[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/daredp/1801.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Producers' valuation of animal welfare practices: Does herd size matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Danne, Michael
  • Mußhoff, Oliver
Abstract
It is alleged that larger farms are less willing to adopt animal welfare-friendly production systems, though empirically-based knowledge on this issue is still lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze pig and sow producer preferences for the adoption of animal welfare standards (AWS), with primary interest in herd size effects on producers' adoption behavior. A survey was carried out with pig (n = 103) and sow (n = 63) producers in Germany. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to analyze herd size effects on producer adoption of AWS. Producers' attitudes about the economic feasibility of animal welfare are affected by the herd sizes. The results of the DCE indicate that larger herd sizes in pig production are correlated with lower adoption of outdoor yards and bedding material, while adoption of the remaining AWS is unaffected by herd size. Sow producers show no herd size-related differences in acceptance of the analyzed AWS. The standard criticism regarding the lack of animal welfare adoption on large farms was not supported by this study. Identifying herd-size effects on the producers' adoption behavior for AWS may be an important step in clarifying the discussion about animal welfare in intensive production systems. Furthermore, the identified heterogeneity in the producers' preferences underlines the need for identification of the most effective animal welfare strategies for farms of various structures without endangering profitability. In this regard, policy is suggested to support strategies that directly improve animal welfare on farms of all sizes instead of targeting a decrease in farm size. The study is the first to demonstrate empirically based knowledge about herd size effects on the farmers' adoption of AWS.

Suggested Citation

  • Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Producers' valuation of animal welfare practices: Does herd size matter?," DARE Discussion Papers 1801, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:1801
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/175428/1/1014932106.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    2. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    3. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    4. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Schneider, Thea & Hartmann, Laura & Spiller, Achim, 2015. "Luxusmarketing bei Lebensmitteln: Eine empirische Studie zu Dimensionen des Luxuskonsums in Deutschland," DARE Discussion Papers 1502, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    6. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    7. Hess, Sebastian & Bolos, Laura A. & Hoffmann, Ruben & Surry, Yves, 2014. "Is animal welfare better on small farms? Evidence from veterinary inspections on Swedish farms," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182781, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    9. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-39, January.
    10. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    11. Jochen Meyer & Stephan von Cramon‐Taubadel, 2004. "Asymmetric Price Transmission: A Survey," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 581-611, November.
    12. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, September.
    13. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    14. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    15. Heß, Sebastian & Bergmann, Holger & Sudmann, Lüder, 2006. "Die Förderung alternativer Energien - eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme," 54th Annual Conference, Goettingen, Germany, September 17-19, 2014 187446, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    16. Hess, Sebastian & Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan von & Sperlich, Stefan, 2010. "Numbers for Pascal: explaining differences in the estimated benefits of the Doha Development Agenda," DARE Discussion Papers 1001, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    17. Busse, Stefan & Brümmer, Bernard & Ihle, Rico, 2010. "Interdependencies between fossil fuel and renewable energy markets: the German biodiesel market," DARE Discussion Papers 1010, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    18. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Danne, M. & Musshoff, O. & Schulte, M., 2019. "Analysing the importance of glyphosate as part of agricultural strategies: A discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 189-207.
    2. Fecke, Wilm & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "E-commerce in agriculture: The case of crop protection product purchases in a discrete choice experiment," DARE Discussion Papers 1803, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    3. Reithmayer, Corrina & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Look at that! – The effect pictures have on consumer preferences for in ovo gender determination as an alternative to culling male chicks," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 298419, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    4. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    5. Sauthoff, Saramena & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2017. "To switch or not to switch? – Understanding German consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity tariff attributes," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260771, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    6. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    7. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2005. "Preferences regarding road transports of hazardous materials using choice experiments - any sign of biases?," Working Papers 2005:30, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    8. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    9. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    10. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    11. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    13. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    14. Reithmayer, Corrinna & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Societal attitudes in ovo gender determination as an alternative to chick culling," DARE Discussion Papers 1906, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    15. Wensing, Joana & Caputo, Vincenzina & Carraresi, Laura & Bröring, Stefanie, 2020. "The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    16. Julia Blasch & Robert W. Turner, 2016. "Environmental art, prior knowledge about climate change, and carbon offsets," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(4), pages 691-705, December.
    17. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    18. Marescotti, Maria Elena & Caputo, Vincenzina & Demartini, Eugenio & Gaviglio, Anna, 2020. "Consumer preferences for wild game cured meat label: do attitudes towards animal welfare matter?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(4), June.
    19. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    20. Bilal, Muhammad & Barkmann, Jan & Jaghdani, Tinoush Jamali, 2017. "To analyse the suitability of a set of soical and economic indicators that assesses the impact on SI enhancing advanced technological inputs by farming households in Punjab Pakistan," DARE Discussion Papers 1708, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    animal welfare; herd size; pig production; discrete choice experiment;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:1801. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iagoede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.