Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:34:49.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protecting farm animal welfare during intensification: Farmer perceptions of economic and regulatory pressures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

M Molnár  and
D Fraser
M Molnár*
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, 1051 Budapest Nádor Utca 9, Hungary
D Fraser
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, 2357 Main Mall, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
*
* Contact for correspondence: [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.

Pig (Sus scrofa) production in Hungary provides a case study in how external pressures influence animal production, animal welfare and intensification. External pressures were explored in 24 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with Hungarian pig farmers operating either confinement or alternative systems. Confinement producers reported intense economic pressure because of a power imbalance with the large meat-processing companies that buy their animals. These companies, in the view of the farmers, can source internationally and largely dictate prices. When prices paid by the companies fall below the cost of production, farmers cannot respond by reducing production because of the long time-lags between breeding and marketing; and with their large investment in confinement buildings that are difficult to modify, farmers see little option except to reduce production costs further. Alternative farmers reported being more resilient to economic pressures because they sell into niche markets, use inexpensive technologies, and typically produce a diversity of agricultural products which buffer periods of low profit in any one commodity. The current regulatory system was seen as inadequate to protect animal welfare from economic pressure because it focuses on certain inputs rather than welfare outcomes, does not cover some important determinants of animal welfare, and does not accommodate certain realities of farming. Current subsidies were also seen as an inadequate remedy, and were viewed as inequitable because they are difficult for alternative producers to access. Consumer-choice options, while used by alternative producers, are not available in mainstream markets which demand uniform ‘commodity’ production. The economic constraints that influence animal welfare might be better mitigated by a regulatory system developed with greater consultation with producers, a more equitable subsidy programme, and more developed consumer-choice programmes.

Keywords

animal welfareeconomicsintensificationpigsregulationsubsidies
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 133 - 141
Copyright
© 2020 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anderson, JL 2011 Protection for the powerless: political econ-omy history lessons for the animal welfare movement. Stanford Journal of Animal Law & Policy 4: 1–63Google Scholar
Arksey, H and Knight, P 1999 Interviewing for Social Scientists. Sage Publications Ltd: London, UK. https://doi.org10.4135/9781849209335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010 The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 60: 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2010.523480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, BB and van Huik, MM 2007 Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109:931–944. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1991 Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175. https://doi.org 10.2527/1991.69104167xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charmaz, K 2006 Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publications Ltd: London, UK. https://doi.org/10.2307/2235561Google Scholar
Creswell, JW 2003 Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, USAGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2016 Attitudes of Europeans towards ani-mal welfare. Special Eurobarometer 442. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium. https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publi-copinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/71348Google Scholar
European Commission 2019a Meat Market Observatory – Pig. European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development G3. Animal Products. 25/09/2019. https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/farming/facts-and-fig-ures/markets/overviews/market-observatories/meat/pigmeat-statisticsGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2019b Pigmeat market situation. CMO Committee 19 September 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheriesfarming/documents/pig-market-situation_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
EUROSTAT 2019 Number of pig farms, Average herd size, Hungary: 2001 to 2013. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/agriculture/data/databaseGoogle Scholar
Falk, A and Szech, N 2013a Morals and markets. Science 340:707–711. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231566CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falk, A and Szech, N 2013b Organizations, diffused pivotality and immoral outcomes. DIW Berlin Discussion Paper No 1305. http://dw.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.224393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO 2018 Livestock Primary, Meat, pig, Producing Animals Slaughtered. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QLGoogle Scholar
Foray, D 1997 The dynamic implications of increasing returns: technological change and path dependent inefficiency. International Journal of Industrial Organization 15: 733–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(97)00009-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2005 Animal welfare and the intensification of animal pro-duction: an alternative interpretation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/3/a0158e/a0158e00.htmGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2008 Animal welfare and the intensification of animal production. In: Thomson, PB (ed) The Ethics of Intensification pp 167–189. Springer Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8722-6_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2014 Could animal production become a profession? Livestock Science 169: 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2014.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, BG and Strauss, AL 1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transaction: London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014Google Scholar
Glass, CA, Hutchinson, WG and Beattie, VE 2005 Measuring the value to the public of pig welfare improvements: a contingent valuation approach. Animal Welfare 14: 61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruen, L 2011 Ethics and Animals: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guest, G, Bunce, A and Johnson, L 2006 How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18: 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R 1964 Animal Machines. Vincent Stuart Publishers Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, MK and James, HS 2005 The ethics of con-strained choice: how the industrialization of agriculture impacts farming and farmer behaviour. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 269–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-0631-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jick, TD 1979 Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: trian-gulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 602–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Központi Statisztikai Hivatal 2018 Statisztikai Tükör: állatál-lomány, 2018. június 1. https://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idosza-ki/allat/allat1806.pdf. [Title translation: Statistical mirror: Livestock data, 1 June 2018]Google Scholar
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2006 Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangalicatenyésztők Országos Egyesülete 2017 Mangalicatenyésztők Országos Egyesülete: bemutatkozás http://www.moe.org.hu/hu/egyesulet/bemutatkozas/. [Title trans-lation: Hungarian National Association of Mangalica Breeders: Introduction]Google Scholar
Marquer, P, Rabade, T and Forti, R 2014 Pig farming in the European Union: considerable variations form one Member State to another. Eurostat Statistics in Focus 15/2014, Agriculture Fisheries. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistics-in-focus/-/KS-SF-14-015Google Scholar
Miele, M and Bock, B 2007 Competing discourses of farm ani-mal welfare and agri-food restructuring. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15: 1–7Google Scholar
Miele, M, Murdoch, J and Roe, E 2005 Animals and ambivalence: governing farm animal welfare in the European food sector. In: Higgins, V and Lawrence, G (eds) Agricultural Governance: Globalization and the New Politics of Regulation pp 169–185. Routledge Advances in Sociology: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Miles, MB, Huberman, AM and Saldaña, J 2014 Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Sage Publications Inc: Thousand Oaks, USAGoogle Scholar
Perkins, R 2003 Technological ‘lock-in’. Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics. International Society for Ecological Economics. http://isecoeco.org/pdf/techlkin.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sandel, JM 2013 Market reasoning as moral reasoning: why econ-omists should re-engage with political philosophy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 27: 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.4.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serpell, JA 1999 Sheep in wolves’ clothing? Attitudes to animals among farmers and scientists. In: Dolins, FL (ed) Attitudes to Animals: Views in Animal Welfare pp 26–36. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511608476.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spooner, JM, Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D 2014 Attitudes of Canadian pig producers toward animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27: 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9477-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stibbe, A 2005 Counter-discourses and the relationship between humans and other animals. Anthrozoös 18: 3–17. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279305785594289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, AL and Corbin, J 1990 Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications Inc: California, USAGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Powell, E 1998 Sampling. Program Development and Evaluation, G3658-3. University of Wisconsin-Extension: Wisconsin, USA. https://learningstore.uwex.edu/Assets/pdfs/G3658-03.pdfGoogle Scholar
Te Velde, H, 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: 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015012403331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, PB 2001 Animal welfare and livestock production in a post-industrial milieu. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4:191–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0403_03CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008 Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116: 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernooij, A 2015 The EU pork industry: competitive power is key! Rabobank Food & Agribusiness Research and Advisory. Rabobank Industry Note #509, September 2015. https://research.rabobank.com/far/en/sectors/animal-protein/eu-pork-competitive-power-is-key.htmlGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 2005 The assessment and implementation of ani-mal welfare: theory into practice. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties 24: 723–734. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.24.2.1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, RK 2009 Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications Inc: Thousand Oaks, USAGoogle Scholar
Yin, RK 2016 Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. The Guilford Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar