Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-8gtf8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-27T17:15:10.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving animal welfare: qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers’ attitudes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

T Kauppinen ,
A Vainio ,
A Valros ,
H Rita  and
KM Vesala
T Kauppinen*
Affiliation:
Ruralia Institute, University of Helsinki, Lönnrotinkatu 7, 50100 Mikkeli, Finland
A Vainio
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, PO Box 62, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
A Valros
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, PO Box 66, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
H Rita
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, PO Box 62, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
KM Vesala
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, PO Box 54, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: tiina.kauppinen@helsinki.fi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The welfare of production animals provokes wide social discussion among the public, yet, despite this, farmers’ voices and their representations of animal welfare are rarely heard, even though farmers are the ones actually able to improve animal welfare. Farmers’ perceptions of what constitutes animal welfare and how it may be improved can differ from those of consumers and other stakeholders, and therefore it is crucial to understand what farmers mean when they talk about improving animal welfare. To chart farmers’ perceptions, we conducted qualitative interviews and a questionnaire study using the theory of planned behaviour as a conceptual framework. We found that the farmers perceived the improvement of animal welfare as four specific, practical attitude objects (providing animals with a favourable environment; taking care of animal health; treating the animals humanely; and taking care of the farmer's own well-being) and two different but often overlapping general attitudinal dimensions (the instrumental and intrinsic evaluations of animal welfare). The farmers’ intentions to improve animal welfare were best explained by their attitudes towards the specific welfare-improving actions. The concept of the improvement of animal welfare examined in this study outlines measures to improve animal welfare from the farmers’ point of view and discusses their influence. Our study demonstrates that by adapting a valid conceptual framework and applying relevant qualitative and quantitative methods that support each other, we are able to elucidate the underlying meanings and values in farmers’ views on improving animal welfare.

Keywords

animal welfareattitudefarmerproduction animalqualitative attitude approachtheory of planned behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , November 2010 , pp. 523 - 536
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, LY, Seligman, MEP and Teasdale, JD 1978 Learned helplessness in humans. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 87: 49–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ajzen, I 1991 The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I 2002 Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32: 665–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I and Fishbein, M 1980 Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall Inc: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Alasuutari, P 1995 Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies. SAGE Publications Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Asch, SE 1940 Studies in the principles of judgments and attitudes: II. Determination of judgments by group and by ego-standards. Journal of Social Psychology 12: 433–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augoustinos, M and Walker, I 1995 Social Cognition. An Integrated Introduction. SAGE Publications Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Austin, E, Deary, I, Edwards-Jones, G and Arey, D 2005 Attitudes to farm animal welfare. Factor structure and personality correlates in farmers and agriculture students. Journal for Individual Differences 26: 107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertenshaw, C and Rowlinson, P 2009 Exploring stock managers’ perceptions of the human-animal relationship on dairy farms and an association with milk production. Anthrozoös 22: 59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, M 1996 Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Bock, BB and van Huik, MM 2007 Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109: 931–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Lensink, J, Tallet, C and Veissier, I 2003 Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 479–492Google Scholar
Borgen, SO and Skarstad, GA 2007 Norwegian pig farmers’ motivations for improving animal welfare. British Food Journal 109: 891–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambell, FWR 1965 Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems, Command Report 2836. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Brannen, J 2005 Mixing methods: the entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8: 173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruckmeier, K and Prutzer, M 2007 Swedish pig producers and their perspectives on animal welfare: a case study. British Food Journal 109: 906–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GJ, McGregor, M, Hemsworth, PH, Boyce, J and Dowling, S 2003 The relationship between beliefs, attitudes and observed behaviours of abattoir personnel in the pig industry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82: 189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drews, C 2002 Attitudes, knowledge and wild animals as pets in Costa Rica. Anthrozoös 15: 119–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, RH and Olson, MA 2003 Attitudes: foundations, functions, and consequences. In: Hogg, MA and Cooper, J (eds) The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fishbein, M and Ajzen, I 1975 Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc: Reading, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
Frewer, LJ, Kole, A, de Kroon, SMAV and de Lauwere, C 2005 Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 345–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, D, Sneddon, IA and Beattie, VE 2009 The relationship between the stockperson's personality and attitudes and the productivity of dairy cows. Animal 3: 737–743CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heleski, CR and Zanella, AJ 2006 Animal science student attitudes to farm animal welfare. Anthrozoös 19: 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heleski, CR, Mertig, AG and Zanella, AJ 2005 Results of a national survey of US veterinary college faculty regarding attitudes toward farm animal welfare. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 226: 1538–1546CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemsworth, PH 2003 Human-animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 185–198Google Scholar
Hubbard, C, Bourlakis, M and Garrod, G 2007 Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109: 919–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kling-Eveillard, F, Dockès, A and Souquet, C 2007 Attitudes of French pig farmers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal 109: 859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, TR and Brown, JK 1995 Ten measurement commandments that often should be broken. Research in Nursing & Health 18: 465–469CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lassen, J, Sand⊘e, P and Forkman, B 2006 Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, J, Boissy, A and Veissier, I 2000 The relationship between farmers’ attitude and behaviour towards calves, and productivity of veal units. Annals of Zootechnology 49: 313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, V, Hemlin, S and White, J 2004 Natural behavior, animal rights, or making money. A study of Swedish organic farmers’ view of animal issues. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17: 157–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manstead, ASR and Parker, D 1995 Evaluating and extending the theory of planned behaviour. European Review of Social Psychology 6: 69–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, TW 1981 Cognitive functions in the affective disorders. Comprehensive Psychiatry 22: 572–586CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menghi, A 2007 Italian pig producers’ attitude toward animal welfare. British Food Journal 109: 870–878Google Scholar
Millman, ST 2009 Animal welfare — scientific approaches to the issues. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12: 88–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mouttotou, N, Hatchell, FM and Green, LE 1998 Adventitious bursitis of the hock in finishing pigs: prevalence, distribution and association with floor type and foot lesions. Veterinary Record 142: 109–114Google ScholarPubMed
Nousiainen, M, Pylkkänen, P, Saunders, F, Seppänen, L and Vesala, KM 2009 Are alternative food systems socially sustainable? A case study from Finland. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33: 566–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porcher, J, Cousson-Gélie, F and Dantzer, R 2004 Affective components of the human-animal relationship in animal husbandry: development and validation of a questionnaire. Psychological Reports 95: 275–290CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rantanen, T and Vesala, KM 1999 Soveltuuko asenteen käsite myös laadulliseen tutkimukseen? Psykologia. Tiedepoliittinen Aikakauslehti 34: 343–348. [Title translation: Is the concept of attitude also suited for qualitative research?]Google Scholar
Rushen, J, Haley, D and de Passille, AM 2007 Effect of softer flooring in tie stalls on resting behavior and leg injuries of lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3647–3651CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rushen, J, Taylor, AA and de Passillé, AM 1999 Domestic animals’ fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabuncuoglu, N and Coban, O 2008 Attitudes of Turkish veterinarians towards animal welfare. Animal Welfare 17: 27–33Google Scholar
Serpell, JA 2004 Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare 13: 145–151Google Scholar
Sieber, SD 1973 The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. The American Journal of Sociology 78: 1335–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Huik, MM and Bock, BB 2007 Attitudes of Dutch pig farmers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal 109: 879–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velde, HT, Aarts, N and van Woerkum, C 2002 Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 203–219Google Scholar
Vesala, KM 2004 Yrittäjyys ja uhkakuvat. EU maanviljelijöiden asenteissa In: Nirkko, J and Vesala, KM (eds) Kirjoituksia maan sydämeltä. Tutkimusnäkökulmia maanviljelijöiden kilpakeruuaineistoon pp 163–200. Finnish Literature Society: Helsinki, Finland. [Title translation: Entrepreneurship and the images of threat. EU in the attitudes of farmers: Writings from the Heart of the Earth. Research Perspectives to Farmers’ Narratives]Google Scholar
Vesala, KM and Rantanen, T 1999 Pelkkä puhe ei riitä. Maanviljelijän yrittäjäidentiteetin rakentumisen sosiaalipsykologisia ehtoja. Helsinki University Press: Helsinki, Finland. [Title translation: Mere talking is not enough. Socio-psychological preconditions for the construction of the farmer's entrepreneur identity]Google Scholar
Vesala, KM and Rantanen, T 2007 Laadullinen asennetutkimus: Lähtökohtia, periaatteita, mahdollisuuksia. In: Vesala, KM and Rantanen, T (eds) Argumentaatio ja tulkinta. Laadullisen asennetutkimuksen lähestymistapa pp 11–61. Gaudeamus Helsinki University Press: Helsinki, Finland. [Title translation: Qualitative attitude approach: starting points, guidelines and prospects. In: Argumentation and interpretation. The qualitative attitude approach]Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2002 The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 195–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetherell, MS, Stiven, H and Potter, J 1987 Unequal egalitarianism: a preliminary study of discourses concerning gender and employment opportunities. British Journal of Social Psychology 26: 59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar