Farm Animal Welfare Standards Research Articles

Technical efficiency of biosecurity and animal welfare in the Taiwan egg industry

ABSTRACT Despite the pivotal role of the egg industry in the food supply chain, the absence of regular surveys over the past decades in Taiwan has resulted in a dearth of national-level data. This study endeavours to address the research void surrounding biosecurity while scrutinizing the technical efficiency of egg producers in an environment where there is no mandate to phase out battery cage systems and farmers have the autonomy to adjust their feeding strategies. We employ the stochastic frontier analysis framework to analyse farm-level data derived from a 2020 national survey of the egg industry in Taiwan, which includes 547 commercial egg farms, with 519 still utilizing battery cages and 28 farms having transitioned into alternative systems to meet higher Farm Animal Welfare standards. Our findings reveal that egg farmers who prioritize the improvement of biosecurity demonstrate greater technical efficiency. When considering the rearing systems, there is no significant difference in egg production rates between conventional and alternative systems. However, conventional systems exhibit higher efficiency in terms of total output. In essence, elevating FAW standards does not exert a discernible impact on the productivity of laying hens. Instead, farms employing conventional systems attain greater output due to their higher stocking density.

Advancing a "Good Life" for Farm Animals: Development of Resource Tier Frameworks for On-Farm Assessment of Positive Welfare for Beef Cattle, Broiler Chicken and Pigs.

Simple SummaryA “good life” for farmed animals is a life where positive experiences (positive welfare) far outweigh any negative experiences (negative welfare). If we give animals resources that they value and that provide them with positive physical and mental experiences, we give them opportunities to experience positive welfare and therefore a good life. Evaluating whether certain resources are provided for animals gives us a practical way of assessing positive welfare on farms. We describe the initial development of such resource evaluation frameworks (“Good Life Frameworks”) for beef cattle, broiler chickens and pigs. There is increasing recognition that farm animal welfare standards should ensure positive welfare, as well as prevent negative welfare. Resources that are valued by an animal and that provide opportunities to engage in motivated behaviours can elicit positive physical and emotional states and therefore positive welfare and a “good life” for farmed animals. Evaluation of resource provision is considered the best way of assessing positive welfare at present, in the absence of validated and practical animal-based measures. Previous research has outlined a framework of three tiers of increasingly positive welfare (Welfare +, Welfare ++, Welfare +++) containing resources that incrementally increase the opportunities for a good life over and above the requirements of UK law and code of practice. Based on this blueprint, “Good Life Frameworks” were developed for beef cattle, broiler chickens and pigs, containing resources that increase good life opportunities according to the scientific literature and expert consultation. We describe the initial development of these frameworks, including a piloting exercise with the UK farm assurance industry, to further refine the frameworks according to auditor and farmer feedback, and test the frameworks as a method of on-farm assessment and assurance of a “good life” for farm animals.

Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives

Farm animal welfare (FAW) issues are becoming increasingly political in many countries, as evidenced by the increased use of regulations, legislation, and ballot initiatives. Available empirical evidence however, indicates that consumer valuation of improved animal welfare is low, although positive. As a result of the sensitive nature of FAW issues, public preferences for improved FAW standards can be susceptible to social desirability bias leading to disparities between regulatory standards and the public’s “true” preferences. Given the potential negative impacts of high mandated FAW standards on food costs and the associated consumer and producer welfare losses, this study examined the issue of effective public preference elicitation in animal welfare ballot initiatives. Specifically, we examined social desirability, the tendency to conform to the social norms, and its role in generating overenthusiasm in the support for FAW issues and policy instruments. We used data from an opt-in survey of respondents and compared results of a List Experiments (LE) to a conventional (direct) survey format. Our results show that public support for the FAW issues examined was consistently overestimated when elicited with the conventional survey format. We discuss the implications of these outcomes for animal welfare policy and offer suggestions to researchers and practitioners eliciting preferences in other sensitive food policy contexts.

Assessing Animal Welfare and Farm Profitability in Cow-Calf Operations with Stochastic Partial Budgeting.

Simple SummaryThe increased consumer demand for high levels of farm animal welfare (FAW) have prompted debates about the costs of achieving higher FAW. Yet, little is known about the economic consequences of improvements in FAW, especially in cow-calf operations. This study contributes to the literature by investigating the relationship between farm profitability and improved FAW measure in terms of increased space allowance in Swedish cow-calf operations. We found that a 0.5 m2 increase in space allowance per calf (achieved by a corresponding reduction of herd size) was associated with a 6.9 to 18.7% reduction in farm-level contribution margins in the short term. Our results suggest that FAW improvements can be costly for farms and these costs should be considered while taking policy decisions regarding improvements in FAW standards.The societal demand for good farm animal welfare (FAW) has increased over time. Yet, very little is known about the economic consequences of improvements in FAW in cow–calf operations. This study investigates on-farm economic consequences of improved FAW measures in cow–calf operations. It uses a stochastic partial budgeting approach to examine the relationship between contribution margins and improvements in FAW in terms of increased space allowance for a typical Swedish cow-calf operation, as compared to current practices. In the current practice, a cow should be given at least 5 m2 and the calf 2.2 m2. We found that a 0.5 m2 increase in space allowance per calf (achieved by a corresponding reduction of herd size) was associated with a 6.9 to 18.7% reduction in contribution margins in the short term. Our analysis does not include possible indirect gains like decrease in disease incidence and enhanced non-use or ‘soft’ values associated with increased FAW. However, our analysis indicates that high FAW standards can be costly and careful cost–benefit analysis should be a part of decision-making processes regarding FAW standards. Our results also suggest a need for government support payments and/or the development of market mechanisms to stimulate farmers to continue producing livestock-based foods with high FAW.

Animal Welfare Programs in Germany—An Empirical Study on the Attitudes of Pig Farmers

In Europe, there is ongoing social criticism of conventional pig farming and demands for higher farm animal welfare standards. This applies primarily to products from pig production, as consumers criticize, among other things, the animals’ housing conditions, tail docking, neutering, or keeping them on slatted floors. Various animal welfare programs have tried to meet the consumers’ demands. Pig farmers are directly involved in the production process and are therefore key stakeholders for the successful implementation of animal welfare programs such as the German Initiative Animal Welfare. The Initiative Animal Welfare was founded in 2015 and serves as an example in this study, as it has been established for two rounds and involves high numbers of participants. However, little is known about the attitudes of pig farmers towards this specific animal welfare program. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate these attitudes towards animal welfare programs using the example of German pig producers and identify group differences. Based on an online survey of German conventional pig farmers, four clusters were formed which differ in their attitude to the Initiative Animal Welfare. Overall, all farmers, regardless of the cluster, feel publicly pressured by politics and the media. In addition, all farmers are skeptical about the effort involved in participating in the Initiative Animal Welfare (IAW), especially with regard to the additional documentation requirements and unannounced controls. The findings can provide guidance for the design of animal welfare programs taking into account the needs of farmers.

To the market and back? A study of the interplay between public policy and market-driven initiatives to improve farm animal welfare in the Danish pork sector

This article discusses the interplay of public policy and market-driven initiatives to improve farm animal welfare (FAW). Over the last couple of decades, the notion of ‘market-driven animal welfare’ has become popular, but can the market deliver the FAW that consumers and politicians expect? Using the Danish pork sector as the empirical setting, this article studies efforts to improve private FAW standards following changes to general regulations. The analysis shows that ethical misgivings regarding the adequacy of current and prospective FAW standards are tempered by the economic considerations that guide the practices of some actors. The study also shows that efforts to improve FAW standards are contingent on collaboration and coordination across globalised markets among actors with divergent interests. The findings have important implications for market practices and public policy in relation to FAW.

Fattening Pig Farmers' Intention to Participate in Animal Welfare Programs.

Simple SummaryThe demand for products with higher farm animal welfare (FAW) standards is increasing within the European Union. In response, representatives from agricultural associations, the slaughtering industry and food retailing started the industry solution Initiative Animal Welfare (IAW) in 2015 with the aim of establishing higher FAW standards on a broad basis in both poultry and pig production in Germany. In contrast to other available animal welfare programs (AWPs), the IAW receives considerable support from farmers and enjoys a large number of participants. This article focuses on the question why the IAW is gaining positive resonance among German livestock farmers. Applying partial least squares path modeling to analyze the determinants of farmers’ intention to participate in the IAW, we found that the determinants performance expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, price value, trust and experiences with the IAW have a significant influence on the behavioral intention to participate in the IAW program. It is shown that the farmers’ hedonic motivation has the greatest impact on participation. The prospect of improving the image of pig fattening and the economic incentive motivate many farmers to participate. Additionally, many farmers confirmed that they enjoy providing a more superior welfare status to their pigs. The social determinant was also identified as a strong influencing factor. The results suggest that participation in AWPs could be improved by appropriate remuneration and measures promoting farmers’ intrinsic motivation to engage in AWPs. Farmers are considered a highly important stakeholder group for the successful implementation of higher farm animal welfare (FAW) standards, but so far little is known about their attitudes and the determinants of their participation in programs that request higher FAW standards. To close this research gap, fattening pig farmers in Germany were questioned via a large-scale online survey in 2018 (n = 239). Based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, a partial least squares path modeling (PLS) was run. Results show that the expected performance as well as the expected costs associated with the Initiative Animal Welfare (IAW) substantially influence fattening pig farmers’ behavioral intention to participate in the IAW. Furthermore, the decision is influenced by social determinants and facilitating conditions such as deadweight effects. Farmers’ hedonic motivation, fair remuneration and previous experiences with the establishment of higher FAW standards can influence their intention to take part in the IAW. In addition, farmers’ trust in the program is a major determinant. There are also moderating variables such as age and work experience that influence farmers’ intention to take part in the IAW. Our results have important managerial implications for the IAW and can help to design further tailor-made animal welfare programs (AWPs) that fulfill the requirements of both fattening pig farmers and the broader public not only in Germany but the European Union.

Identifying the factors impacting on farmers’ intention to adopt animal friendly practices

Brazil, one of the leading countries in livestock production, has not yet developed legislation considering animal welfare issues and most of the actions to improve farm animal welfare (FAW) standards are developed by livestock industries and government focusing in meet the demands of exporting countries. Such actions resulted in FAW protocols and manuals for adoption of best management practices. In this context, farmers’ decisions are of particular importance as they may comply with current FAW protocols or even decide to provide better FAW standards than required. A present example of farmers’ decisions to provide better FAW standards than required by FAW protocols is in the adoption of environmental enrichment in pig farming. This practice is widely available to pig farmers, however, anecdotal evidence shows that the adoption rate is low. This study uses the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as a framework to identify the socio-psychological factors that influence pig farmers’ intention to adopt environmental enrichment on their farms. The TPB hypothesizes that intention is determined by three psychological constructs: attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. These three constructs are derived from behavioral, normative, and control beliefs, respectively. Self-identity was added as an additional construct to explain intention. A survey with 185 farmers was conducted. We used Partial-Least-Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to identify the impact of attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and self-identity on farmers’ intention to adopt environmental enrichment on their farms. We used MIMIC models to identify the most important beliefs underlying farmers’ intention to adopt environmental enrichment in their farms. Results show that the intention of farmers to adopt was mainly determined by their positive perceptions about their own capability to adopt environmental enrichment (perceived behavioral control), followed by their perceptions about the social pressure to adopt it (subjective norms), their positive evaluations of adoption (attitude), and self-identity. The most important behavioral beliefs were ‘increase productivity’, and ‘decrease animals stress’. The most important normative beliefs were ‘family’, ‘neighbor farmers’, ‘pig buyers’, and ‘experts’. The most important control belief was ‘receive bonus when selling pigs’. These results revealed important implications to design public and private interventions aimed to stimulate the adoption of animal friendly practices.

La concurrence des normativités au cœur de la labellisation du bien-être animal

Dans un contexte de profonde remise en cause de l’élevage dit « intensif » tendant à englober l’ensemble de la filière élevage sans distinction des pratiques, certains producteurs et partisans d’une meilleure protection des animaux de ferme voient en l’information des consommateurs en matière de bien-être animal un levier d’amélioration du sort des animaux et des acteurs de la filière. Cependant, l’augmentation de la quantité d’information ne se traduit pas toujours par une meilleure transparence quant aux méthodes de production. Au contraire, comme cela est le cas dans les points de vente français, l’excès d’information peut s’avérer aussi délétère que le manque de fiabilité des données communiquées. En l’absence d’une information de qualité, il est à craindre qu’une crise de confiance ne s’installe avant même que l’efficacité d’une régulation par l’information dans le domaine du bien-être animal ait pu être éprouvée. Une analyse des normes en matière de bien-être animal sous le prisme du phénomène de concurrence qui joue entre elles permet de distinguer l’information de qualité de celle de moindre qualité, en vue de prévenir la crise de confiance chez les consommateurs.

German dairy farmers’ attitudes toward farm animal welfare and their willingness to participate in animal welfare programs: a cluster analysis

Farm animal welfare (FAW) is at the center of a controversial public debate, and the demand for higher farm animal welfare standards is growing. Nevertheless, there are hardly any dairy products from pure animal welfare programs (AWPs) on the market. Although dairy farmers are a very important stakeholder group for the successful implementation of AWPs, very little is known about their attitudes toward the introduction of such programs. For this study, 258 conventional dairy farmers in Germany were questioned about FAW and AWPs via an online survey. We identified five clusters (farmer groups) that significantly differ with regard to their attitudes toward AWPs, FAW, and their own willingness to improve the level of animal welfare or take part in specialized AWPs. Cluster A consists of farmers who strongly oppose AWPs; farmers in this cluster will probably not take part in AWPs, especially because they do not consider it profitable to do so. Farmers in cluster B also view AWPs and the associated market effects with some skepticism; however, they are willing to improve their level of animal welfare and, therefore, may someday become willing to participate in AWPs. Cluster C farmers have diverse attitudes toward AWPs; since they are slightly willing to improve the level of animal welfare on their farms and as they are comparatively most optimistic concerning the market effects of higher animal welfare standards, these farmers could also become AWP participants in the future. Farmers in cluster D have positive attitudes toward AWPs and show the highest willingness among the five clusters to improve animal welfare on their farms. However, when it comes to the market effects of higher national animal welfare standards and the market potential for more animal-friendly products, these farmers are the most skeptical; if the economic security of AWPs were guaranteed, Cluster D farmers would probably constitute an important target group. Farmers in cluster E have positive attitudes toward AWPs, show a high willingness to improve the own FAW, and tend to be less skeptical about the market effects of higher animal welfare standards; these farmers constitute the most important potential target group for AWPs. Our results can provide a starting point for the design of tailor-made AWPs that fulfill the requirements of both dairy farmers and the broader public.

The challenge of incorporating animal welfare in a social life cycle assessment model of European chicken production

PurposeThere is increasing public concern over standards of farm animal welfare, yet the majority of sustainability studies of livestock have thus far focused only on environmental performance and profitability. Where social analysis has been carried out, there has yet to be a consistent methodology developed that incorporates animal welfare into social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). A framework was developed to assess animal welfare, using conventional broiler chicken meat production in Europe as a case in point.MethodsData were collected on stocking density, mortality, and carcass condemnation rate from conventional chicken meat production systems in Europe. The quantitative risk of each welfare indicator was characterised in accordance with the Social Hotspots Database methodology based on best to worst farm performances, i.e. quartiles of the data collected for each indicator. The overall animal welfare impact was assessed using a weighted sum methodology, which accounted for the level of risk animals were exposed to for each indicator and the animal lifespan. From this, a Social Hotspot Index (SHI) could be calculated for the animal welfare impact associated with the functional unit, which was 1 kg of chicken meat production. The animal welfare impact of four European countries was then compared.Results and discussionThe countries assessed displayed a range of values for overall animal welfare impact; the country with the best animal welfare had a SHI for animal welfare impact of 0.14, whilst the worst had a SHI for animal welfare impact of 0.72. Farms that kept more birds per building had an increased overall animal welfare impact. Animal welfare, determined by negative welfare indicators, was worse in more recently established farm buildings due to increased flock size.ConclusionsA methodology that incorporates animal welfare indicators into S-LCA was developed that is both scalable and related to welfare assessment frameworks. Although only some specific negative welfare indicators were considered here, the methodology could easily accommodate additional negative indicators and even positive welfare indicators as advancements are made in the understanding of animal welfare. Hence, this study provides a springboard for further development of S-LCA, animal welfare assessment and, ultimately, improved animal welfare in livestock systems.

German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes Towards Farm Animal Welfare And Their Willingness To Participate In Animal Welfare Pro-grams: An Empirical Study

Many consumers express strong demands for higher farm animal welfare standards – especially in conventional livestock husbandry systems. This applies primarily to products from pork production, as consumers have recognized a quality decrease in recent years. Although pig farmers are key stakeholders for the implementation of animal welfare programs (AWPs) there is little evidence of their attitudes towards farm animal welfare (FAW) and AWPs. Thus, the main objective of this investigation was to investigate pig farmers’ attitudes towards FAW and AWPs and to determine target groups for participation in AWPs. Therefore, an explorative factor analysis and a hierarchical cluster analysis were applied. Three farmer groups were identified which significantly differ regarding their attitudes towards FAW and their willingness to participate in AWPs. This paper represents a starting point for the design of tailor-made strategies to increase the market penetration of AWPs.

Assessing Consumer and Producer Preferences for Animal Welfare Using a Common Elicitation Format

AbstractWe assess pig farmers’ willingness‐to‐accept (WTA) higher farm animal welfare (FAW) standards and consumers’ willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) for thus enhanced standards. The analysis is based on discrete choice experiments with nearly identical choice sets for both farmers (N=140) and consumers (N=554). Based on preference estimates from a random parameter logit (RPL) model, supply and demand curves for high‐welfare pork in Germany are estimated and market equilibria are derived for alternative levels of FAW. We find that estimates of consumer WTP are significantly positive for all FAW attributes: consumers value more surface space per pig, more bedding and manipulable material, less surgical interventions and shorter transportation times. In contrast, our model revealed significant producer WTA estimates only for surface area per pig and the amount of bedding material on offer, but not for the other FAW attributes. Farmers who expect to continue farming and engage in direct marketing are more likely to adopt higher FAW standards. Male consumers and those who find price more important than brand, origin or taste are less likely to buy high‐welfare pork, as are consumers who never purchase organic meat products. Market simulations for high‐welfare pork indicate increasing divergence between demand and supply with rising FAW standards. We estimate a market share of 44.6% for pork produced in compliance with an entry‐level FAW programme with standards only slightly above the legal minimum. Programmes with more demanding standards are estimated to gain much smaller market shares.

German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes towards Animal Welfare Programs and their Willingness to Participate in these Programs: An Empirical Study

In recent years, the image of intensive livestock production systems has been suffering from increasing public criticism. Many consumers express strong demands for higher farm animal welfare standards – especially in conventional livestock husbandry systems. This applies primarily to products from pork production, as consumers have criticized that the animals have not enough space in their stables and no possibility for outdoor access. Although pig farmers are key stakeholders for the implementation of animal welfare programs (AWPs) there is little evidence of their attitudes towards AWPs. Thus, the main objective of this investigation was to investigate pig farmers’ attitudes towards AWPs and to determine target groups for participation in AWPs. Therefore conventional pig farmers throughout Germany were questioned via an online survey. For statistical analysis an explorative factor analysis and a hierarchical cluster analysis were applied. Four factors and three farmer groups were identified which significantly differ regarding their attitudes towards AWPs and their willingness to participate in AWPs. For all groups of farmers the economic aspects are important for implementing AWPs. The orientation on the production process is strongly influenced by monetary aspects. This paper represents a starting point for the design of tailormade strategies to increase the market penetration of AWPs and to provide incentives for farmers to participate in AWPs. Further financial incentives are needed to transfer pig farmers attitudes into corresponding behaviour.

Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies

The sustainable intensification of animal production systems is increasing as a consequence of increased demand for foods originating from animals. Production diseases are particularly endemic in intensive production systems, and can negatively impact upon farm animal welfare. There is an increasing need to develop policies regarding animal production diseases, sustainable intensification, and animal welfare which incorporate consumer priorities as well as technical assessments of farm animal welfare. Consumers and/or citizens may have concerns about intensive production systems, and whether animal production disease represent a barrier to consumer acceptance of their increased use. There is a considerable body of research focused on consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for improved animal welfare. It is not clear how this relates specifically to a preference for reduced animal production disease incidence in animal production systems. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to establish the publics’ WTP for farm animal welfare, with a focus on production diseases which arise in intensive systems. Systematic review methodology combined with data synthesis was applied to integrate existing knowledge regarding consumer WTP for animal welfare, and reduced incidence of animal production diseases. Multiple databases were searched to identify relevant studies. A screening process, using a set of pre-determined inclusion criteria, identified 54 studies, with the strength of evidence and uncertainty for each study being assessed. A random effects meta-analysis was used to explore heterogeneity in relation to a number of factors, with a cumulative meta-analysis conducted to establish changes in WTP over time. The results indicated a small, positive WTP (0.63 standard deviations) for farm animal welfare varying in relation to a number of factors including animal type and region. Socio-demographic characteristics explained the most variation in the data. An evidence gap was highlighted in relation to reduced WTP for specific production diseases associated with the intensification of production, with only 4 of the 54 studies identified being related to this. A combination of market and government based policy solutions appears to be the best solution for improving farm animal welfare standards in the future, enabling the diverse public preferences to be taken into consideration.

The willingness of conventional farmers to participate in animal welfare programmes: an empirical study in Germany

AbstractIn recent years, poor farm animal welfare (FAW) has been a continual focus of public criticism and, in many European countries, large segments of society have repeatedly demanded higher FAW standards. In spite of these demands, there are hardly any products from pure animal welfare programmes (AWPs) on the market. Given this background, farmers are a very important stakeholder group for the successful implementation of such programmes, but little is known about their attitudes towards the introduction of AWPs. For this study, 657 conventional farmers in Germany were questioned about FAW and AWPs via an online survey. Three clusters (farmer groups) were identified with respect to their attitudes towards AWPs and, based on these clusters, various target groups were determined for participation in AWPs. Cluster A (the ‘sceptical animal welfare opponents’) (n = 204) is characterised by strong opposition to AWPs and higher welfare standards in livestock husbandry. Farmers in this cluster will probably not take part in AWPs, especially because they do not consider AWPs profitable. Cluster B (the ‘undecided’) (n = 229) have diverse attitudes towards AWPs. As they do not reject the enhancement of animal welfare standards, these farmers may someday become willing to participate in AWPs. Cluster C, (the ‘marketconscious animal welfare friends’) (n = 224) have the most positive attitudes of the sample towards AWPs. However, even these farmers have diverse attitudes towards the monetary effects of AWP. Overall, they constitute the most important potential target group for AWPs as they indicate the highest willingness to take part in these programmes. The empirical results have important managerial implications and provide a starting point for the design of tailor-made strategies to increase the market penetration of AWPs.

Adolescents Care but Don’t Feel Responsible for Farm Animal Welfare

Adolescents are the next generation of consumers with the potential to raise standards of farm animal welfare—to their satisfaction—if their preferences and concerns are translated into accurate market drivers and signals. There are no published data about adolescent views of farm animal welfare to allow meaningful design, implementation, and evaluation of educational strategies to improve consideration of—and behavior toward—farm animals. Knowledge of farm animal welfare, as well as beliefs and attitudes about farm animal welfare and behavioral intention relevant to it were determined in a sample of uk adolescents, using a survey incorporating an extended version of the theory of planned behavior and novel assessment tools. Our results indicate that adolescents have only a limited knowledge of welfare problems for farm animals and welfare-relevant product labels. Intentions to identify welfare standards for the animals from whom their food was derived were weak. Although they cared about farm animal welfare and agreed with fundamental principles—for example, the provision of space and the absence of pain and suffering—like adults they held limited belief in the power and responsibility that they possess through their choices as consumers; responsibility was often shifted to others, such as the government and farmers.

Animal welfare in the reformed Common Agricultural Policy

Against the backdrop of the recently reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), this article considers the potential for improved standards of farm animal welfare within the Treaty objectives of the European Union. CAP Reform presents the first real opportunity to assess the impact of the animal welfare Treaty provision emanating from the Lisbon amendments and the extent to which animal welfare has been integrated into the CAP. By linking the projected added value of enhanced farm animal welfare practices with the CAP’s broader priorities, its greening initiative and, essentially, the Europe 2020 strategy, an evaluation is undertaken of the potential of raised animal welfare standards in agriculture to contribute towards attaining the CAP instruments' specified objectives in the period 2014–2020. The reformed CAP instruments are disappointing in that they do not aim explicitly and directly to improve farm animal welfare. Acknowledging that the CAP reform process will continue, the improvement of farm animal welfare should be stated expressly to be a priority of the CAP beyond 2020. ‘In effect, a new social contract is needed between farmers and society which sees the delivery of public goods as part of a modern approach to agriculture where food, fibre and fuel are supplied in ways that are resource efficient, help address climate change and deliver high levels of biodiversity and farm animal welfare, within the context of diverse and vibrant rural areas.’1

An Investigation into the Human Element of On‐farm Animal Welfare Incidents in Ireland

AbstractA previous study on key farm performance indicators for animal welfare incidents in Ireland provided anecdotal evidence to suggest that farm animal welfare standards are often underpinned by social and human health‐related factors among farmers. The present study took an exploratory approach to identify these factors and how they influence farm animal neglect. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with farmers. Identified factors included farming difficulties associated with age and help on the farm (n = 5), mental health‐related problems (n = 4), and differing perceptions of animal welfare (n = 4). Stress was a prevalent theme. Evidence suggests that these negative human factors impact on farmers’ ability to carry out farm management activities. Poor uptake of support services was noted and barriers included resistance, self‐reliance and an inability to talk openly about mental health problems. Initiatives such as the early warning system, aimed at reducing the incidence of farm animal neglect in Ireland, should be understood as often involving a human element. In particular, further research is required into how mental health problems may lead to altered or reduced regard for animal welfare.

A survey of Chinese citizens' perceptions on farm animal welfare.

Farm animal welfare has been gradually recognized as an important issue in most parts of the world. In China, domestic animals were traditionally raised in backyard and treated as an important component of family wealth. Industrialization of animal production brings forth the farm animal welfare concerns recently in China, yet the modern concept of animal welfare has not been publicized and a comprehensive recognition on how consumers and farmers perceive animal welfare is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a survey on public opinions toward farm animal welfare in China, based on pigs (including sows, piglets, and fattening pigs), domestic fowls (including layers and broilers) and their products. From 6,006 effective questionnaires approximately two thirds of the respondents had never heard of ‘animal welfare’; 72.9% of the respondents claimed that, for the sake of animal derived food safety, human beings should improve the rearing conditions for pigs and domestic fowls; 65.8% of the respondents totally or partly agreed on establishing laws to improve animal welfare; more than half of the respondents were willing, or to some extent willing, to pay more for high-welfare animal products, whereas 45.5% of the respondents were not willing or reluctant to pay more. In summary, farm animal welfare is still in its early stage of development and more efforts are needed to improve the public conception to animal welfare in the process of establishing farm animal welfare standards and legislations in China.