Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T11:04:14.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Willingness of Dutch broiler and pig farmers to convert to production systems with improved welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

É Gocsik ,
IA van der Lans ,
AGJM Oude Lansink  and
HW Saatkamp
É Gocsik*
Affiliation:
Business Economics Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands
IA van der Lans
Affiliation:
Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands
AGJM Oude Lansink
Affiliation:
Business Economics Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands
HW Saatkamp
Affiliation:
Business Economics Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Eva.Gocsik@wur.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The present study investigated 15 broiler and 13 fattening pig farmers’ willingness-to-convert to alternative production systems with higher animal welfare standards compared to conventional production systems in The Netherlands, and explored the main barriers to the adoption of these alternative systems. Alternative production systems were categorised, according to whether farmers were required to make reversible or irreversible changes to the current farm. Two out of the four pig systems in the study were considered as reversible, whereas the other two as irreversible. One out of the four broiler systems presented was considered as reversible, whereas the other three as irreversible. Results show that to convert to a system requiring irreversible changes 83 and 85% (figures for each of the two irreversible systems) of the surveyed fattening pig farmers required a 30% or higher increase in their family income, while to convert to a system requiring reversible changes 8 and 23% of the pig farmers required a similar level of increase. Also, for each of the three irreversible systems, 62, 64 and 87% of the surveyed broiler farmers required a 30% or higher increase in their family income to a system requiring irreversible changes, while to convert to a system requiring reversible changes, 20% of the broiler farmers required a similar level of increase. Thirty-eight and 62% of the fattening pig farmers and 40% of the broiler farmers were willing to convert to the specific systems that allowed reversible changes if they knew they could earn the same income as they did in their current system. This study highlights a number of reasons for farmers’ reluctance to switch to alternative systems: perceived uncertainty about price premiums, lack of space on the farm, scarcity of land nearby the farm, risk of disease spread, the existing farm set-up, prohibition of tail docking, allowing for castration, and views that proposed alternatives were ‘farmer-unfriendly’ or impractical.

Keywords

animal welfarebarriers to adoptionbroiler productioncontingent valuationfarmers’ decision-makingpig production
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 2015 , pp. 211 - 222
Copyright
© 2015 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bennett, R and Larson, D 1996 Contingent valuation of the per-ceived benefits of farm animal welfare legislation: An exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics 47: 224–235. http://dx.d oi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1996.tb00686.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, RM 1997 Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy 22: 281–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(97)00019-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Buck, AJ, Van Rijn, I, Röling, NG and Wossink, GAA 2001 Farmers’ reasons for changing or not changing to more sus-tainable practices: an exploratory study of arable farming in the Netherlands. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 7:153-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13892240108438817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Lauwere, C, van Asseldonk, M, van't Riet, J, de Hoop, J and ten Pierick, E 2012 Understanding farmers’ decisions with regard to animal welfare: The case of changing to group housing for pregnant sows. Livestock Science 143:151–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellen, H, Leenstra, F, van Emous, R, Groenestein, K, van Harn, J, van Horne, P, De Jong, I, Kense, M, Mevius, D and Wagenaar, JA 2012 Vleeskuikenproductiesystemen in Nederland, Rapport 619. Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Lelystad, the Netherlands. [Title translation: Broiler production systems in the Netherlands]Google Scholar
Fisher, RJ 1993 Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research 20: 303–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gocsik É 2014 Animal welfare decisions in Dutch poultry and pig farms. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/479996Google Scholar
Gocsik, É, Oude Lansink, AGJM and Saatkamp, HW 2013 Mid-term financial impact of animal welfare improvements in Dutch broiler production. Poultry Science 92: 3314–3329. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03221CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gocsik, É, Saatkamp, HW, de Lauwere, CC and Lansink, AGJM 2014 A conceptual approach for a quantitative economic analysis of farmers’ decision-making regarding animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27: 287–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9464-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, R and Gregg, D 2011 Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effective-ness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy 28: 257–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, D and Hubbard, C 2013 The supply chain's role in improving animal welfare. Animals 3: 767–785. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani3030767CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Immink, VM, Reinders, MJ, van Tulder, RJM and van Trijp, HCM 2013 The livestock sector and its stakeholders in the search to meet the animal welfare requirements of society. Journal on Chain and Network Science 13: 151–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/JCNS2013.1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehlbacher, A, Bennett, R and Balcombe, K 2012 Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy 37: 627–633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, G and Elbers, ARW 2006 Outdoor ranging of poultry: a major risk factor for the introduction and development of High-Pathogenicity Avian Influenza. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54: 179–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(06)80021-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, JA and Gallet, CA 2001 What experimental protocol influ-ence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 241–254. http://dx.do i.org/10.1023/A:1012791822804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEI 2014 Afgelopen vijf jaar significant minder varkens gecastreerd. The Hague, The Netherlands. LEI, WUR Livestock Research and Varkens Innovatie Centrum Sterksel. http://www.wageningenur.nl/nl/Expertises-Dienstverlening/Onderzoeksinstituten/lei/show/Afgelopen-vijf-jaar-signifi-cant-minder-varkens-gecastreerd.htmGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, RC and Carson, RT 1988 Evaluating the validity of contingent valuation studies. In: Peterson, G, Driver, BL and Gregory, R (eds) Amenity Resource Valuation: Integrating Economics With Other Disciplines. Venture Publishing: State College, PN, USAGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, RC and Carson, RT 1989 Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
Oude Lansink, AGJM, van den Berg, M and Huirne, R 2003 Analysis of strategic planning of Dutch pig farmers using a multi-variate probit model. Agricultural Systems 78: 73–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(03)00034-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romano, D 1999 Genetic resource valuation methodologies, their strength and weaknesses in application: The contingent val-uation method. Proceedings of FAO/ILRI Workshop pp 47–63. 15-17 March 1999, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, PA 1954 The pure theory of public expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics 36: 387–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1925895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoolder, H, Bokma, M, Harvey, D, Keeling, L, Majewsky, E, de Roest, K and Schmid, O 2011 EconWelfare findings, conclusions and recommendations concerning effective policy instruments in the route towards higher animal welfare in the EU. http://www.econ-welfare.eu/publications/EconWelfareD0.5_Findings_conclusions_and_recommendations.pdfGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Struelens, E, van Gansbeke, S and Ampe, B 2008 Factors influencing farmers’ responses to welfare legislation: A case study of gestation sow housing in Flanders (Belgium). Livestock Science 116: 289–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2007.10.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F and Verbeke, W 2014 Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food products: challenges and oppor-tunities. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27: 153–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9479-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Huik, MM and Bock, BB 2007 Attitudes of Dutch pig farm-ers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal 109: 879–890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witte, RS and Witte, JS 2010 Statistics, Ninth Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc: NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Gocsik et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 23 KB