Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:16:49.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: results from a telephone survey of US households

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

RW Prickett ,
F Bailey Norwood  and
JL Lusk
RW Prickett
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, 426 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
F Bailey Norwood*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, 426 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
JL Lusk
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, 426 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
*
* 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.

As animal industry and animal advocacy groups debate how farm animals should be treated, little research has focused on the attitudes of consumers in the United States. This study utilises results of a representative telephone survey to measure consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare, and investigates how these attitudes vary across individuals. The survey finds that consumers desire high standards of animal care, even if it raises food prices and involves government regulation. Support is particularly strong from females, Democrats, and residents of the Northeastern United States. To provide high standards of animal care, consumers as a whole perceive allowing animals to exhibit natural behaviours and exercise outdoors to be more important than protection from other animals, shelter, socialisation, and comfortable bedding. Consumers vary in their perceptions though, and are divided into three classes: Naturalists, Price Seekers, and Basic Welfarists. Naturalists place great importance on allowing animals to exhibit natural behaviours and exercise outdoors, and comprise 46% of the sample. Price Seekers, comprising 14% of the sample, are primarily concerned with low prices. Basic Welfarists make up 40% of the respondents, and value animal welfare but perceive it can be achieved by simply providing food, water, and treatment for injury and disease. This last group perceives amenities, such as access to outdoors and ability to exhibit natural behaviours, unimportant for the well-being of farm animals.

Keywords

animal welfareconsumer attitudesconsumer preferencesfactory farmingfarm animalfood preferences
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , August 2010 , pp. 335 - 347
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, MC, Mench, JA and Hughes, BO 2004 Poultry Behavior and Welfare. CABI Publishing: Cambridge, MA, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arunachalam, B, Henneberry, SR, Lusk, JL and Norwood, FB 2009 An empirical investigation into the excessive-choice effect. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91: 810–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, D 2008 Consumers’ Strange Views of Farmers’ Role. Delta Farm Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Bennett, RM, Anderson, J and Blaney, RJP 2002 Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Food Integrity 2008 Consumer Trust in the Food System. Center for Food Integrity: Kansas City, MO, USAGoogle Scholar
Davis, HP, Smith, WH, Dickinson, S, Coffey, WC and Nisonger, HW 1928 Livestock Enterprises. JB Lippincott Company: Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M and Hardie, S 1989 Space needs of laying hens. British Poultry Science 30: 413–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurobarometer 2005 Attitudes of Consumers Towards the Welfare of Farmed Animals. European Commission: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council 1979 Press Statement. FAWC: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Frewer, LJ, Kole, A, Van De Kroon, SMA 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
Gigerenzer, G 2007 Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. Penguin Books: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Greene, WH 2002 Limdep New York. Econometric Software Inc: Plainview, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Harper, GC and Makatouni, A 2002 Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal 104: 287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutner, MJ, Neter, J and Nachtsheim, C 2004 Applied Linear Regression Models, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill Higher Education: Columbus, OH, USAGoogle Scholar
Lugo, M 2008 Population Densities Vary Over Nine Orders of Magnitude. God Plays Dice. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. http://godplaysdiceblogspotcom/2008/07/population-densitiesvary-over-ninehtmlGoogle Scholar
Market Directions 2004 Consumer Attitudes About Animal Welfare: 2004 National Public Opinion Survey. Boston, MA, USA. http://wwwanimalagallianceorg/images/ag_insert/2004_Pub_Op_PRpptGoogle Scholar
Meyers-Levy, J 1989 Gender differences in information processing: a selectivity interpretation. In: Cafferate, P and Tybout, AM (eds) Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising pp 219–260. Lexington Books: Lexington MA, USAGoogle Scholar
Oishi, S, Schimmack, U, Diener, E and Suh, E 1998 The measurement of values and individualism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24: 1177–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PETA 2007 Yearly Financial Reports. PETA: Washington DC, USA. http://wwwpetaorg/about/numbersaspGoogle Scholar
Rauch, A and Sharp, JS 2005 Ohioans’ Attitudes About Animal Welfare Social Responsibility Initiative. Department of Human and Community Resource Development. The Ohio State University: Ohio, USAGoogle Scholar
Sarasohn, J 2006 Merger Adds to Humane Society's Bite pp A25, September 7. Washington Post: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Task Force Report 2005 A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 227: 1580–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Train, K 2003 Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Census Bureau 2008 The Census Bureau. Washington DC, USA. www.censusgovGoogle Scholar
Wiepkema, PR and Koolhaas, JM 1993 Stress and animal welfare. Animal Welfare 2: 195–218Google Scholar
Wilson, M 2008 Natural, humane labels studied. Feedstuffs 80: 4Google Scholar