Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T08:53:11.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer attitudes to injurious pecking in free-range egg production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

RM Bennett ,
PJ Jones ,
CJ Nicol ,
RB Tranter  and
CA Weeks
RM Bennett
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 237, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
PJ Jones
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 237, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
CJ Nicol
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
RB Tranter*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 237, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
CA Weeks
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
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.

Free-range egg producers face continuing problems from injurious pecking (IP) which has financial consequences for farmers and poor welfare implications for birds. Beak-trimming has been practised for many years to limit the damage caused by IP, but with the UK Government giving notification that they intend to ban beak-trimming in 2016, considerable efforts have been made to devise feasible housing, range and management strategies to reduce IP. A recent research project investigated the efficacy of a range of IP-reducing management strategies, the mean costs of which came to around 5 pence per bird. Here, the results of the above project's consumer survey are presented: consumers’ attitudes to free-range egg production are detailed showing that, whilst consumers had a very positive attitude towards free-range eggs, they were especially uninformed about some aspects of free-range egg production. The contingent valuation technique was used to estimate the price premium consumers would be prepared to pay to ensure that hens do not suffer from IP: this was calculated as just over 3% on top of the prevailing retail price of free-range eggs. These findings reinforce other studies that have found that whilst consumers are not generally well-informed about certain specific welfare problems faced by animals under free-range conditions, they are prepared to pay to improve animal welfare. Indeed, the study findings suggest that producers could obtain an additional price premium if they demonstrate the welfare provenance of their eggs, perhaps through marketing the eggs as coming from birds with intact beaks. This welfare provenance issue could usefully be assured to consumers by the introduction of a mandatory, single, accredited EU-wide welfare-standards labelling scheme.

Keywords

animal welfareconsumer attitudesfree-range layersinjurious peckingmanagement strategieswillingness to pay
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , February 2016 , pp. 91 - 100
Copyright
© 2016 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bennett, R, Kehlbacher, A and Balcombe, K 2012 A method for the economic valuation of animal welfare benefits using a single welfare score. Animal Welfare 21: 125–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905674006CrossRefGoogle 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
Bennett, RM and Blaney, RJP 2003 Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method. Agricultural Economics 29: 85–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2003.tb00149.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, RM and Larson, D 1996 Contingent valuation of the perceived benefits of farm animal welfare legislation: an exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics 47: 224–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1996.tb00686.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, H, Cepero, R, Colin, P, Elson, A, Fiks Van Niekerk, T, Keeling, L, Michel, V, Nicol, CJ, Oester, H and Tauson, R 2005 Welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens. EFSA Journal 197: 1–23Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, van Niekerk, TF, Bessei, W, Elson, A, Guemene, D, Kjaer, JB, Levrino, GAM, Nicol, CJ, Tauson, R, Weeks, CA and De Weerd, HAV 2007 The LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 63: 101–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933907001328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, D and Hutchinson, WG 2005 Do people value the welfare of farm animals? EuroChoices 4: 36–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2005.00016.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, TA 1988 A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15: 355–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(88)90008-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F, Frykblom, P and Lagerkvist, CJ 2005 Consumer pref-erences for food product quality attributes from Swedish agriculture. Ambio 34: 366–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.366CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, JV and Lee, HY 1990 Beak trimming and genetic stock effects on behaviour and mortality from cannibalism in white leghorn-type pullets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 107–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(90)90074-NCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damme, K 1999 Effect of beak-trimming and strain on perform-ance, feather loss and nesting behaviour of different commercial white layer hybrids in floor pens. Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde 63: 93–99Google Scholar
Defra 2014 United Kingdom Egg Statistics - Quarter 4, 2013. 6 February 2014. Defra: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Dennis, RL, Fahey, AG and Cheng, HW 2009 Infrared beak treatment method compared with conventional hot-blade trim-ming in laying hens. Poultry Science 88: 38–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, PA, Hausman, JA, Leonard, GK and Denning, MA 1993 Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence. In: Hausman, JA (ed) Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment pp 41–99. North Holland Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-81469-2.50008-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC 2007 Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed ani-mals. Wave 2. Special Eurobarometer. http://ec.europa.eu/food/ani-mal/welfare/survey/sp_barometer_fa_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
El-Lethey, H, Aerni, V, Jungi, TW and Wechsler, B 2000 Stress and feather pecking in laying hens in relation to housing conditions. British Poultry Science 41: 22–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660086358CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eurobarometer 2005 Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer 229. European Commission: LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
Eurobarometer 2007 Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal wel-fare. Special Eurobarometer 270. European Commission: LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2006 Report on Welfare Labelling. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fossum, O, Jansson, DS, Etterlin, PE and Vagsholm, I 2009 Causes of mortality in laying hens in different housing systems in 2001 to 2004. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 51: 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-51-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentle, MJ, Waddington, D, Hunter, LN and Jones, RB 1990 Behavioural evidence for persistent pain following partial beak amputation in chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 149–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(90)90014-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, LE, Lewis, K, Kimpton, A and Nicol, CJ 2000 Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alter-native systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147: 233–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.147.9.233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, S, Keeling, LJ and Svedberg, J 1999 Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibal-ism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40: 12–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669987773CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halstead, JM, Luloff, AE and Stevens, TH 1992 Protest bid-ders in contingent valuation. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21: 160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, M, Loomis, J and Kanninen, B 1991 Statistical effi-ciency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 1255–1263. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1242453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HM Government 2010 The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures)(England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010. SI 2010/3034. TSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B 1999 A survey of layer-type pullet rearing in Switzerland. World's Poultry Science Journal 55: 83–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS19990007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B and Sebo, F 2001 The prevalence of feather pecking and development in commercial flocks of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 223–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016S0168-1591(01)00173-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BO 1973 The effect of implanted hormones on feather pecking and cannibalism in pullets. British Poultry Science 14: 341–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071667308416038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, BO and Duncan, IJ 1972 The influence of strain and environmental factors upon feather pecking and cannibalism in fowls. British Poultry Science 13: 525–547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071667208415981CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, BO and Gentle, MJ 1995 Beak trimming in poultry, its implications for welfare. World's Poultry Science Journal 51: 51–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS19950005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Grocery Distribution 2011 Shopper attitudes to animal welfare. A report for Freedom Food by IGD. http://www.free-domfoodpublishing.co.uk/fairerlife/downloads/Shopper_Attitudes _Welfare_Report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Jorgensen, B, Syme, G, Bishop, B and Nancarrow, B 1999 Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 14(1): 131–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008372522243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplowitz, MD, Hadlock, TD and Levine, R 2004 A compari-son of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly 68(1): 94–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, LJ and Jensen, P 1995 Do feather pecking and cannibal-istic hens have different personalities? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)92350-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambton, SL, Knowles, TG, Yorke, C and Nicol, CJ 2010 The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and severe feath-er pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123: 32–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2009.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambton, SL, Nicol, CJ, Friel, M, Main, DCJ, McKinstry, JL, Sherwin, CM, Walton, J and Weeks, CA 2013 A bespoke management package can reduce levels of injurious pecking in loose-housed laying hen flocks. Veterinary Record 172: 423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.101067CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Louviere, JL, Hensher, DA and Swait, JD 2000 Stated Choice Methods. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, JL and Shogren, JF 2007 Experimental Auctions. Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/C BO9780511611261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, PV and Wright, JD 2010 Handbook of Survey Research, Second Edition. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd: Bingley, UKGoogle Scholar
Mayfield, LE, Bennett, RM, Tranter, RB and Wooldridge, MJ 2007 Consumption of welfare-friendly food products in Great Britain, Italy and Sweden, and how it may be influenced by consumer attitudes to, and behaviour towards, animal welfare attributes. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15: 59–73Google Scholar
McKeegan, DEF and Savory, CJ 1999 Behavioural and hormonal changes associated with sexual maturity in layer pullets. British Poultry Science 39: S6–S7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669888034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, RC and Carson, RT 1989 Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Bestman, M, Gilani, A-M, de Haas, EN, de Jong, IC, Lambton, S, Wagenaar, JP, Weeks, CA and Rodenburg, TB 2013 The prevention and control of feather pecking: application to commercial systems. World's Poultry Science Journal 69: 775–788. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Gregory, NG, Knowles, TG, Parkman, ID and Wilkins, LJ 1999 Differential effects of increased stocking densi-ty, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 137–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00057-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nix, J 2013 Farm Management Pocketbook, 44th Edition 2014. Agro Business Consultants Ltd: Melton Mowbray, UKGoogle Scholar
Norgaard-Nielsen, G, Vestergaard, K and Simonsen, HB 1993 Effects of rearing experience and stimulus enrichment on feather damage in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38:345–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(93)90032-KCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norwood, FB and Lusk, JL 2008 A calibrated auction-conjoint val-uation method: valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions. Working Paper. Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, USAGoogle Scholar
Office of National Statistics 2013 UK Population Census 2011. TSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Peguri, A and Coon, C 1993 Effect of feather coverage and tem-perature on layer performance. Poultry Science 72: 1318–1329. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0721318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pötzsch, CJ, Lewis, K, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2001 A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of vent pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with feather pecking, man-agement and disease. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 259–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00167-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, FAM, de Reu, K, Herman, L, Zoons, J and Sonck, B 2008 Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: an on-farm comparison. Animal Welfare 17: 363–373Google Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, van Krimpen, MM, de Jong, IC, de Haas, EN, Kops, MS, Riedstra, BJ, Nordquist, RE, Wagenaar, JP, Bestman, M and Nicol, CJ 2013 The prevention and control of feather pecking in laying hens: identifying the underlying principles. World's Poultry Science Journal 69: 361–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, DB 1987 Multiple Imputation for Non-Response in Surveys. J Wiley & Sons: New York, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, JL 1997 Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. Chapman & Hall: London, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781439821862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, D and Shiu, E 2002 An assessment of ethical obligation and self-identity in ethical consumer decision-making: a structural equation modelling approach. International Journal of Consumer Studies 26: 286–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1470-6431.2002.00255.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, CM, Richards, GJ and Nicol, CJ 2010 Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science 51: 488–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/000716 68.2010.502518CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staack, M, Gruber, B, Keppler, C, Zaludik, K, Niebuhr, K and Knierim, U 2007 Importance of the rearing period for laying hens in alternative systems. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 114: 86–90Google ScholarPubMed
Tauson, R and Svensson, SA 1980 Influence of plumage con-dition on the hens feed requirement. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 35–39Google Scholar
Tranter, RB, Bennett, RM, Costa, L, Cowan, C, Holt, GC, Jones, PJ, Miele, M, Sottomayor, M and Vestergaard, J 2009 Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for organic conversion-grade food: evidence from five EU countries. Food Policy 34: 287–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, CA, Brown, SN, Richards, GJ, Wilkins, LJ and Knowles, TG 2012 Levels of mortality in hens by end of lay on farm and in transit to slaughter in Great Britain. Veterinary Record 170: 647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.100728CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yiridoe, EK, Bonti-Ankomah, S and Martin, RC 2005 Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: a review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20:193–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/RAF2005113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bennett et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 131.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bennett et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 167.2 KB