Environmental enrichment in pig husbandry – Citizens’ ratings of pictures showing housing elements using an online-survey

Schütz, Aurelia; Busch, Gesa; Sonntag, Winnie Isabel

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104218

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the discounter Aldi offered meat ranging from €0.25 to €3.29 per 100 g in 2019 (Bissinger and Teuber, 2020). Moreover, Schütz et al. (2020) found that consumers tend to underestimate the costs of improved husbandry and mostly do not anticipate any challenges in the implementation of animal welfare measures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Willingness to pay for a multi-level animal husbandry label: an analysis of German meat consumers

Kühl,

Schütz,

Busch

2024

BFJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe use of multi-level labels can enhance product visibility by enabling labeling of various items. Moreover, it can better accommodate the diversity on both the producer and consumer sides. However, studies on the willingness to pay (WTP) for premium levels of those animal welfare labels are scarce.Design/methodology/approachWe investigate consumers’ WTP for a four-level animal husbandry label introduced to the market by German retailers in 2019 by conducting an online survey with 1,223 German meat consumers using Van Westendorp’s price sensitivity meter (PSM).FindingsThere is a significant increase in WTP for level 3 of the husbandry label, but only a slight increase for level 4. One explanation is that consumers may have the mistaken belief that level 3 already includes outdoor access for animals. As a result of this expectation, consumers may not perceive much added value in level 4, which is reflected in their reluctance to pay a higher price. This is reinforced by the finding that once informed of the criteria, 18% of the participants reduced their WTP for level 3, whereas only 6% considered a discount for level 4. Furthermore, 40% were prepared to pay more for level 4 after being informed of the respective criteria than they had previously stated.Originality/valueTo the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze and emphasize the importance of clear label communication, particularly for multi-level animal husbandry labels.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Willingness to pay for a multi-level animal husbandry label: an analysis of German meat consumers

Kühl,

Schütz,

Busch

2024

BFJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings underline citizens' preferences for the most near-nature and animal-friendly housing conditions. Schu ¨tz et al [40] also demonstrated that citizens correctly recognize at least general differences in the enrichment level (i.e. housing conditions) and therewith the benefit to animal welfare of various housing systems [7,41].…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Systematically analysing the acceptability of pig farming systems with different animal welfare levels when considering intra-sustainability trade-offs: Are citizens willing to compromise?

Schütz

Busch²,

Sonntag³

2023

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, intensive pig husbandry has been subject to increasing public criticism, including a clear demand for more animal-friendly housing systems in many countries. However, such systems are associated with trade-offs at the expense of other sustainability domains, which challenges implementation and makes prioritization necessary. Overall, research is scarce that systematically analyses citizens’ evaluation of different pig housing systems and associated trade-offs. Given the ongoing transformation process of future livestock systems that meet social demands, it is crucial to include public attitudes. We therefore assessed how citizens evaluate different pig housing systems and whether they are willing to compromise animal welfare in trade-off situations. We conducted an online survey with 1,038 German citizens using quota and split sampling in a picture-based survey design. Participants were asked to evaluate several housing systems with different animal welfare levels and associated trade-offs based on an either positive (‘free-range’ in split 1) or negative (‘indoor housing with fully slatted floors’ in split 2) reference system. Initial acceptability was highest for the ‘free-range’ system, followed by ‘indoor housing with straw bedding and outdoor access’, ‘indoor housing with straw bedding’, and ‘indoor housing with fully slatted floors’, with only the latter being clearly not acceptable for many. Overall acceptability was higher with a positive rather than a negative reference system. When confronted with several trade-off situations, participants became uncertain and temporarily adjusted their evaluations. Thereby participants were most likely to trade off housing conditions against animal or human health rather than against climate protection or a lower product price. Nevertheless, a final evaluation demonstrated that participants did not fundamentally change their initial attitudes. Our findings provide evidence that citizens’ desire for good housing conditions is relatively stable, but they are willing to compromise at the expense of animal welfare up to a moderate level.

show abstract

“…A survey conducted in Germany indicated that the public prefers natural environmental enrichments [21]. Sometimes the most effective enrichments are not natural.…”

Section: Use Enrichments That Animals Will Usementioning

confidence: 99%

A Practical Approach to Providing Environmental Enrichment to Pigs and Broiler Chickens Housed in Intensive Systems

Grandin

2023

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Europe, regulations contain guidance to maintain high standards of animal welfare. In many parts of the world, large buyers for supermarkets or restaurants are the main enforcers of basic animal welfare standards. They can have considerable influence on improving standards on large commercial farms. Research clearly shows that straw is one of the most effective environmental enrichment for pigs. On some large farms, there are concerns that straw will either clog waste management systems or bring in disease. This paper contains a review of both scientific research and practical experience with enrichment devices that are easy to implement. Pigs prefer enrichment objects that they can chew up and deform. Broiler chickens prefer to climb up on objects, hide under them or peck them. It is always essential to uphold basic welfare standards such as animal cleanliness and low levels of lameness (difficulty walking). It is also important to reduce lesions, and maintain body conditions of breeding animals. An environment enrichment device is never a substitute for poorly managed facilities. It should enhance animal welfare on well-managed farms.

show abstract

Environmental enrichment in pig husbandry – Citizens’ ratings of pictures showing housing elements using an online-survey

Cited by 12 publications

References 32 publications

Willingness to pay for a multi-level animal husbandry label: an analysis of German meat consumers

Willingness to pay for a multi-level animal husbandry label: an analysis of German meat consumers

Systematically analysing the acceptability of pig farming systems with different animal welfare levels when considering intra-sustainability trade-offs: Are citizens willing to compromise?

A Practical Approach to Providing Environmental Enrichment to Pigs and Broiler Chickens Housed in Intensive Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About