Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards

Abstract

PurposeThis paper examines the attitude of UK pig farmers to the delivery of improved farm animal welfare standards and investigates how they contribute to this objective through their membership of a range of different farm assurance schemes. Design/methodology/approachThe analysis focuses on three main groups of pig farmers: (i) farmers engaged in conventional farm assurance schemes; (ii) farmers participating in specific animal welfare schemes and (iii) certified organic farmers. Fifty four farmers were interviewed about their participation in farm assurance schemes and their attitudes to animal welfare and towards the retailers and consumers they supply. Each answer was analysed individually and a list of themes identified for each type of scheme. These were compared and synthesised in an overall analysis. FindingsThe analysis identified how differently or similarly the different groups of farmers viewed the issues related to animal welfare. The findings revealed that while farmers shared some attitudes regardless of the schemes they participated in, there were differences between schemes in certain key areas such as farmers' motives for participation. Research limitations/implicationsAlthough the sample was limited to England (the main focus of pig production in the UK) and was not random, farmers were selected to reflect the geographical distribution of production and the range of relevant schemes. Originality/value of paperThis study adds to this limited literature that focuses on farmers' views, attitudes and perceptions with regard to animal welfare. The paper is of value to stakeholders involved in the food chain who have an interest in animal welfare such as farmers, retailers, consumers and policy-makers.

Farm membership of voluntary welfare schemes results in better compliance with animal welfare legislation in Great Britain

“…One explanation for greater 334 compliance with APHA inspections for farmers within F and O scheme types is that 335 farmers already complying with scheme codes become members of such schemes. For 336 farmers where there is a financial incentive to be in a scheme to gain market access, then 337 the scheme might be driving farmer behaviour; farmers have referred to such scheme 338 membership as a 'necessary evil' (Hubbard et al 2007). However, many farmers report 339…”

Farmer’s Response to Societal Concerns About Farm Animal Welfare: The Case of Mulesing

“…In sum, these interviewees evaluated the actual behavior of mulesing as negative; however, this method was considered the best of the available alternatives in achieving the positive welfare goal of preventing breech strike. The attitude that mulesing was better for animal welfare in the long run than alternatives was similar to the opinions of some European farmers that believed recommended practices for animal welfare were not actually better for their animal's welfare than current practices (Borgen and Skarstad 2007;Hubbard et al 2007). …”

“…The belief that consumers will continue to purchase wool products regardless of the use of mulesing, appeared to influence wool producer's decisions to continue this practice. A belief in a lack of consumer willingness to pay for improved farm animal welfare was also found in some European farmers (Bruckmeier and Prutzer 2007;Hubbard et al 2007;Huik and Bock 2007).…”

“…These changes to livestock management practices focus on farmers as the central actors in the enactment of improved farm animal welfare. Despite this, little attention has been given to understanding farmers' attitudes and intentions towards practice changes influenced by societal concerns about animal welfare (e.g., Hubbard et al 2007), with much more attention being given to understanding consumer attitudes towards animal welfare issues and animal friendly products (e.g., Bennett 1996Bennett , 2002Hustvedt and Bernard 2008;Verbeke and Viane 2000).…”

Societal views and animal welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories

“…It is often argued that people's criticisms of practices in agriculture might sometimes be based upon a poor understanding of the real conditions on farms Hubbard et al, 2007;Spooner et al, 2012;Benard and de Cock Buning, 2013). According to this 'informational deficit model ' (Wynne and Irwin, 1996;Einsiedel, 2000), if lay stakeholders were better educated about practices on farms some of their criticisms might evaporate.…”