Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T00:36:29.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How can economists help to improve animal welfare?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

T Christensen ,
A Lawrence ,
M Lund ,
A Stott  and
P SandØe
T Christensen*
Affiliation:
Institute of Food and Resource Economics, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
A Lawrence
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
M Lund
Affiliation:
Institute of Food and Resource Economics, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
A Stott
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
P SandØe
Affiliation:
Institute of Food and Resource Economics, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
*
* 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.

To-date, the dominant approach to improving farm animal welfare has consisted of a combination of voluntary improvements undertaken by farmers and the tightening of legal requirements. However, history suggests that there is a limit to the improvements capable of being secured by this approach. In this paper, it is argued that economic principles can and should have an important role when new, market-driven and other approaches are set up to improve farm animal welfare. The paper focuses on two ways in which economic principles can improve analyses of animal welfare. The first is by helping to define priorities as to which aspects of animal welfare should be promoted. Here, economic approaches can be used to capture and synthesise the perspectives of all the stakeholders, including the animals, in a transparent and systematic way. The second way is by helping to ensure that incentives are set up in the right way. Where the benefits and costs of improving animal welfare are initially distributed unevenly across stakeholders so that a socially desirable situation will not develop automatically, or be implemented, suitable economic principles may help to create incentives which correct this situation. Thus, if society is to achieve its goal of improving animal welfare, scholars from different disciplines should collaborate in identifying animal needs, assessing stakeholder preferences, making priorities transparent and providing incentives that make solutions realistically attainable.

Keywords

animal welfareeconomicsincentivesprioritiesstakeholderstransparency
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Making animal improvements: Economic and other incentives and constraints’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , May 2012 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ahmadi, BV, Stott, AW, Baxter, EM, Lawrence, AB and Edwards, SA 2011 Animal welfare and economic optimisation of farrowing systems. Animal Welfare 20: 57–67Google Scholar
Barnes, AP, Rutherford, KMD, Langford, FM and Haskell, MJ 2011 The effect of lameness prevalence on technical efficiency at the dairy farm level: An adjusted data envelopment analysis approach. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 5449–5457. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4262CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumol, WJ and Oates, WE 1993 The Theory of Environmental Policy, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle 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
Bohringer, C and Jochem, PEP 2007 Measuring the immeasurable: a survey of sustainability indices. Ecological Economics 63: 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F, Frykblom, P and Lagerkvist, CJ 2007 Farm animal welfare — testing for market failure. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39: 61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T, Denver, S, Jensen, JD, Rosenquist, H, Wingstrand, A, Aabo, S and Ifversen, B 2009a Consumptions patterns and consumer risks – an overview of the Danish markets for pork, chicken, and eggs and the consumer risk associated with Salmonella and Campylobacter. Report 202, Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www.foi.life.ku.dk/Publikationer/FOI_serier/~/media/Foi/do cs/Publikationer/Rapporter/Nummererede%20rapporter/2009/Ra p_09_202.ashx. (Accessed 26 Jan 2012)Google Scholar
Christensen, T, Jensen, JD, Hansen, HO and SandØe, P 2009b Hvordan kan ⊘konomer bidrage til forståelsen af dyrevelfærd? Landbrugets ⊘konomi 2009 pp 87–109. Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. [Title translation: How can economists contribute to the conception of animal welfare?]. http://www.foi.life.ku.dk/Publikationer/FOI_serier/~/media/Foi/docs/Publikationer/Rapporter/Landbrugets_Okonomi/2009.pdf.ashx. (Accessed 27 Jan 2012)Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities 2009 Options for animal welfare labelling and the establishment of a European Network of Reference Centres for the protection and welfare of animals. COM (2009) 584 final. Commission of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/options_animal_welfare_labelling_report_en.pdf. (Accessed 26 Jan 2012)Google Scholar
Dansk Svineproduktion 2007 Fakta om lovpligtige sygestier. http://arkiv.dansksvineproduktion.dk/index.aspx?id=3167f77c-ba35-41e3-85f8-686ff2eded09. (Accessed 27 Jan 2012). [Title translation: Facts about compulsory sick pens]Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1983 Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, Burfoot, A, Docking, CM, Whittaker, X, Spoolder, HAM and Edwards, SA 2002 The effects of prior experience of straw and the level of straw provision on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, JEL, van de Weerd, HA, Edwards, SA 2008 The effect of varying lengths of straw bedding on the behaviour of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109: 249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denver, S and Christensen, T 2011 Hvordan opfatter forbrugeren ⊘kologi? In: Tveit, G and SandØe, P (eds) ⊘kologiske fØdevarer: hvor bevæger forbrugerne sig hen? pp 49–61. Center for Bioetik og Risikovurdering: Frederiksberg, Denmark. [Title translation: How does the consumer perceive organics? Organic food: what are the consumer trends?]Google Scholar
Eurobarometer 2007 Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf. (Accessed 26 Jan 2012)Google Scholar
Fearing, J and Matheny, G 2007 The role of economics in achieving welfare gains for animals. In: Salem, DJ and Rowan, AN (eds) The State of the Animals IV pp 159–173. Humane Society Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2008 Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graversen, JT, Lund, M and Gylling, M 2008 Arbejdsgruppen vedrØrende skuldersår hos sØer: ⊘konomiske beregninger for arbejdsgruppen. Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. [Title translation: Economic calculations for the working group on shoulder wounds on sows]Google Scholar
Grethe, H 2007 High animal welfare standards in the EU and international trade: How to prevent potential ‘low animal welfare havens?’ Food Policy 32: 315–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, JH, Cain, P, Baxter, EM, Seddon, Y and Edwards, SA 2012 Economic evaluation of high welfare indoor farrowing systems for pigs. Animal Welfare 21(S1): 19–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, AL, Hobbs, JE, Isaac, GE and Kerr, WA 2002 Ethics, domestic food policy and trade law: assessing the EU animal welfare proposal to the WTO. Food Policy 27: 437–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(02)00048-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, MB, Pedersen, LJ and Ladewig, J 2004 The use of demand functions to assess behavioural priorities in farm animals. Animal Welfare 3: 27–32Google Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, J 2006a Should Animal Welfare Count? Working papers in Economics 197. Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University, Sweden. http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/2725/1/gunwpe0197update.pdf. (Accessed 26 Jan 2012)Google Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, J 2006b Cost Benefit Rules when Nature Counts. Working papers in Economics 198. Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law. Göteborg University, Sweden. http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bit-stream/2077/2724/1/gunwpe0198update.pdf. (Accessed 26 Jan 2012)Google Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O and Svedsäter, H 2011 Self-Image and Valuation of Moral Goods: Stated versus Real Willingness to Pay. Working Papers in Economics 484. Göteborg University, Department of Economics, Sweden. http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0484.html. (Accessed 27 Jan 2012)Google Scholar
Justitsministeriet 2009 Arbejdsgrupperapport om hold af malkekvæg. http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Pressemeddelelser2008/Rapport_om_hold_af_malkekvaeg_all.pdf. (Accessed 27 Jan 2012). [Title translation: Report from a working group on the keeping of dairy cows]Google Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ, Carlsson, F and Viske, D 2006 Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: a choice experiment. AgBioForum 9: 51–58Google Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ and Hess, S 2011 A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38: 55–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A and Stott, A 2009 Profiting from animal welfare: an animal-based perspective. The Oxford Farming Conference 2009. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/lawrence %2009.pdf. (Accessed 27 Jan 2012)Google Scholar
Lawrence, A and Stott, A 2011 Economics & animal welfare: can combining these ‘dismal’ sciences help improve animals’ lives? Fourth Boehringer Ingelheim Expert Forum on Farm Animal Well-Being pp 63–67. 27 May 2011, Seville, Spain. http://www.farmanimalwellbeing.eu/files/article_16.pdf. (Accessed 27 Jan 2012)Google Scholar
Liljenstolpe, C 2008 Consumer valuation studies and structural modelling of the pig industry: a focus on animal welfare. Doctoral Thesis, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Lund, M, Christensen, J and Lawson, LG 2009 ⊘konomiske konsekvenser af nye krav til husdyrvelfærd i kvægbruget. Tidsskrift for LandØkonomi 195: 137–145. [Title translation: Economic consequences of new welfare requirements in cattle farming]Google Scholar
Lund, M, Otto, L and Jacobsen, B 2010 ⊘konomiske analyser for Justitsministeriets arbejdsgruppe for hold af svin. FOI Udredning 2010/19. Commissioned work of the Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. [Title translation: Economic analyses for the pig-keeping working group of the Danish Ministry of Justice]. http://www.foi.life.ku.dk/Publikationer/FOI_serier/~/media/Foi/docs/Publickationer/Udredninger/2010/FOI_udredning_2010_19.ashx. (Accessed 27 Jan 2012)Google Scholar
Mann, S 2005 On institutionalizing animal welfare. In: Riley, AP (ed) New Developments in Food Policy, Control and Research pp 133–147. Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Matheny, G and Leahy, C 2007 Farm-animal welfare, legislation, and trade. Law and Contemporary Problems 70: 325–358Google Scholar
McInerney, J 2004 Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy. Report on a study undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra. Defra: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Moran, D and McVittie, A 2008 Estimation of the value the public places on regulations to improve broiler welfare. Animal Welfare 17: 43–52Google Scholar
Musgrave, RA 1957 A multiple theory of budget determination. FinanzArchiv New Series 25: 33–43Google Scholar
Norwood, FB and Lusk, JL 2011 Compassion by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohl, F and van der Staay, FJ 2012 Animal welfare: at the interface between science and society. Veterinary Journal 192: 13–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.05.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pedersen, LJ, Holm, L, Jensen, MB and JØrgensen, E 2005 The strength of pigs’ preferences for different rooting materials measured using concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 94: 31–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.11.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayment, M, Asthana, P, van de Weerd, H, Gittins, J, Talling, J and Jarvis, A 2010 Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Policy Options for the Future: Final Report. GHK Consulting in association with ADAS UK. Food Policy Evaluation Consortium: London, UK. http://www.eupaw.eu/docs/Final%20Report%20-%20EUPAW%20Evaluation.pdf. (Accessed 26 Jan 2012)Google Scholar
Reig-Martinez, E, Gomez-Limon, JA and Picazo-Tadeo, AJ 2011 Ranking farms with a composite indicator of sustainability. Agricultural Economics 42: 561–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, B and Sheldon, I 2007 Credence good labeling: the efficiency and distributional implications of several policy approaches. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89: 1020–1033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01024.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, PA 1948 Economics. McGraw-Hill: New York, USA.Google Scholar
SandØe, P and Jensen, KK 2011 The idea of animal welfare: developments and tensions. ICVAE, First International Conference on Veterinary and Animal Ethics pp 11–17. ICVAE: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telezhenko, E, Lidfors, L and Bergsten, C 2007 Dairy cow preferences for soft or hard flooring when standing or walking. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 3716–3724. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-876CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tonsor, GT and Wolf, CA 2011 On mandatory labeling of animal welfare attributes. Food Policy 36: 430–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Jensen, KK, Botreau, R and SandØe, P 2011 Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare 20: 89–101Google Scholar