2007) Consumption of Publishers. welfare-friendly food products in Great Britain, Italy and Sweden, and how it 36. Office of Public Sector Information (2007) The Welfare of Farmed Animals may be influenced by consumer attitudes to, and behaviour towards, animal (England) Regulations 2007. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/pdf/ welfare attributes. Int J Sociology Food Agr 15: 59–73. uksi_20072078_en.pdf (accessed 20 July 2008). 14. Moynagh J (2000) EU regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. 37. Sapsford R (2007) Survey Research, 2nd edn. London: SAGE. AgBioForum 3: 107–114. 38. Bennett R, Blaney R (2002) Social consensus, moral intensity and 15. Webster AJF (2001) Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free willingness to pay to address a farm animal welfare issue. J Econ Psychol market. Vet J 161: 229–237. 23: 501–520. 16. Schro¨ der MJA, McEachern MG (2004) Consumer value conflicts surrounding 39. Field AP (2005) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd edn. ethical food purchase decisions: a focus on animal welfare. Int J Cons Stud London: SAGE. 28: 168–177. 40. Parker PI (2004) Principles of measurement, research and statistics. 17. Arey D, Brooke P (2006) Animal Welfare Aspects of Good Agricultural Practice: In Leach RA ed, The Chiropractic Theories: a Textbook of Scientific Research Pig Production. Petersfield, UK: Compassion in World Farming Trust. 2004. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, pp. 57–80. 18. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2009) UK Shoppers— 41. deVaus D (2002) Surveys in Social Research, 5th edn. London: Routledge. Pig Ignorant? http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlblob& blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=RSPCABlob& 42. Beardsworth AD, Keil ET (1993) Contemporary vegetarianism in the U.K.: blobwhere=1227717130301&ssbinary=true (accessed 6 March 2009). challenge and incorporation? Appetite 20: 229–234. 19. Pettitt RG (2001) Traceability in the food animal industry and supermarket 43. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2009) Are UK chains. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz 20: 584–597. Shoppers Pig Ignorant? http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?articleId= 1227717127046&pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=NewsFeature 20. Burgess D, Hutchinson WG (2005) Do people value the welfare of farm animals? EuroChoices 4: 36–42. (accessed 7 March 2009). ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 164 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 3 † Number 2 † June 2010 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44. Serpell JA (2004) Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their 47. Wood JD, Enser M, Fisher AV, Nute GR, Richardson RI, Sheard PR (1999) welfare. Anim Welfare 13: s145–151. Manipulating meat quality and composition. P Nutr Soc 58: 363–370. 45. Coleman GJ, McGregor M, Hemsworth PH, Boyce J, Dowling S (2003) The 48. McEachern MG, Seaman C (2005) Consumer perceptions of meat pro- relationship between beliefs, attitudes and observed behaviours of abattoir duction. Br Food J 107: 572–593. personnel in the pig industry. Appl Anim Behav Sci 82: 189–200. 49. Verbeke WAJ, Viaene J (2000) Ethical challenges for livestock production: 46. Hemsworth PH (2003) Human-animal interactions in livestock production. meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. J Agr Appl Anim Behav Sci 81: 185–198. Environ Ethics 12: 141–151. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Journal

Bioscience HorizonsOxford University Press

Published: Jun 18, 2010

Keywords: farm animals farm animal welfare consumer attitudes pig production

There are no references for this article.