Moral Values and Attitudes Toward Dutch Sow Husbandry

Abstract

Attitudes toward sow husbandry differ between citizens and conventional pig farmers. Research showed that moral values could only predict the judgment of people in case of culling healthy animals in the course of a disease epidemic to a certain extent. Therefore, we hypothesized that attitudes of citizens and pig farmers cannot be predicted one-on-one by moral values. Furthermore, we were interested in getting insight in whether moral values can be useful in bridging the gap between attitudes toward sow husbandry of citizens and pig farmers. Based on a questionnaire, it was found that pig farmers and citizens, when considered as one group, shared the valuation of most moral values. However, when studying the four clusters of citizens with different attitudes toward sow husbandry, determined in a previous study, a variation in valuation of the moral values between the clusters of citizens and farmers came to the fore. This means that moral values are interpreted differently by groups of people when forming attitudes toward sow husbandry. The results of our study give an indication of which moral values are weighed differently between clusters of citizens and pig farmers. This information can be useful in future research on attitudes toward animal husbandry in order to understand why attitudes differ between groups of people. Besides, our results can Ethics (2015) 28:375-401 DOI 10.1007 be useful for the pig sector and citizens to learn to understand each other's attitudes. With this understanding it is possible to invest in a husbandry system that can build on societal support.

Attitudes of different stakeholders toward pig husbandry: a study to determine conflicting and matching attitudes toward animals, humans and the environment

“…In the process of learning to empathize in citizens' perspectives, pig veterinarians may be helpful for conventional pig farmers because they share perspectives with both citizens and conventional pig farmers. To predict citizens' responses to animal welfare measures it is important to take into account that there are four different clusters of Dutch citizens that differ in attitudes toward pig husbandry (Anonymous 2016;Bergstra et al 2015). These clusters of citizens can respond differently to measures introduced in pig husbandry.…”

Public concerns about dairy-cow welfare: how should the industry respond?

“…In contrast to the public, farmers tend to express less concern over animal welfare (Vanhonacker et al 2008), and to rate different dimensions of animal welfare differently from the lay public (Te Velde et al 2002;Lassen et al 2006;Vanhonacker et al 2008;Bergstra et al 2015). The public's perspective of good welfare includes that animals live a reasonably natural life (Lassen et al 2006;Prickett et al 2010;Verbeke et al 2010;Cardoso et al 2016; see review by Clark et al 2016).…”

The Trade-Off Between Chicken Welfare and Public Health Risks in Poultry Husbandry: Significance of Moral Convictions

“…1) is based on an analysis of existing frameworks regarding dilemmas in animal and food production, and an analysis of the debate related to chicken welfare and public health risks (e.g. Bergstra et al 2015;Bruijnis et al 2015;Cohen et al 2009;Gremmen et al 2018;Jensen et al 2011;Mepham 2000;Michalopoulos et al 2008). Because our study focuses on the dilemma of choosing a system that improves chicken welfare or reduces public health risks related to poultry farming, only convictions directly relevant for this dilemma The Trade-Off Between Chicken Welfare and Public Health Risks… were considered.…”

“…Other researchers have elaborated further on these frameworks and adapted them in order to study moral convictions and arguments regarding humans and animals in a specific context, such as livestock husbandry or food production (e.g. Bergstra et al 2015;Bruijnis et al 2015;Cohen et al 2009;Gremmen et al 2018;Jensen et al 2011;Mepham 2000;Michalopoulos et al 2008). These frameworks, however, are not specific to the dilemmas of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks and do not cover the debates on these dilemmas.…”