Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/193689 
Year of Publication: 
2019
Series/Report no.: 
Diskussionsbeitrag No. 1903
Publisher: 
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Department für Agrarökonomie und Rurale Entwicklung (DARE), Göttingen
Abstract: 
In recent years livestock production became a special focal point in public debate, with animal welfare particularly turning out to be a major concern. Since pig husbandry systems are characterised by intensive production systems, where animals are often kept on slatted floor in an extremely barren environment, consumers' distinctive concern about pigs' welfare is not surprising. Previous researches revealed a clear public demand for a more species-appropriate pig husbandry and in this context identified various enriching housing elements to be important for ensuring animal welfare. However, to our knowledge, research addressing specific and comparative assessment of individual enriching housing elements by consumers, has been lacking so far. For our study we selected 14 housing elements which are commonly known to potentially enrich the pigs' environment, including outdoor runs, straw as bedding and enrichment substrate, different enrichment objects (toys) as well as cooling facilities. In order to give participants an idea of each element and therefore facilitate rating, we used a pictorial-based survey design. Thus German consumers were asked to rate elements regarding their benefit for animal welfare, to indicate their desire for availability in a pigsty and furthermore to evaluate respective costs and practicability. With regard to benefit for animal welfare, wallows seemed to be appreciated most, closely followed by straw as bedding and distraction material in a separate rooting area, but showers, tubs and straw as distraction material in containers were rated positive as well. In contrast, the slatted outdoor run and all four enriching objects performed relatively poor, even though rating was only slightly not positive. Overall, costs associated with the installation/usage of the respective housing elements were evaluated rather low and practicability issues were more or less neglected. Furthermore our cluster analysis revealed several rating-influencing factors such as attitude towards or perception of animal protection and sociodemographic characteristics. We consider our results to be relevant in the context of future production systems, as for justifying animal husbandry and increasing its acceptance in the public, the integration of social demands, like desire for a more animal friendly production including specific enriching housing elements, is indispensable.
Subjects: 
animal welfare
pig husbandry
environmental enrichment
consumer acceptance
public concern
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.