Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Concept of Farm Animal Welfare: Citizen Perceptions and Stakeholder Opinion in Flanders, Belgium

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several attempts to conceptualize farm animal welfare have been criticized for diverging reasons, among them often the failure to incorporate the public concern and opinion. This paper’s objective is to develop a conception of farm animal welfare that starts from the public’s perception and integrates the opinion of different stakeholder representatives, thus following a fork-to-farm approach. Four qualitative citizen focus group discussions were used to develop a quantitative questionnaire, which has been completed by a representative sample of Flemish citizens (n = 459). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were applied to develop a conception of farm animal welfare starting from an extended list of aspects that relate to animal production and associate with farm animal welfare in the public’s perception. In depth interviews with stakeholder representatives were used to match and adapt the structure of the animal welfare conception model. The resulting conception revealed seven dimensions grouped in two different levels. Three dimensions were animal-based: “Suffering and Stress,” “Ability to Engage in Natural Behavior,” and “Animal Health.” Four dimensions were resource-based: “Housing and Barn climate,” “Transport and Slaughter,” “Feed and Water,” and “Human-Animal Relationship.” This conception is distinct from earlier attempts since it is based on public perceptions; it addresses the opinion of different stakeholders, and it distinguishes empirically between animal-based and resource-based dimensions in the conceptualization of farm animal welfare. The relevancy of a popular definition is supported by the present demand oriented economy, in which animal welfare is a non-trade concern, and mainly left to the market where consumers still mainly act as individuals who calculate and weigh pros and cons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Algers, B., & Jensen, P. (1991). Teat stimulation and milk-production during early lactation in sows—effects of continuous noise. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 71, 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleby, M. C. (1999a). Definitions of welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65, 159–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleby, M. C. (1999b). Tower of babel: Variation in ethical approaches, concepts of welfare and attitudes to genetic manipulation. Animal Welfare, 8, 381–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleby, M. C., & Sandøe, P. (2002). Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: Implications for animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 11, 283–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., Li, Y. L., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct-validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartussek, H. (1999). A review of the animal needs index (ani) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science, 61, 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., & Bock, B. B. (2008). Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livestock Science, 117, 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botreau, R., Perny, P., & Veissier, I. (2008). Reports on the construction of welfare criteria fro different livestock species, Part 3: Criteria construction for all animal types on farm. Deliverable 2.8b, subtask 2.3.1.2, Welfare Quality® (EU FOOD-CT-2004-506508).

  • Broom, D. M. (1986). Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal, 142, 524–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M. (1991). Animal-welfare—concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science, 69, 4167–4175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M. (2001). Coping, stress and welfare. In D. M. Broom (Ed.), Coping with challenge: Welfare in animals including humans (pp. 1–9). Berlin: Dahlem University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M. (2009). The history of the concept of animal welfare, of related concepts and of animal welfare science. International autumn conference: Interdisciplinary discussion about concepts of animal welfare. Germany: Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). CA: Sage, Newbury Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buller, H. (2009). What can we tell consumers and retailers? Proceedings of Welfare Quality final stakeholder conference, (pp 43–46). Uppsala, Sweden.

  • Butterworth, A. (2009). Feeding support information back to management. Proceedings of Welfare Quality final stakeholder conference, (pp 33–37). Uppsala, Sweden.

  • Caporale, V., Alessandrini, B., Dalla Villa, P., & Del Papa, S. (2005). Global perspectives on animal welfare: Europe. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties, 24, 567–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, M. S. (2006). A user’s guide to animal welfare science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H. (1996). Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section a-Animal Science, 29–35.

  • Duncan, I. J. H. (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: Farm animals. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties, 24, 483–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H., & Fraser, D. (1997). Understanding animal welfare. In M. Appleby & B. O. Hughes (Eds.), Animal welfare (pp. 19–31). Wallingford: CABI Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. D., & Schneider, H. P. (2005). The world veterinary association and animal welfare. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties, 24, 639–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2005). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Spec Eur 229. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2010.

  • Fisher, M. W. (2009). Defining animal welfare–does consistency matter? New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 57, 71–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (1995). Science, values and animal welfare: Exploring the ‘inextricable connection’. Animal Welfare, 4, 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2001). The “New perception” of animal agriculture: Legless cows, featherless chickens, and a need for genuine analysis. Journal of Animal Science, 79, 634–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2004). Applying science to animal welfare standards. Proceedings of Global Conference on Animal Welfare: an OIE initiative. France: Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50, S1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare, 6, 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnier, J. P., Klont, R., & Plastow, G. (2003). The potential impact of current animal research on the meat industry and consumer attitudes towards meat. Meat Science, 63, 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunert, K. G. (2006). Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Science, 74, 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R. P. (2008). Animal welfare: Competing conceptions and their ethical implications. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

  • Hewson, C. J. (2003a). What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequences—introduction. Canadian Veterinary Journal-Revue Veterinaire Canadienne, 44, 496–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewson, C. J. (2003b). Can we assess welfare? Canadian Veterinary Journal-Revue Veterinaire Canadienne, 44, 749–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, A., & Fölsch, D. W. (1978). Akustische ethogramme von hühnern. Tierhaltung Band 5, Birkhäuser. Stuttgart: Basel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiley-Worthington, M. (1989). Ecological, ethological and ethically sound environments for animals: Towards symbiosis. Journal of Agricultural Ethics, 2, 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korthals, A. (2001). Ethical dilemmas in sustainable agriculture. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 36, 813–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, V., Coleman, G., Gunnarsson, S., Appleby, M. C., & Karkinen, K. (2006). Animal welfare science—working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 97, 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, N. K., & Peterson, M. (2006). Basic marketing research: A decision-making approach. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, G., & Mendl, M. (1993). Why is there no simple way of measuring animal welfare? Animal Welfare, 2, 301–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, J. (1991). A socioeconomic perspective on animal-welfare. Outlook on Agriculture, 20, 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, J. (2004). Animal welfare, economics and policy: Report on a study undertaken for the farm and animal health economics. London: DEFRA, 68 pp.

  • NIS. (2002). Population census data January 1, 2003. Brussels: NIS, National Institute for Statistics.

  • Nordenfelt, L. (2006). Animal and human health and welfare: A comparative philosophical analysis. Oxford: CABI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. E. (1981). Animal rights and human morality. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushen, J. (2003). Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: Bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81, 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushen, J., & Depassille, A. M. B. (1992). The scientific assessment of the impact of housing on animal-welfare—a critical-review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 72, 721–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundrum, A. (2007). Conflicting areas in the ethical debate on animal health and welfare. In Proceedings of the 7th congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics ‘Sustainable food production and ethics, (pp. 257–262). Vienna: Austria.

  • Tuyttens, F. A. M., Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Quantitative verification of the correspondence between the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livestock Science, 131, 108–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tichelen, S. (2009). An NGO view. Proceedings of Welfare Quality final stakeholder conference (pp. 83–84). Uppsala, Sweden.

  • Vanhonacker, F. E. Van Poucke, F. A. M. Tuyttens, & Verbeke, W. (2010). Citizens’ views on farm animal welfare and related information provision: Exploratory insights from flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9235-9.

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science, 116, 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W. (2009). Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 18, 325–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “Attitude—behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J. (2005). The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: Theory into practice. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties, 24, 723–734.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The partial financing of this research by the Ministry of the Flemish Community through the project ALT/AMS/2005/1, and by IWT Flanders through the project 50679 is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to thank Joke Ottevaere for her assistance in the in-depth interviews and an anonymous reviewer of an earlier version of this paper for helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure links 653, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Filiep Vanhonacker, Wim Verbeke & Zuzanna Pieniak

  2. Animal Sciences, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Ghent, Belgium

    Els Van Poucke, Griet Nijs & Frank Tuyttens

Authors
  1. Filiep Vanhonacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wim Verbeke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Els Van Poucke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zuzanna Pieniak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Griet Nijs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Frank Tuyttens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filiep Vanhonacker.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 8.

Table 8 Exploratory factor analysis
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E. et al. The Concept of Farm Animal Welfare: Citizen Perceptions and Stakeholder Opinion in Flanders, Belgium. J Agric Environ Ethics 25, 79–101 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9299-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9299-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation