Abstract
Welfare-friendly outdoor poultry husbandry systems are associated with potentially higher public health risks for certain hazards, which results in a dilemma: whether to choose a system that improves chicken welfare or a system that reduces these public health risks. We studied the views of citizens and poultry farmers on judging the dilemma, relevant moral convictions and moral arguments in a practical context. By means of an online questionnaire, citizens (n = 2259) and poultry farmers (n = 100) judged three practical cases, which illustrate the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks for Campylobacter, avian influenza and dioxin. Furthermore, they scored the importance of moral arguments and to what extend they agreed with moral convictions related to humans and chickens. Citizens were more likely than farmers to choose a system that benefits chicken welfare at the expense of public health. These different judgments could be explained by differing moral convictions and valuations of moral arguments. Judgments of citizens and farmers were associated with moral arguments and convictions, predominantly with those regarding the value of chickens and naturalness. Citizens agreed stronger with moral convictions regarding the intrinsic value of chickens and regarding naturalness than farmers did, while farmers agreed stronger with conviction regarding fairness. We argue that opinions of citizens and farmers are context-dependent, which may explain the differences between these groups. It implies that opinions of different stakeholder groups should be considered in order to achieve successful innovations in poultry husbandry, which are supported by society.
Highlights
In intensive poultry husbandry systems, which were introduced after World War II, large numbers of chickens are kept at high stocking densities in order to produce ample and affordable poultry products efficiently (Rollin 2004)
Citizens and poultry farmers had different opinions on the three cases representing a dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks from (1) Campylobacter in broilers; (2) avian influenza in laying hens; and (3) dioxin in eggs (Fig. 2)
Citizens were more likely than farmers to agree with a system that benefits chicken welfare at the expense of public health, while farmers were more likely than citizens to disagree with a system that benefits chicken welfare for the Campylobacter case (χ2 (2) = 11.23, p = 0.004), the avian influenza case (χ2 (2) = 75.97, p < 0.001), and the dioxin case (χ2 (2) = 179.65, p < 0.001)
Summary
In intensive poultry husbandry systems, which were introduced after World War II, large numbers of chickens are kept at high stocking densities in order to produce ample and affordable poultry products efficiently (Rollin 2004) The drawbacks of these intensive indoor systems with the focus on high production are animal welfare issues, such as production-related diseases and behavioural problems. Outdoor access for laying hens increases the risk of introducing avian influenza into a flock (Gonzales et al 2013; Koch and Elbers 2006) and of elevated dioxin levels in eggs (EFSA 2012; Schoeters and Hoogenboom 2006) relative to indoor systems These examples show that adaptations in husbandry systems in order to improve chicken welfare, such as outdoor access, may be a risk to public health. An understanding of how to achieve this balance and approach the dilemma is useful for developing or adapting husbandry systems in such way that they can count on support from society
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
