Search

Germany is the largest pig producer in the EU, and many German farmers earn their living in the pig production sector. Current pig husbandry is characterised by intensive production systems, which have been subject to increasing public criticism over the recent years. Criticism often refers to the increased economic efficiency of such production systems and the simultaneous negligence of animal welfare and other sustainability aspects. However, in order to ensure successful and sustainable pig production in the future, broad social acceptance of this sector is indispensable. In this context, the integration of different stakeholder groups into the development of new pig housing and management systems could be a promising approach. The present study provides results of a transdisciplinary, professionally moderated and scientifically supported multi-stakeholder disscourse that was organised as a future workshop to encourage new ideas for pig housing systems and management processes. Our study presents two types of results. On the one hand, it provides suggestions for pig housing and management systems that meet basic standards of animal welfare and farmers' needs as well as societal demands. On the other hand, it summarises the experiences of the discourse process that may inspire future planning and implementation of multi-stakeholder approaches in similar fields. All developed pig housing and management systems have been agreed upon by all stakeholders involved and are characterised by enhanced space and mobility, separated functional areas, outdoor areas, continuous roughage supply, and organic materials for rooting and manipulation, as well as showers for the pigs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intensive livestock production has been subject to increasing public criticism, including a demand for more animal-friendly housing systems and transparency. Since animal welfare is a credence attribute which cannot be evaluated on the product itself, recently various labels have been introduced to help consumers make purchasing decisions according to their animal welfare concerns. However, such labels need to be accompanied by adequate information to reveal full market power. Research on how animal welfare labels should be communicated to improve efficiency is scarce. The aim of our study is therefore to investigate the impact of different information types on the understanding and evaluation, willingness to buy (WTB) and willingness to pay (WTP) for an animal-friendly product. We used a quantitative research approach with four experimental groups (n = 200). Each group (n = 50) was presented with one of four information types that differed regarding their immersive and innovative character and all provided information about the main label criteria: group 1 received text only, group 2 text and stable pictures, group 3 text and a 360° stable video via tablet, group 4 text and a 360° stable video via virtual reality (VR) glasses. Regardless of information type, participants' understanding of the label as well as their evaluation of animal welfare and acceptability of an exemplary stable presented improved after information was given. Furthermore, providing information positively influenced the WTB and WTP. Regarding user experience, stable insights via VR glasses were particularly appreciated, even though more simpler types were considered more favourable in terms of the usage at the point of sale (POS). We conclude that various information types can be promising to communicate certain label criteria. Both higher immersive and innovative as well as more simple information types help to make animal welfare efforts more appreciated and support consumers in decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, farm animal welfare has become an important issue from both an animal science and a societal perspective. Moreover, livestock production is increasingly associated with negative consequences for human health, the environment, or the climate. Thus, there is clear evidence that a more sustainable focus in animal husbandry is needed. However, this is a complex and challenging task, as different stakeholders and emerging trade-offs regarding sustainability need to be considered. For example, outdoor climate housing systems may be socially valued and bring benefits to animal welfare, but at the same time may be detrimental to the environment, climate, human health, or even animal health. With regard to a sustainable, future-oriented transformation of animal husbandry, it is crucial to identify potential trade-offs and to evaluate them from not only a scientific but also a societal perspective. Therefore, the aim of this study is to find out how citizens assess the importance of various aspects that are relevant in livestock production from different goal categories (e.g. ensuring animal welfare vs. environmental or climate protection), as well as within the category 'ensuring animal welfare' (e.g. good housing conditions vs. good health conditions). 2,000 participants were recruited via an online panel provider using quota and split sampling. We used the so-called best-worst scaling (BWS) approach to measure the importance for four different farm animal species (dairy cows: n = 503, fattening pigs: n = 500, broilers: n = 499, and laying hens: n = 498). The results show that, regardless of animal species, in a trade-off situation, citizens prioritize animal welfare and human health over other sustainability aspects and, in particular, over product attributes (i.e. product price and taste). In terms of animal welfare, the provision of good housing conditions was found to be the most important subaspect for all animal species, but good feeding and animal health were also ranked comparatively high. We consider our results valuable for the development of policy frameworks aimed at a sustainable and socially accepted transformation of current animal husbandry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, the number of pets and pet owners has been increasing in recent years. The experiences people have with pets might impact people's relationships with animals in general and especially attitudes towards animal protection and use. However, research on the impact of pet ownership on values and attitudes towards animals is relatively scarce. We analyze associations of pet ownership with different values and attitudes towards animals. We derived seven attitude constructs towards animals from three different datasets using principal component analyses. Data were collected using standardized online surveys with German residents (dataset 1=1,049 respondents, dataset 2=414 respondents, dataset 3=1,048 respondents). All three samples are non-probability quota samples. The seven attitudinal constructs represent values and attitudes towards animals ranging from general values and attitudes towards, e.g., animal protection, to more specific attitudes towards, e.g., eating animals. We analyzed the relationship of pet ownership, sex, and age with these constructs using ANOVA. Our results show that effect sizes are small to medium. Pet ownership has the strongest association with more general values and attitudes towards animals, with pet owners being, e.g., more involved in animal protection and more in favor of awarding fundamental rights to animals. In contrast, we found that more specific attitudes, such as the evaluation of current pig farming systems or attitudes towards eating meat, were more related to sex than to pet ownership. Our findings indicate that having pets relates to their owners' attitudes towards animals, but this association varies depending on the specificity of attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The level of animal welfare in intensive pig production has been subject to increasing public criticism in recent years. Previous studies revealed a clear citizens' demand for more species-appropriate pig husbandry systems with various enriching housing elements that ensure adequate behaviour and animal welfare. However, despite intense public debates, to the best of our knowledge, no research has been done to examine a more differentiated rating by citizens of enriching housing elements that can potentially be integrated in farming systems and thus increase social acceptance. Against this background, 14 housing elements were selected that are known to potentially enrich the pigs' environment. We used a picture-based survey design to show participants what each element looks like. Participants were recruited through an online panel provider using quota sampling. 414 German citizens were asked to rate the selected enrichment elements. In addition to compare the rating of enrichment elements, we conducted a cluster analysis based on the participants' attitudes towards animal welfare. Participants believed nine out of the 14 housing elements to have a positive influence on animal welfare and to be an important element in a pigsty. Wallows were appreciated the most, closely followed by straw as bedding and enrichment material in a separate rooting area. Showers, tubs, and straw as enrichment material in containers were rated positively as well, although to a lesser extent. In contrast, the slatted outdoor area and all four enriching objects (toys) performed comparatively poorly. Overall, costs associated with the installation/usage of the respective housing elements were rated rather low, and practicability issues were mostly rated as negligible. We identified two citizen segments that showed different ratings of the housing elements and which also differed in gender, meat consumption patterns, interest in agricultural topics, and self-perceived knowledge of animal husbandry. The findings are valuable for farmers to adapt their production systems. Wallows, straw bedding and rooting areas can improve the animal welfare perception from a citizens' point of view, although there seem to be different citizen segments. Simple toys and slatted areas, even outdoors, seem to be less appropriate when communicating improved husbandry systems to the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 lower with a positive rather than a negative reference system. When confronted with several tradeoff 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Apart from improving husbandry conditions and animal welfare, there is a clear public demand to increase transparency in agricultural activities. Personal farm tours have shown to be appreciated by citizens but are limited in their impact because of hygiene requirements and accessibility. Virtual farm tours are a promising approach to overcome these limitations but evidence on their perceptions is missing. This study analyzes how a virtual farm tour is perceived by showing participants (n = 17) a 360- degree video of a conventional pig fattening pen on a tablet and via virtual reality (VR) glasses. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted to analyze perceptions and level of immersion and to elicit differences between media devices. Participants' perception of the pig fattening pen was rather poor and depended on the recording perspective as well as on the media device. However, housing conditions were perceived more positively compared to the image participants had in mind prior to the study, and thus the stable was considered as a rather positive example. Participants described virtual farm tours as suitable tool to improve transparency and information transfer and to gain insights into husbandry conditions. They appreciated the comfortable and entertaining character of both media devices and named various possibilities for implementation. However, VR glasses were favored regarding the higher realistic and entertaining value, while the tablet was considered beneficial in terms of usability. The presentation of video sequences without additional explanations about the farm or the housing conditions were claimed insufficient to give an adequate understanding of the seen content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]