1932

Abstract

This article reviews the literature on the economics of farm animal welfare. It starts with the challenge of defining and measuring animal welfare. Subsequently, the demand for farm animal welfare is evaluated from both the citizens’ perspective and the consumers’ perspective. The much-cited preference gap in between these perspectives constitutes a dilemma for the governance of animal welfare. Literature on the supply of farm animal welfare discusses the implications of enhancing farm animal welfare for production cost. The linkages between farm structure, farm technology, and animal welfare are discussed, and the frequently voiced hypothesis that smaller and more traditional farms automatically imply higher farm animal welfare levels is rejected. We examine the central challenge to the governance of farm animal welfare: its effects on competitiveness and trade. We also discuss objectives, governance instruments, the interplay of different policy instruments, and how to combine them for an effective and efficient strategy for farm animal welfare.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053419
2017-10-05
2024-06-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/9/1/annurev-resource-100516-053419.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053419&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Akerlof GA. 1970. The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84:3488–500 [Google Scholar]
  2. Albert Schweitzer Stift. 2015. Supermarktriesen ohne versteckte Käfigeier Press Release, Mar. 25. https://albert-schweitzer-stiftung.de/aktuell/supermarktriesen-ohne-versteckte-kaefigeier [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson JL. 2011. Protection for the powerless: political economy history lessons for the animal welfare movement. Stanf. J. Anim. Law Policy 4:11–63 [Google Scholar]
  4. Awater-Esper S. 2016. Tierwohllabel soll 2019 im Markt sein. TopAgrarOnline Dec. 1. https://www.topagrar.com/news/Home-top-News-Tierwohllabel-soll-2019-im-Markt-sein-5929706.html [Google Scholar]
  5. Benard M, de Cock Buning T. 2013. Exploring the potential of Dutch pig farmers and urban-citizens to learn through frame reflection. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 26:1015–36 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bennett RM. 1995. The value of farm animal welfare. J. Agric. Econ. 46:46–60 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bennett RM. 1997. Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy 22:4281–88 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bennett RM, Appleby M. 2011. Animal welfare policy in the European Union. EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas A Oskam, G Meester, H Silvis 249–58 Wageningen, Neth.: Acad. Publ. [Google Scholar]
  9. Berckmans D. 2014. Precision livestock farming technologies for welfare management in intensive livestock systems. Sci. Tech. Rev. 33:1189–96 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bergschmidt A. 2015. Eine explorative Analyse der Zusammenarbeit zwischen Veterinärämtern und Staatsanwaltschaften bei Verstößen gegen das Tierschutzgesetz Work. Pap. 41, Thünen-Inst. Braunschweig, Ger: [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergschmidt A, Renziehausen C, March S, Brinkmann J. 2015. Tierschutzwirkungen der Entwicklungsprogramme für den ländlichen Raum–Ergebnisse aus der Evaluierung der Maßnahme “Förderung umwelt- und tiergerechter Haltungsverfahren.”. Herausforderung Tierwohl208–23 Darmstadt, Ger.: KTBL [Google Scholar]
  12. Birner R, Bräuer I, Grethe H, Hirschfeld J, Lüth M. et al. 2002. “Ich kaufe, also will ich?” Eine interdisziplinäre Analyse der Entscheidung für oder gegen den Kauf besonders tier- und umweltfreundlich erzeugter Lebensmittel. Ber. Landwirtsch. 4:80590–613 [Google Scholar]
  13. Blokhuis HJ, Veissier I, Miele M, Jones B. 2010. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agric. Scand. A 60:3129–40 [Google Scholar]
  14. Candiani D, Salamano G, Mellia E, Doglione L, Bruno R. et al. 2008. A combination of behavioral and physiological indicators for assessing pig welfare on the farm. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 11:1–13 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cicia G, Colantuoni F. 2010. Willingness to pay for traceable meat attributes: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 3:252–63 [Google Scholar]
  16. Coignard M, Guatteo R, Veissier I, de Boyer des Roches A, Mounier L. et al. 2013. Description and factors of variation of the overall health score in French dairy cattle herds using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. Prev. Vet. Med. 112:296–308 [Google Scholar]
  17. de Boer J, Schösler H, Aiking H. 2014. “Meatless days” or “less but better”? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite 76:1120–28 [Google Scholar]
  18. Deter A. 2015. Nds.: Fachgruppe empfiehlt Tierschutzabgabe. TopAgrarOnline Jan. 13. https://www.topagrar.com/news/Home-top-News-Leitfaden-fuer-die-kuenftige-Agrarpolitik-in-Niedersachsen-vorgelegt-1644384.html [Google Scholar]
  19. Driessen C, Heutinck L. 2014. Cows desiring to be milked? Milking robots and the co-evolution of ethics and technology on Dutch dairy farms. Agric. Hum. Values 32:3–20 [Google Scholar]
  20. Eur. Comm. 2015. Special Eurobarometer 442: attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare Rep., Eur. Comm. Brussels: [Google Scholar]
  21. Eur. Netw. Rural Dev. (ENRD). 2014a. Rural development programmes 2007–2013. Measure 214: agri-environment payments Prog. Snapshot 2013, ENRD Brussels: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/app_templates/enrd_assets/pdf/measure-information-sheets/C_Infosheet_214.pdf [Google Scholar]
  22. Eur. Netw. Rural Dev. (ENRD). 2014b. Rural development programmes 2007–2013. Measure 121: modernisation of agricultural holdings Prog. Snapshot 2013, ENRD Brussels: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/app_templates/enrd_assets/pdf/measure-information-sheets/C_Infosheet_121.pdf [Google Scholar]
  23. Eur. Netw. Rural Dev. (ENRD). 2014c. Rural development programmes 2007–2013. Measure 215: animal welfare payments Prog. Snapshot 2013, ENRD, Brussels. http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/app_templates/enrd_assets/pdf/measure-information-sheets/C_Infosheet_215.pdf [Google Scholar]
  24. Franz A, von Meyer M, Spiller A. 2010. Prospects for a European animal welfare label from the German perspective: supply chain barriers. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 1:318–29 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fraser D. 2008a. Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 113:4330–39 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fraser D. 2008b. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Vet. Scand. 50:Suppl. 1 https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. Grethe H. 2007. High animal welfare standards in the EU and international trade—How to prevent potential ‘low animal welfare havens’. Food Policy 32:315–33 [Google Scholar]
  28. Grethe H, Britz W, Deppermann A, Entenmann S. 2017. Increasing animal welfare standards in Germany: effects on agricultural prices and production Work. Pap. 94/2017, Dep. Agric. Econ., Humboldt-Univ Berlin: [Google Scholar]
  29. Grote U, Deblitz C, Reichert T, Stegmann S. 2001. Umweltstandards und Internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Analyse und Bedeutung im Rahmen der WTO Kiel, Ger: Wissenschaftsverl. Vauk [Google Scholar]
  30. Harvey D, Hubbard C. 2013. Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: an anatomy of market failure. Food Policy 38:105–14 [Google Scholar]
  31. Harvey D, Hubbard C, Majewski E, Malak-Rawlikowska A, Hamulczuk M, Gębska M. 2013. Impacts of improved animal welfare standards on competitiveness of EU animal production. Proc. Syst. Dyn. Innov. Food Netw. 2013 U Rickert, G Schiefer 251–74 Bonn, Ger.: Univ. Bonn-ILB Press [Google Scholar]
  32. Heerwagen L, Christensen T, Sandøe P. 2013. The prospect of market-driven improvements in animal welfare: lessons from the case of grass milk in Denmark. Animals 3:499–512 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hirschfeld J. 2006. Umweltpolitik und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit: theoretische und empirische Analyse der Auswirkungen von Umwelt-und Tierschutzpolitik auf die internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der deutschen Landwirtschaft. Landwirtsch. Umw. Schr. Umweltökon. 38:303–12 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ingenbleek PTM, Immink VM, Spoolder HAM, Bokma-Bakker MH, Keeling LJ. 2012. EU animal welfare policy: developing a comprehensive policy framework. Food Policy 37:6690–99 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kehlbacher A, Bennett R, Balcombe K. 2012. Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy 37:6627–33 [Google Scholar]
  36. Knage-Rasmussen K, Houe H, Rousing T, Sørensen JT. 2013. No association between sows and slaughter pig herd size and animal welfare index based on one-farm welfare assessment Presented at Workshop Br. Soc. Anim. Sci., May 23–24 Edinburgh, Scotl: http://bsas.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Large-scaleLivestockEventBooklet.pdf [Google Scholar]
  37. Lagerkvist CJ, Hess S. 2011. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 38:55–78 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lusk JL, Norwood FB. 2012. Speciesism, altruism and the economics of animal welfare. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 39:2189–212 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mann S. 2005. Ethological farm programs and the “market” for animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18:369–82 [Google Scholar]
  40. McInerney J. 2004. Animal welfare, economics and policy Rep. for Farm Anim. Health Econ. Div., Dep. Environ. Food Rural Aff. London: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/animalwelfare.pdf [Google Scholar]
  41. Meat and Poultry 2016. Denmark's plan for swine welfare labels. Meat+Poultry Nov. 7. http://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/news_home/Global/2016/11/Denmarks_plan_for_swine_welfar.aspx?ID={1F3259E2-DA46-444F-9CE8-0C054A36D94C}&cck=1 [Google Scholar]
  42. Meuwissen MPM, Van Der Lans IA, Huirne RBM. 2007. Consumer preferences for pork supply chain attributes. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 54:293–312 [Google Scholar]
  43. Miranda-de la Lama GC, Estévez-Moreno LX, Sepúlveda WS, Estrada-Chavero MC, Rayas-Amor AA. et al. 2017. Mexican consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products. Meat Sci 125:106–13 [Google Scholar]
  44. Nocella G, Hubbard L, Scarpa R. 2010. Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: results of a cross-national survey. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 32:2275–97 [Google Scholar]
  45. Nordgren A. 2012. Ethical issues in mitigation of climate change: the option of reduced meat production and consumption. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 25:563–84 [Google Scholar]
  46. Porter ME. 1991. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strateg. Manag. J. 12:95–117 [Google Scholar]
  47. Regan T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  48. Roosen J, Dahlhausen JL, Petershammer S. 2016. Acceptance of animal husbandry practices: the consumer perspective. Proc. Syst. Dyn. Innov. Food Netw. 2016 J Deiters, U Rickert, G Schiefer 260–67 Bonn, Ger.: Univ. Bonn-ILB Press [Google Scholar]
  49. Rutter SM. 2014. Smart technologies for detecting animal welfare status and delivering health remedies for rangeland systems. Sci. Tech. Rev. 33:1181–87 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sagoff M. 1998. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecol. Econ. 24:2–3213–30 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sonntag W, Martinez J, Spiller A. 2017. Prozessqualitäten in der WTO: ein Vorschlag für die reliable Messung von moralischen Bedenken am Beispiel des Tierschutzes. Agrar. Umweltr. 3:81–88 [Google Scholar]
  52. Spiller A, Gauly M, Balmann A, Bauhus J, Birner R. et al. 2015. Wege zu einer gesellschaftlich akzeptierten Nutztierhaltung. Ber. Landwirtsch. Sonderh. 221:1–172 [Google Scholar]
  53. Starosta S, Bergschmidt A. 2015. Animal Welfare Reporting in der EU—(was) kann Deutschland von seinen Nachbarn lernen?. Appl. Agric. For. Res. 65:147–58 [Google Scholar]
  54. Styles D, Schoenberger H, Galvez-Martos J-L. 2012. Environmental improvement of product supply chains: a review of European retailers’ performance. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 65:57–78 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sullivan SP. 2013. Empowering market regulation of agricultural animal welfare. Anim. Law Rev. 19:2391–94 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sumner DA, Matthews WA, Mench JA, Rosen-Molina JT. 2010. The economics of regulation on hen housing in California. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 42:3429–38 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sykes K. 2014. Sealing animal welfare into the GATT exceptions: the international dimension of animal welfare in WTO disputes. World Trade Rev 13:3471–98 [Google Scholar]
  58. Thornton PK. 2010. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365:2853–67 [Google Scholar]
  59. Tonsor G, Olynk NJ. 2010. U.S. meat demand: the influence of animal welfare media coverage. Work. Pap. MF-2951, Agric. Exp. Stn. Coop. Ext. Serv., Kans. State Univ Manhattan: [Google Scholar]
  60. Tonsor GT, Wolf CA. 2010. Drivers of resident support for animal care oriented ballot initiatives. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 42:3419–28 [Google Scholar]
  61. van Beers C, van den Bergh JCJM. 2000. The impact of environmental policy on foreign trade Disc. Pap. 2000–069/3, Tinbergen Inst Amsterdam: [Google Scholar]
  62. Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W, van Poucke E, Pieniak Z, Nijs G, Tuyttens F. 2012. The concept of farm animal welfare: citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 25:79–101 [Google Scholar]
  63. Vannier P, Michel V, Keeling LJ. 2014. Science-based management of livestock welfare in intensive systems: looking to the future. Rev. Sci. Tech. Office Int. Epizoot. 33:1153–60 [Google Scholar]
  64. Varkens in Nood. 2017. Albert Heijn de grote winnaar van 2016 News Release, Jan. 4. https://www.varkensinnood.nl/nieuwsartikelen/albert-heijn-grote-winnaar-van-2016 [Google Scholar]
  65. Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bock B, Roed E. 2008. European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 113:4279–97 [Google Scholar]
  66. Verbeke W, Pérez-Cueto FJA, de Barcellos MD, Krystallis A, Grunert KG. 2010. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Sci 84:2284–92 [Google Scholar]
  67. Weary DM, Ventura BA, von Keyserlingk MAG. 2016. Societal views and animal welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories. Animal 10:2309–17 [Google Scholar]
  68. Webster AJF. 1982. The economics of farm animal welfare. Int. J. Study Anim. Probl. 3:4301–6 [Google Scholar]
  69. Weingarten P, Bauhus J, Arens-Azevedo U, Balmann A, Biesalski HK. et al. 2016. Klimaschutz in der Land- und Forstwirtschaft sowie den nachgelagerten Bereichen Ernährung und Holzverwendung. Ber. Landwirtsch. Sonderh. 222:1–410 [Google Scholar]
  70. Winter M, Fry C, Carruthers SP. 1998. European agricultural policy and farm animal welfare. Food Policy 23:3–4305–23 [Google Scholar]
  71. Young W, Hwang K, McDonald S, Oates CJ. 2010. Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Dev 18:120–31 [Google Scholar]
  72. Zander K, Hamm U. 2010. Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Qual. Preference 21:5495–503 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053419
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053419
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error