Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T03:17:37.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal welfare during a period of intensification: The views of confinement and alternative pig producers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

M Molnár  and
D Fraser
M Molnár*
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, 1051 Budapest Nádor utca 9, Hungary Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, Quellenstraße 51-55, 1100 Vienna, Austria
D Fraser
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
*
* Contact for correspondence: mariann.zs.molnar@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In Hungary, where intensive and non-intensive pig production co-exist, in-depth interviews were used to explore the views and priorities of pig producers regarding animal welfare and ethical animal production. Farmers using confinement systems and those with alternative, non-confinement systems shared certain core values such as attachment to animals and to traditional community values. Both groups agreed on most key elements of animal welfare (health, nutrition, etc) but had different priorities for how to achieve these within their production systems. Alternative producers considered unconfined, semi-natural environments important for animal welfare, and confinement producers with medium-sized operations (400-600 sows) generally agreed. Only the three largest producers (> 1,000 sows) expressed strong confidence in confinement methods. Different producers emphasised different features for ensuring animal welfare. Producers with large-scale confinement systems depend strongly on staff and automation and require the means to find and retain good staff. Those with medium-scale confinement systems see automation and personal involvement with animals as crucial, and they need economic conditions that allow herd size to remain within their personal capacity. Those operating alternative systems see small herds and non-confinement systems as crucial for animal welfare and need markets that encourage such systems. Subsidies, regulatory systems and technological developments would need to be tailored to meet the different needs in order for producers to improve animal welfare in the different systems and according to their own values and priorities. Medium-scale confinement producers could better act on their values if economic conditions allowed them to use more natural systems.

Keywords

animal welfareconfinementethicsintensificationpigvalues
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , May 2021 , pp. 121 - 129
Copyright
© 2021 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Arksey, H and Knight, P 1999 Interviewing for Social Scientists. Sage Publications Ltd: London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charmaz, K 2006 Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publications Ltd: London, UK. https://doi.org/10.2307/2235561Google Scholar
Council Directive 2008 Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Union: Luxembourg, Luxembourg. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32008L0120&from=ENGoogle Scholar
Creswell, JW 2003 Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, USAGoogle Scholar
De Rooij, SJG, de Lauwere, CC and van der Ploeg, JD 2010 Entrapped in group solidarity? Animal welfare, the ethical positions of farmers and the difficult search for alternatives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 12: 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2010.528882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2008a Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2008b Animal welfare and the intensification of animal production. In: Thomson, PB (ed) The Ethics of Intensification pp 167–189. Springer Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8722-6_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, BG and Strauss, AL 1967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transaction: London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014Google Scholar
Guest, G, Bunce, A and Johnson, L 2006 How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18: 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, MK and James, HS 2005 The ethics of con-strained choice: how the industrialization of agriculture impacts farming and farmer behavior. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 269–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-0631-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2006 Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, V 2006 Natural living — a precondition for animal welfare in organic farming. Livestock Science 100: 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.08.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, V and Röcklinsberg, H 2001 Outlining a conception of animal welfare for organic farming systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14: 391–424. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013049601079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miele, M, Veissier, I, Evans, A and Botreau, R 2011 Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20: 103–117Google Scholar
Miles, MB, Huberman, AM and Saldaña, J 2014 Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Sage Publications Inc: Thousand Oaks, USAGoogle Scholar
Molnár, M and Fraser, D 2020 Protecting farm animal welfare during intensification: farmer perceptions of economic and regulatory pressures. Animal Welfare 29: 133–141. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.29.2.133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spooner, JM, Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D 2014a Attitudes of Canadian pig producers toward animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27: 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9477-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spooner, JM, Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D 2014b Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: A qualitative study. Livestock Science 163: 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2014.02.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, AL and Corbin, J 1990 Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications Inc: California, USAGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Powell, E 1998 Sampling. Program Development and Evaluation, G3658-3. University of Wisconsin-Extension: Wisconsin, USA. https://learningstore.uwex.edu/Assets/pdfs/G3658-03.pdfGoogle Scholar
Te Velde, H, Aarts, N and Van Woerkum, C 2002 Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015012403331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008 Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116: 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, W 2009 Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 325–333Google Scholar
Verhoog, H, Lund, V and Alrøe, HF 2004 Animal welfare, ethics and organic farming. In: Vaarst, M, Roderick, S, Lund, V and Lockeretz, W (eds) Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture pp 73–94. CABI Publishing: Oxon, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996684.0073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkie, R 2005 Sentient commodities and productive paradoxes: The ambiguous nature of human-livestock relations in North-east Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2004.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar