Public criticism of livestock husbandry is increasing, and better animal welfare is a main buying motive for organic animal products. The slaughter process is a crucial point for animal welfare impacts, but there are no specific regulations regarding slaughtering methods according to the European organic label. Research is missing on what (organic) consumers expect and what they demand from slaughter when considering organic meat. We examined these questions in a survey with 1,604 consumers in Germany. We identified three groups of participants based on their different views on the treatment of organic and non-organic animals at slaughter. The results show that especially organic consumers expect specific regulations for the slaughter of organic animals to be in place already, and they therewith perceive advantages for meat quality. However, the cluster analysis reveals one group (36.8%) that is for a different slaughtering of organic animals and simultaneously favors the equal treatment of all animals at slaughter. Consumers in this ambivalent cluster justify their meat consumption by buying organic meat more often, which might be a coping strategy with the moral dilemma of meat consumption (“meat paradox”). A second cluster (32.4%) rejects different slaughtering methods and is highly interested in animal welfare. These consumers seem to plead for general animal welfare improvements. A third cluster (30.8%) is not interested in the slaughter methods at all. The results show that specific regulations for the slaughter of organic animals might reduce the risk of losing consumer trust and open up further differentiation strategies.
Farm sizes play an important role in increasing public debates surrounding the sustainability of agriculture, specifically of animal farming. While research cannot find consistent relationships between sustainability and farm sizes, the ‘small-is-beautiful’-hypothesis remains still prominent in public perceptions. The aim of this study is to deeply analyze public associations coming with small and large farms with a focus on sustainability issues, including animal welfare. We additionally consider the memory of media reporting on farms with different sizes, wishes for legal regulations on farm and herd sizes, and the persuasiveness of scientific results that disentangle farm size from sustainability aspects. To answer these questions, an online survey with 985 German residents was conducted in May 2021 and descriptively analyzed. Although the attribute ‘small numbers of animals’ range among the less important ones that constitute an ‘ideal animal farm’ (rank 10 of 12 attributes), the large majority of participants (75.8%) reveal a preference for small over large animal farms. This is backed up by the perception that small farms are advantageous in terms of good animal welfare, environmental protection and product quality, but disadvantaged when it comes to profitability. Additionally, negative media reporting on animal farms (remembered by 92%) is more frequently related to large farms (82.5%) whereas positive media reporting (remembered by 81.4%) are mainly linked to small farms by 56.8%. More than half of respondents wish for regulations that limit farm and barn sizes. Scientific results finding no relationship between farm size and animal protection or climate protection are convincing for only 33.0% and 39.8% of the sample, respectively. A large farm size acts as a proxy for farming systems with low animal welfare and conservation levels. This challenges communications about the future of farming with the public as it can be assumed that farm sizes will further increase.
Over the last decade, there has been growing societal concern about the welfare of farmed animals. Although organic agriculture provides higher living standards, there are still critical points which can damage consumers’ trust in organic livestock farming. That is a risk, as especially organic farming relies on consumer trust. A hotspot analysis was conducted to identify critical points within the organic laying hen husbandry in Germany. This methodology aims to examine the sustainability of a product along its whole life cycle. Based on literature reviews, the life phases breeding, keeping, feeding, animal health, transport, and slaughter were assessed with ecological, social, and animal welfare criteria. Finally, the results were triangulated with various experts, and the critical points were classified in terms of their potential to diverge from consumers’ expectations. Our results show a high dependency of the organic sector on the conventional breeding process and its specialized breeds. This fact involves critical points which contradict the ideology of organic farming. The loopholes in the organic EU regulations in transport and slaughter were identified as additional threats to consumer trust in the organic system. The overall not better animal health compared to the conventional poultry system and the high numbers of poultry kept on some organic farms are also possible causes of disappointment in consumers’ vision of organic livestock farming. Therefore, we recommend an adjustment of some organic EU regulations regarding these points. Further, a linkage of the organic certification of a slaughterhouse to higher animal welfare standards during slaughter should be considered.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.