Farmers' and advisers' representations of animals and animal welfare

Dockès, Anne‐Charlotte; Kling‐Eveillard, Florence

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.012

Cited by 62 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that dairy farmers work with AWC mainly for reasons other than those connected to profitability and productivity. In contrast to previous literature describing livestock farmers' views on FAW (e.g., Dockès and Kling-Eveillard, 2006;Hubbard et al, 2006Hubbard et al, , 2007, our findings appear to indicate greater importance of aspects not related to profitability and productivity. However, because of the significant methodological differences between studies, such comparisons need to be acknowledged as highly speculative.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Te Velde et al (2002) found that farmers in the Netherlands believed their FAW to be good. Dockès and Kling-Eveillard (2006) found that farmers view FAW as being conditioned on that the animals need to produce. They also found that some viewed FAW as being about feeding and monitoring animal health, whereas others believe it was about the animals' psychological and behavioral needs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dairy farmers’ use and non-use values in animal welfare: Determining the empirical content and structure with anchored best-worst scaling

Hansson

Lagerkvist

2016

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we sought to identify empirically the types of use and non-use values that motivate dairy farmers in their work relating to animal welfare of dairy cows. We also sought to identify how they prioritize between these use and non-use values. Use values are derived from productivity considerations; non-use values are derived from the wellbeing of the animals, independent of the present or future use the farmer may make of the animal. In particular, we examined the empirical content and structure of the economic value dairy farmers associate with animal welfare of dairy cows. Based on a best-worst scaling approach and data from 123 Swedish dairy farmers, we suggest that the economic value those farmers associate with animal welfare of dairy cows covers aspects of both use and non-use type, with non-use values appearing more important. Using principal component factor analysis, we were able to check unidimensionality of the economic value construct. These findings are useful for understanding why dairy farmers may be interested in considering dairy cow welfare. Such understanding is essential for improving agricultural policy and advice aimed at encouraging dairy farmers to improve animal welfare; communicating to consumers the values under which dairy products are produced; and providing a basis for more realistic assumptions when developing economic models about dairy farmers' behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dairy farmers’ use and non-use values in animal welfare: Determining the empirical content and structure with anchored best-worst scaling

Hansson

Lagerkvist

2016

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted above, Bock and van Huik (2007) found that pig producers participating specifically in organic or animalwelfare schemes resembled non-producers in emphasizing the animals' opportunity to express natural behaviour, whereas producers participating in general quality-assurance schemes defined animal welfare largely in terms of animal health and production performance. Dockès and Kling-Eveillard (2006) found that some French veal calf producers, after being forced to change from individual to group housing to comply with new regulations, developed greater ability to observe animals and reported a closer sense of relationship to the animals.…”

Section: Issue 1: Selecting Widely Acceptable Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: Issues and possible solutions

Sørensen

Fraser

2010

Livestock Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On-farm welfare assessment has been used mainly for non-regulatory purposes such as producer education or to qualify for voluntary welfare-assurance programs. The application of on-farm assessments in regulatory programs would require four issues to be addressed: (1) selecting criteria that are widely accepted as valid by diverse citizens, (2) setting minimum legal levels, (3) achieving the high level of fairness and objectivity required for legally binding requirements, and (4) achieving the cost-efficiency needed for widespread use of the methods. Issues 1 and 2 pose a particular problem because different citizens disagree on what they understand as good animal welfare, with substantial differences between producers and non-producers. A solution could be a deliberative process involving panels of producers and non-producers committed to understanding the issues and reaching a deliberated solution. Issues 3 and 4 (fairness and efficiency) require scientific data on the precision, repeatability, independence, and cost-of-scoring for the various candidate criteria. A process is also needed to bring the scientific information into the deliberative process, either as formal recommendations and/or through direct participation of scientists. If these issues can be resolved, the use of on-farm assessment could in principle generate widespread acceptance, be responsive to change, and lead to better welfare outcomes than regulations that merely stipulate features of the physical environment.

show abstract

“…Citizens, however, tend to include two additional values: freedom to move and freedom to fulfill natural desires (Te Velde et al, 2002;Lassen et al, 2006;Marie, 2006). Furthermore, farmers' norms are clearly related to factors that are important for optimizing production such as fast and efficient growth (Te Velde et al, 2002;Dockes and Kling-Eveillard, 2006;Lassen et al, 2006). Citizens on the other hand remain vague in their formulation of norms, and just want that the translation of values into rules of conduct is arranged (Harper and Henson, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?

Vanhonacker

Verbeke

Poucke³

et al. 2008

Livestock Science

304

247

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farmers' and advisers' representations of animals and animal welfare

Cited by 62 publications

References 4 publications

Dairy farmers’ use and non-use values in animal welfare: Determining the empirical content and structure with anchored best-worst scaling

Dairy farmers’ use and non-use values in animal welfare: Determining the empirical content and structure with anchored best-worst scaling

On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: Issues and possible solutions

Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About