Barriers and levers of enhancing animal welfare in organic and low-input outdoor production: Insights from a supply chain survey

M. Väre, K. Lähtinen, K. Heinola, J. Mikkola, Tricia Parrott, Claire Bonnefous, L. Van Vooren, Saskia Kliphuis, A. Zuliani, R. Ponzio, L. Warin, S. Herremans, L. Baldinger, Monica Coletta, M. Re, C. Roguet, M. Spînu, Ninfa Rangel Pedersen, A. Collin, J. Niemi
{"title":"Barriers and levers of enhancing animal welfare in organic and low-input outdoor production: Insights from a supply chain survey","authors":"M. Väre, K. Lähtinen, K. Heinola, J. Mikkola, Tricia Parrott, Claire Bonnefous, L. Van Vooren, Saskia Kliphuis, A. Zuliani, R. Ponzio, L. Warin, S. Herremans, L. Baldinger, Monica Coletta, M. Re, C. Roguet, M. Spînu, Ninfa Rangel Pedersen, A. Collin, J. Niemi","doi":"10.33354/smst.115803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Animal welfare is an essential part of the sustainability of animal production. While low-input farming, such as organic animal production, is often considered animal-friendly, several ways to enhance animal welfare in low-input animal production exist. However, currently there is little information on how farmers and other supply chain actors view different innovations and tools which may influence animal welfare in low-input outdoor and organic production systems. The aim of this study was to examine farmers’ and experts’ reactions to new approaches to pig and poultry production, with special attention to their animal welfare-related measures. The reactions were tested formally in by using a quantitative survey instrument in nine European countries (Finland, UK, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Romania). In the survey, respondents’ views on production practices and novel measures were asked. These included aspects such as applicability and advantages and disadvantages of various measures such as avoiding mutilations, using dual-purpose or local breeds, or in-ovo sexing. The data included altogether 218 responses from nine countries. Differences between countries were tested and groups of respondents were identified. The results suggest that supply side stakeholders foresee the welfare benefits and some disadvantages of welfare improving measures proposed to them. However, they also indicate that several measures were considered inapplicable despite their benefits. Inadequate financial provisions to adopt a measure was considered as one of the most important reasons for inapplicability of a measure. This may imply either high costs of implementing measures of low market incentives or perceived low demand for animal-friendly products. Other barriers for adopting welfare-friendly measures included farm-specific factors such as limitations imposed by housing. The respondents indicated a high relative preference for feeding, breeding, shelter from predators and the use of vaccines and anti-parasitic treatments to the provision of enrichments and nesting material to pigs, and to mutilations. Farmers agreed that environmental enrichments are important welfare-improving levers and preferred their use in low-input pig and poultry production. Animal breeding-related measures in pig production were perceived quite favorably by supply side stakeholders. Despite their welfare benefits, farmers in some countries had quite high preference towards maintaining castration and tail docking in pig and beak trimming in broiler production as part of their production method.","PeriodicalId":127337,"journal":{"name":"Suomen Maataloustieteellisen Seuran Tiedote","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Suomen Maataloustieteellisen Seuran Tiedote","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33354/smst.115803","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Animal welfare is an essential part of the sustainability of animal production. While low-input farming, such as organic animal production, is often considered animal-friendly, several ways to enhance animal welfare in low-input animal production exist. However, currently there is little information on how farmers and other supply chain actors view different innovations and tools which may influence animal welfare in low-input outdoor and organic production systems. The aim of this study was to examine farmers’ and experts’ reactions to new approaches to pig and poultry production, with special attention to their animal welfare-related measures. The reactions were tested formally in by using a quantitative survey instrument in nine European countries (Finland, UK, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Romania). In the survey, respondents’ views on production practices and novel measures were asked. These included aspects such as applicability and advantages and disadvantages of various measures such as avoiding mutilations, using dual-purpose or local breeds, or in-ovo sexing. The data included altogether 218 responses from nine countries. Differences between countries were tested and groups of respondents were identified. The results suggest that supply side stakeholders foresee the welfare benefits and some disadvantages of welfare improving measures proposed to them. However, they also indicate that several measures were considered inapplicable despite their benefits. Inadequate financial provisions to adopt a measure was considered as one of the most important reasons for inapplicability of a measure. This may imply either high costs of implementing measures of low market incentives or perceived low demand for animal-friendly products. Other barriers for adopting welfare-friendly measures included farm-specific factors such as limitations imposed by housing. The respondents indicated a high relative preference for feeding, breeding, shelter from predators and the use of vaccines and anti-parasitic treatments to the provision of enrichments and nesting material to pigs, and to mutilations. Farmers agreed that environmental enrichments are important welfare-improving levers and preferred their use in low-input pig and poultry production. Animal breeding-related measures in pig production were perceived quite favorably by supply side stakeholders. Despite their welfare benefits, farmers in some countries had quite high preference towards maintaining castration and tail docking in pig and beak trimming in broiler production as part of their production method.
在有机和低投入户外生产中提高动物福利的障碍和杠杆:来自供应链调查的见解
动物福利是动物生产可持续性的重要组成部分。虽然低投入的农业,如有机动物生产,通常被认为是动物友好的,但在低投入的动物生产中存在几种提高动物福利的方法。然而,目前关于农民和其他供应链参与者如何看待可能影响低投入户外和有机生产系统中动物福利的不同创新和工具的信息很少。本研究的目的是考察农民和专家对猪和家禽生产新方法的反应,特别关注他们与动物福利有关的措施。这些反应在9个欧洲国家(芬兰、英国、法国、丹麦、荷兰、比利时、德国、意大利、罗马尼亚)通过定量调查仪器进行了正式测试。在调查中,受访者被问及对生产实践和新措施的看法。这些问题包括各种措施的适用性和优缺点,如避免致残、使用双重用途或当地品种、或在卵内进行性别鉴定。这些数据包括来自9个国家的218份回复。测试了国家之间的差异,并确定了答复者群体。研究结果表明,供给侧利益相关者能够预见福利的好处和福利改善措施的弊端。然而,它们也表明,有几项措施被认为是不适用的,尽管它们有好处。采取一项措施所需的资金不足被认为是不适用一项措施的最重要原因之一。这可能意味着实施低市场激励措施的成本高,或者对动物友好型产品的需求低。采取福利友好措施的其他障碍包括农场特有的因素,如住房所施加的限制。答复者表示,相对于向猪提供营养物和筑巢材料以及致残,他们更倾向于喂养、繁殖、躲避捕食者、使用疫苗和抗寄生虫治疗。农民一致认为,丰富环境是改善福利的重要手段,并倾向于将其用于低投入的生猪和家禽生产。在生猪生产中与动物育种有关的措施被供应方利益相关者认为是相当有利的。尽管有福利效益,但一些国家的农民仍然非常倾向于在肉鸡生产中保留去势和割尾,并将割喙作为其生产方法的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信