Pig farmers’ engagement in animal welfare

The first case-study among farmers focuses on pig farmers’ attitudes to animal welfare, their judgement of animal welfare regulations and readiness to implement more stringent measures and their expectation regarding the marketability of animal-friendly products. Comparison across animal welfare schemes reveals how participation in schemes affects farmers’ attitudes and perspectives.

Most farmers consider participation in basic quality assurance schemes as necessary and more or less mandatory in order to sell their products. Top quality assurance schemes are considered as important for securing access to markets but also as instruments for product distinction. Participation in specific animal welfare and organic schemes means choosing a different way of production and often a different market. For many farmers ethical considerations play an important role in that choice.

Regarding the definition and assessment of animal welfare two groups of farmers can be distinguished. Most of the farmers who participate in basic or top quality assurance scheme define animal welfare primarily in terms of animal health and production performance. Most of the farmers participating in organic or specific animal welfare schemes describe animal welfare first of all as the animal’s opportunity to express natural behaviour.

Generally speaking, farmers in specific animal welfare and organic schemes are more open to implementing additional animal welfare measures than are farmers in basic and top quality assurance schemes. This is partly related to their different definition of animal welfare. Some of the new measures do not attune to the definition of farmers in basic and top quality assurance schemes. For instance, they worry that the introduction of straw beddings puts animal health at risk by reducing hygiene and sanitation. It is important to understand that hesitation to integrate new measures does not necessarily imply that animal welfare is not important to farmers but rather that the specific measure might conflict with farmers’ definitions of animal welfare and their ideas about good farming practises.

Many pig farmers feel under pressure, both economically and socially. They are expected to comply with more stringent regulations and to produce in a more animal-friendly way, but they see little readiness among retailers and consumers to share in the extra costs involved. Farmers in basic and top quality schemes have little faith in consumers’ willingness to pay, and they worry about consumers’ lack of knowledge about animal welfare and quality of production. Farmers who participate in specific animal welfare and organic schemes have slightly higher expectations of consumers, stimulated by their success to enter specific niche markets.

Alongside differences across schemes, national contexts can add to the explanation of differences between farmers. Norway and Sweden provide one specific context, as animal welfare is strictly regulated by law and only few animal welfare schemes exist. The four remaining countries are proponents of a more neo-liberal governance style where public issues are increasingly resolved by way of the market. As a result, animal welfare schemes are more prominent in The Netherlands, the UK and, to some extent, France, where public interest in animal welfare is high enough to expect sales of animal-friendly products to be successful. As public concern for animal welfare concerns seems low in Italy, there is little need for the market to develop initiatives at present.

Bettina Bock
Leader Work Package 1.3 : Potential barriers to the development of animal friendly products faced by producers
More information: Bettina.Bock@wur.nl