American citizens’ views of an ideal pig farm

Animals

Volumn 7, Issue 8, 2017, Pages

  Sato, Patrycia ^a   Hötzel, Maria J ^b   Von Keyserlingk, Marina A G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Animal welfare; Attitude; Business operation; Consumer; Ethics; Naturalness

Indexed keywords

EID: 85028747896     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20762615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ani7080064     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Mench, J.A.; James, H.; Pajor, E.A.; Thompson, P.B. The Welfare of Animals in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations; Pew Commission: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
2. Fraser, D. Animal welfare and the intensification of animal production. In Ethics of Intensification: Agricultural Development and Cultural Change, Thompson, P.B., Ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2008; Volume 16, pp. 167-189.
3. Kittawornrat, A.; Zimmerman, J.J. Toward a better understanding of pig behavior and pig welfare. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2011, 12, 25-32.
4. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Hogs & Pork-Overview; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; p. 29.
5. Benard, M.; de Cock Buning, T. Exploring the potential of dutch pig farmers and urban-citizens to learn through frame reflection. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2013, 26, 1015-1036.
6. Dockès, A.C.; Kling-Eveillard, F. Farmers’ and advisers’ representations of animals and animal welfare. Livest. Sci. 2006, 103, 243-249.
7. Broom, D.M. Animal Welfare in the European Union; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2017; p. 75.
8. Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Hötzel, M.J. The ticking clock: Addressing farm animal welfare in emerging countries. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015, 28, 179-195.
9. Richards, T.; Allender, W.; Fang, D. Media advertising and ballot initiatives: The case of animal welfare regulation. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2013, 31, 145-162.
10. Thorslund, C.A.H.; Sandøe, P.; Aaslyng, M.D.; Lassen, J. A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth-Animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three european countries. Livest. Sci. 2017, 125, 37-45.
11. Ryan, E.B.; Fraser, D.;Weary, D.M. Public attitudes to housing systems for pregnant pigs. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141878.
12. McKendree, M.G.S.; Croney, C.C.; Widmar, N.J.O. Effects of demographic factors and information sources on united states consumer perceptions of animal welfare. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 3161-3173.
13. Cummins, A.M.; Widmar, N.J.O.; Croney, C.C.; Fulton, J.R. Understanding consumer pork attribute preferences. J. Econ. Lett. 2016, 6, 166-177.
14. Cummins, A.M.;Widmar, N.J.O.; Croney, C.C.; Fulton, J.R. Exploring agritourism experience and perceptions of pork production. Agric. Sci. 2016, 7, 239-249.
15. Lassen, J.; Sandøe, P.; Forkman, B. Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livest. Sci. 2006, 103, 221-230.
16. Croney, C.C.; Reynnells, R.D. The ethics of semantics: Do we clarify or obfuscate reality to influence perceptions of farm animal production? Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 387-391.
17. Buhrmester, M.; Kwang, T.; Gosling, S.D. Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 6, 3-5.
18. Saunders, D.R.; Bex, P.J.;Woods, R.L. Crowdsourcing a normative natural language dataset: A comparison of amazon mechanical turk and in-lab data collection. J. Med. Internet Res. 2013, 15, e100.
19. Rouse, S.V. A reliability analysis of mechanical turk data. Comp. Hum. Behav. 2015, 43, 304-307.
20. Cardoso, C.S.; Hötzel, M.J.; Weary, D.M.; Robbins, J.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Imagining the ideal dairy farm. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 1663-1671.
21. Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. Data management and analysis methods. In Handbook of Qualitative Research; Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., Eds.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994; p. 643.
22. Guest, G.; MacQueen, K.; Namey, E. Applied Thematic Analysis; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; p. 253.
23. Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; van Poucke, E.; Buijs, S.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livest. Sci. 2009, 123, 16-22.
24. Weible, D.; Christoph-Schulz, I.; Salamon, P.; Zander, K. Citizens’ perception of modern pig production in germany: A mixed-method research approach. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 2014-2032.
25. You, X.; Li, Y.; Zhang, M.; Yan, H.; Zhao, R. A survey of chinese citizens’ perceptions on farm animal welfare. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e109177.
26. Yunes, M.C.; Cardoso, C.S.; Roslindo, A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Hötzel, M.J. Farm animal production systems in brazil: Citizens’ opinions and preferences. In Proceedings of the XXIV Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Producción Animal, Puerto Varas, Chile, 9-13 November 2015; Volume 24.
27. Centner, T.J. Limitations on the confinement of food animals in the united states. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2010, 23, 469-486.
28. Tonsor, G.T.; Wolf, C.A. Drivers of resident support for animal care oriented ballot initiatives. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2010, 42, 419-428.
29. Carlsson, F.; Frykblom, P.; Lagerkvist, C.J. Consumer preferences for food product quality attributes from swedish agriculture. AMBIO 2005, 34, 366-370.
30. Miele, M. Report Concerning Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Farm Animal Welfare; Official Experts Report Eawp (Task 1.3); Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2010.
31. Clark, B.; Stewart, G.B.; Panzone, L.A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, L.J. A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2016, 29, 455-478.
32. Velarde, A.; Fàbrega, E.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Dalmau, A. Animal welfare towards sustainability in pork meat production. Meat Sci. 2015, 109, 13-17.
33. Sutherland, M.A.; Tucker, C.B. The long and short of it: A review of tail docking in farm animals. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 135, 179-191.
34. Rault, J.-L.; Lay, D.C., Jr.; Marchant-Forde, J.N. Castration induced pain in pigs and other livestock. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 135, 214-225.
35. Krystallis, A.; de Barcellos, M.D.; Kuegler, J.O.; Verbeke, W.; Grunert, K.G. Attitudes of european citizens towards pig production systems. Livest. Sci. 2009, 126, 46-56.
36. De Barcellos, M.D.; Grunert, K.G.; Zhou, Y.; Verbeke, W.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Krystallis, A. Consumer attitudes to different pig production systems: A study from mainland china. Agric Hum. Values 2013, 30, 443-455.
37. Cicia, G.; Caracciolo, F.; Cembalo, L.; Del Giudice, T.; Grunert, K.G.; Krystallis, A.; Lombardi, P.; Zhou, Y. Food safety concerns in urban china: Consumer preferences for pig process attributes. Food Control 2016, 60, 166-173.
38. De Barcellos, M.D.; Perin, M.G.; Perez-Cueto, F.; Saab, M.; Grunert, K.G. Consumers’ values and attitudes and their relation to the consumption of pork products: A study from q-porkchains in brazil. J. Chain Netw. Sci. 2012, 12, 41-54.
39. De Barcellos, M.D.; Krystallis, A.; de Melo Saab, M.S.; Kuegler, J.O.; Grunert, K.G. Investigating the gap between citizens’ sustainability attitudes and food purchasing behaviour: Empirical evidence from brazilian pork consumers. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2011, 35, 391-402.
40. Dhein Dill, M.; Palma Revillion, J.P.; Jardim Barcellos, J.O.; Antunes Dias, E.; Zara Mércio, T.; Esteves de Oliveira, T. Procedural priorities of the pork loin supply chain. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014, 9, 84-92.
41. Vanhonacker, F.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.; Verbeke, W. Citizens’ views on farm animal welfare and related information provision: Exploratory insights from flanders, belgium. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2010, 23, 551-569.
42. Ingenbleek, P.; Immink, V. Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: Synthesis and implications. Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 11-19.
43. Miranda-de la Lama, G.C.; Estévez-Moreno, L.X.; Sepúlveda, W.S.; Estrada-Chavero, M.C.; Rayas-Amor, A.A.; Villarroel, M.; María, G.A. Mexican consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products. Meat Sci. 2017, 125, 106-113.
44. Harvey, D.; Hubbard, C. Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure. Food Policy 2013, 38, 105-114.
45. Wolf, C.A.; Tonsor, G.T.; McKendree, M.G.S.; Thomson, D.U.; Swanson, J.C. Public and farmer perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in the united states. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 5892-5903.
46. Hötzel, M.J.; Roslindo, A.; Cardoso, C.S.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Citizens’ views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing information increase acceptability? J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 4150-4160.
47. Yunes, M.C.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Hötzel, M.J. Brazilian citizens’ opinions and attitudes about farm animal production systems. PLoS ONE, submitted.
48. Hall, C.; Sandilands, V. Public attitudes to the welfare of broiler chickens. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 499-512.
49. Ellis, K.A.; Billington, K.; McNeil, B.; McKeegan, D.E.F. Public opinion on uk milk marketing and dairy cow welfare. Anim. Welf. 2009, 18, 267-282.
50. Croney, C.C.; Anthony, R. Invited review: Ruminating conscientiously: Scientific and socio-ethical challenges for us dairy production. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 539-546.
51. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, P.; Castle, V.; Rosales, M.; De Haan, D. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2006; p. 407.
52. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337-342.
53. Tilman, D.; Balzer, C.; Hill, J.; Befort, B.L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 20260-20264.
54. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812-818.
55. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P. Livestock production and the global environment: Consume less or produce better? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 18237-18238.
56. Garnett, T.; Appleby, M.C.; Balmford, A.; Bateman, I.J.; Benton, T.G.; Bloomer, P.; Burlingame, B.; Dawkins, M.; Dolan, L.; Fraser, D.; et al. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science 2013, 341, 33-34.
57. Hötzel, M.J. Improving farm animal welfare: Is evolution or revolution needed in production systems? In Dilemmas in Animal Welfare; Appleby, M.C., Weary, D.M., Sandoe, P., Eds.; CABI: Oxfordshire, UK, 2014; pp. 67-84.
58. Macdiarmid, J.I.; Douglas, F.; Campbell, J. Eating like there’s no tomorrow: Public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite 2016, 96, 487-493.
59. Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 61, 11-25.
60. Hocquette, A.; Lambert, C.; Sinquin, C.; Peterolff, L.;Wagner, Z.; Bonny, S.P.F.; Lebert, A.; Hocquette, J.-F. Educated consumers don’t believe artificial meat is the solution to the problems with the meat industry. J. Integr. Agric. 2015, 14, 273-284.
61. Loos, J.; Abson, D.J.; Chappell, M.J.; Hanspach, J.; Mikulcak, F.; Tichit, M.; Fischer, J. Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 12, 356-361.
62. Röös, E.; Bajželj, B.; Smith, P.; Patel, M.; Little, D.; Garnett, T. Protein futures for western europe: Potential land use and climate impacts in 2050. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 367-377.
63. Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Martin, N.P.; Kebreab, E.; Knowlton, K.F.; Grant, R.J.; Stephenson, M., II; Sniffen, C.J.; Harner, J.R., III; Wright, A.D.; Smith, S.I. Invited review: Sustainability of the us dairy industry. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 5405-5425.
64. Gomiero, T.; Pimentel, D.; Paoletti, M.G. Is there a need for a more sustainable agriculture? Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2011, 30, 6-23.
65. Croney, C.C.; Apley, M.; Capper, J.L.; Mench, J.A.; Priest, S. Bioethics symposium: The ethical food movement: What does it mean for the role of science and scientists in current debates about animal agriculture? J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 1570-1582.
66. Te Velde, H.; Aarts, N.; Van Woerkum, C. Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2002, 15, 203-219.
67. Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livest. Sci. 2008, 116, 126-136.
68. Hötzel, M.J. Letter to the editor: Engaging (but not “educating”) the public in technology developments may contribute to a socially sustainable dairy industry. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 6853-6854.
69. Weary, D.M.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Public concerns about dairy cow welfare: How should the industry respond? Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017, 57, 1201-1209.
70. Ventura, B.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Wittman, H.; Weary, D.M. What difference does a visit make? Changes in animal welfare perceptions after interested citizens tour a dairy farm. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154733.
71. Heerwegh, D. Mode differences between face-to-face and web surveys: An experimental investigation of data quality and social desirability effects. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 2009, 21, 111-121.