Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T03:01:58.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Engagement through online discussion: perceptions of laying hen welfare in furnished cages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2019

V. I. Rohlf ,
T. J. Howell ,
G. Coleman  and
J.-L. Rault Open the ORCID record for J.-L. Rault [Opens in a new window]
V. I. Rohlf
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC3010, Australia
T. J. Howell
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC3010, Australia
G. Coleman
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC3010, Australia
J.-L. Rault*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC3010, Australia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Furnished cage housing for laying hens has been introduced in some countries as a ‘welfare-friendly’ alternative to conventional cage systems. Whether this housing system would be acceptable to the public remains unknown. This pilot study aimed to engage the public through online discussions in order to investigate their knowledge, support and perception of laying hen welfare housed in furnished cages. During these discussions, a science-based information statement about furnished cages was introduced. Through a mixed method approach, surveys to assess beliefs and knowledge were administered to participants before and after the online discussion. We qualitatively analysed the online discussion transcripts to determine recurrent themes, and quantitatively measured levels of knowledge and support for furnished cages using pre- and post-forum surveys. Support for the introduction increased from 55% pre-forum to 65% post-forum. Additionally, the participants’ perceived welfare of laying hens in furnished cages and objective knowledge of furnished cages significantly increased after online discussion. These results suggest that engagement with the public combined with the delivery of science-based information may be important factors when considering whether to introduce new farming practices. Trust in industry through transparency and willingness to engage in discussions with the public might also mitigate public concerns.

Keywords

publicattitudeschatchickenforum
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 9 , September 2019 , pp. 1999 - 2006
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna A-1210, Austria

References

Appleby, MC, Walker, AW, Nicol, CJ, Lindberg, AC, Freire, R, Hughes, BO and Elson, HA 2002. Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43, 489–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Australian Egg Corporation Limited 2012. Project equilibrium: Qualitative research to determine consumer perceptions of free-range stocking densities. Retrieved on 13 July 2017 from https://www.aecl.org/dmsdocument/463.Google Scholar
Australian Egg Corporation Limited 2015. Australian egg industry overview – December 2015. Retrieved on 14 February 2017 from https://www.aecl.org/dmsdocument/489.Google Scholar
Bergman, M 2008. Advances in mixed methods research theories and applications. SAGE, London, United Kingdom.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, GJ 2010. Educating the public: information or persuasion. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 37, 74–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, GJ, Rohlf, VI, Toukhsati, S and Blache, D 2015. Public attitudes relevant to livestock animal welfare policy. Farm Policy Journal 9, 45–57.Google Scholar
Cooper, JJ and Appleby, MC 2003. The value of environmental resources to domestic hens: A comparison of the work-rate for food and for nests as a function of time. Animal Welfare 12, 39–52.Google Scholar
Duijvesteijn, N, Benard, M, Reimert, I and Camerlink, I 2014. Same pig, different conclusions: Stakeholders differ in qualitative behaviour assessment. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27, 1019–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, KA, Billington, K, McNeil, B and McKeegan, DEF 2009. Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cow welfare. Animal Welfare 18, 267–282.Google Scholar
Elo, S and Kyngäs, H 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eurobarometer 2007. Attitudes of EU Citizens towards Animal Welfare. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
European Commission 1999. Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, in 1999/74/EC. Retrieved 12 July 2017 from https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare/practice/farm/laying_hens_en.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2015. Scientific Opinion on welfare aspects of the use of perches for laying hens. Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. European Food Safety Authority Journal 13, 4131.Google Scholar
Heng, Y, Peterson, HH and Li, X 2013. Consumer attitudes toward farm-animal welfare: the case of laying hens. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 38, 418–434.Google Scholar
Hötzel, MJ, Cardoso, CS, Roslindo, A and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2017. Citizens’ views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: does providing information increase acceptability? Journal of Dairy Science 100, 4150–4160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howell, TJ, Rohlf, VI, Coleman, GC and Rault, J 2016. Online chats to assess stakeholder perceptions of meat chicken intensification and welfare. Animals 6, 67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! - conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lay, DC, Fulton, RM, Hester, PY, Karcher, DM, Kjaer, JB, Mench, JA, Mullens, BA, Newberry, RC, Nicol, CJ, O’Sullivan, NP and Porter, RE 2011. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science 90, 278–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKendree, MGS, Croney, CC and Widmar, NJO 2014. Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 92, 3161–3173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mench, JA, Sumner, DA and Rosen-Molina, JT 2011. Sustainability of egg production in the United States—The policy and market context. Poultry Science 90, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miele, M, Veissier, I, Evans, A and Botreau, R 2011. Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20, 103–117.Google Scholar
Östlund, U, Kidd, L, Wengström, Y and Rowa-Dewar, N 2011. Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 48, 369–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rault, J-L 2013. Strategic review of key topics for hen welfare. Retrieved on 12 July 2017 from https://www.aecl.org/assets/RD-files/Outputs-2/D-Hen-Welfare-Literature-Review.pdf.Google 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, 363–373.Google Scholar
Ryan, EB, Fraser, D and Weary, DM 2015. Public attitudes to housing systems for pregnant pigs. PLoS ONE 10, e0141878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, SJ, Kerwin, J, Frechtling, J and Vivari, BA 2002. Characteristics of the discussion in online and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review 20, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S 1956. Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, New York, NY, United States of America.Google Scholar
Spooner, J, Schuppli, C and Fraser, D 2014. Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: a qualitative study. Livestock Science 163, 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tactacan, GB, Guenter, W, Lewis, NJ, Rodriguez-Lecompte, JC and House, JD 2009. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 88, 698–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, F, Sonck, B, Staes, M, Van Gansbeke, S, Van den Bogaert, T and Ampe, B 2011. Survey of egg producers on the introduction of alternative housing systems for laying hens in Flanders, Belgium. Poultry Science 90, 941–950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waiblinger, S, Baumgartner, J, Kiley-Worthington, M and Niebuhr, K 2006. Applied Ethology: Improved animal welfare in organic farming. In Animal health and welfare in organic agriculture (ed. M Vaarst, V Lund, S Roderick and W Lockeretz), pp. 117–162. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Weary, DM, Ventura, BA and Von Keyserlingk, MAG 2016. Societal views and animal welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories. Animal 10, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Rohlf et al. supplementary material

Rohlf et al. supplementary material 1

Download Rohlf et al. supplementary material(File)
File 24.4 KB