Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:45:21.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public attitudes to the welfare of broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C Hall  and
V Sandilands
C Hall*
Affiliation:
Land Economy Research, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, Scotland, UK
V Sandilands
Affiliation:
Avian Science Research Centre, SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, Scotland, 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.

This paper reports results from two workshops held in York, England that investigated public attitudes towards the welfare of broiler chickens. At the outset the majority of participants admitted that they knew little about how broiler chickens are reared and were shocked at some of the facts presented to them. Cognitive mapping and aspects of Q methodology were used to reveal the range of variables that participants believed affected chicken welfare, the causal relationships between those variables, and what variables were considered most and least important. While some participants focused on the importance of meeting basic needs such as access to food, water, light and ventilation, others highlighted the role of welfare regulations and public opinion. Factor analysis of the results from a ranking exercise identified two factor groups, ‘Factor one; the bigger picture’ and ‘Factor two; basic animal needs’. The findings demonstrate that some members of the public are both interested in learning about how their food is produced and concerned about the conditions faced by broiler chickens. Some are able to see clear links between public opinion and the welfare of farm animals; an important connection if consumer behaviour is to contribute towards improving animal welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarebroiler chickenscognitive mappingEnglandpublic attitudesQ methodology
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , November 2007 , pp. 499 - 512
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Barry, J and Proops, J 1999 Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 28: 337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M, Donnelly, C and Jones, T 2004 Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature 427: 342–344Google ScholarPubMed
European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General 2000 The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers). Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, European Commission: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2001 Submission to the policy commission on the future of food and farming, farm animal welfare and the future of livestock farming. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UK. http://www.fawc.org.uk/letters/curry1.htmGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2006 Report on welfare labelling. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Frewer, LJ, Kole, A, Van de Kroon, S and de Lauwere, C 2005 Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 345–367Google Scholar
Harper, G and Henson, S 2001 Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice. Final Report EU Fair CT98-3678, Centre for Food Economics Research: University of Reading, UKGoogle Scholar
Köhler, F 1999 Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice. The nature of consumer concerns about animal welfare. The German Focus Groups Report EU FAIR-CT98-3678, Kiel University, GermanyGoogle Scholar
McEachern, MG and Schröder, MJA 2002 The role of livestock production ethics in consumer values towards meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15(2): 221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McVittie, A, Moran, D, Sandilands, V and Sparks, N 2005 Estimating non-market benefits of reduced stocking density and other welfare increasing measures for meat chickens in England. Final Report. 10 November 2005 Project no. AW0236. Defra, London, UK. http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/meatchks/pdf/no_n-marketbenefits.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mintel 1999 The Green and Ethical Consumer. Mintel International Group Limited: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, L 2001 Impact of consumer demand for animal welfare on global trade. Changing structure of global food consumption and trade/WR5-01-1. Economic Research Service, USDA: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Moynagh, J 2000 EU regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. Agbioforum 3: 107–114Google Scholar
Özesmi, U and Özesmi, S 2004 A participatory approach to ecosystem conservation: Fuzzy cognitive maps and stakeholder group analysis in Uluabat Lake, Turkey. Environmental Management 31: 518–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, KS and Kim, SH 1995 Fuzzy cognitive maps considering time relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 42: 157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peláez, CE and Bowles, JB 1996 Using fuzzy cognitive maps as a system model for failure modes and effects analysis. Information Sciences 88: 177–199Google Scholar
Schmolck, P 2002 PQMethod 2.11. Leibniz Computing Centre, Munich, Germany. http://www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/~p41_bsmk/qmethod/Google Scholar
Sørensen, P, Su, G and Kestin, S 2000 Effects of age and stocking density on leg weakness in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 79: 864–870CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stach, W, Kurgan, L, Pedrycz, W and Reformat, M 2005 Genetic learning of fuzzy cognitive maps. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 153: 371–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swedeen, P 2006 Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA. Ecological Economics 57(2): 190–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, G 1997 Images of success: How Illinois farmers define the successful farmer. Rural Sociology 62(1): 48–68Google Scholar