IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v10y2020i8p342-d396072.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

German Citizens’ Perception of Fattening Pig Husbandry—Evidence from a Mixed Methods Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Inken Christoph-Schulz

    (Thuenen Institute of Market Analysis, Bundesallee 63, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany)

  • Anja-Karolina Rovers

    (Thuenen Institute of Market Analysis, Bundesallee 63, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany)

Abstract

Pig production in Germany is experiencing an increasing discrepancy between social attitudes, wishes and the reality. To investigate the actual perception and knowledge of fattening pig husbandry by German citizens, a mixed methods approach was carried out. First, six focus group discussions were conducted. Content analysis showed that space availability, fresh air supply and flooring type are particularly relevant in citizens’ perception, whereas surgical interventions on the animal are perceived less. Furthermore, preventive use of antibiotics is seen critically by the participants. Based on these results, an online survey with 399 respondents was conducted to quantify the results. Findings from the focus groups were confirmed: Lack of space as well as the perceived precautionary use of medication were seen most critically. Results are influenced by if respondents have visited a farm before, the dietary behavior and sex.

Suggested Citation

  • Inken Christoph-Schulz & Anja-Karolina Rovers, 2020. "German Citizens’ Perception of Fattening Pig Husbandry—Evidence from a Mixed Methods Approach," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:8:p:342-:d:396072
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/8/342/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/8/342/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tamara J. Bergstra & Henk Hogeveen & Elsbeth N. Stassen, 2017. "Attitudes of different stakeholders toward pig husbandry: a study to determine conflicting and matching attitudes toward animals, humans and the environment," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 393-405, June.
    2. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Kehlbacher, A. & Bennett, R. & Balcombe, K., 2012. "Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 627-633.
    4. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    5. Kevin Kress & Mandes Verhaagh, 2019. "The Economic Impact of German Pig Carcass Pricing Systems and Risk Scenarios for Boar Taint on the Profitability of Pork Production with Immunocastrates and Boars," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-11, September.
    6. Johan F. M. Swinnen & Jill McCluskey & Nathalie Francken, 2005. "Food safety, the media, and the information market," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(s1), pages 175-188, January.
    7. Spiller, A. & Kayser, M. & Böhm, J., 2012. "Unternehmerische Landwirtschaft zwischen Marktanforderungen und gesellschaftlichen Erwartungen in Deutschland...aus Sicht der Forschung," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.
    8. Matias Laine & Eija Vinnari, 2017. "The transformative potential of counter accounts: a case study of animal rights activism," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 30(7), pages 1481-1510, September.
    9. Carolina Liljenstolpe, 2008. "Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 67-84.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rui Pedro Fonseca & Ruben Sanchez-Sabate, 2022. "Consumers’ Attitudes towards Animal Suffering: A Systematic Review on Awareness, Willingness and Dietary Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Thiermann, Insa & Schröer, Daniel & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2023. "Are German farmers ready for a ‘warm restructuring’ of the pig sector?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    3. Petershammer, Silke & Dahlhausen, Johanna & Roosen, Jutta, 2016. "Zahlungsbereitschaft Für Tierwohl," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244890, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    4. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212609, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211884, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Uehleke, Reinhard & Hüttel, Silke, 2016. "The Hypothetical Free-Rider Deficit In The Demand For Farm Animal Welfare Labeled Meat," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244866, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    7. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton & Daniel A. Sumner, 2015. "What Happens When Food Marketers Require Restrictive Farming Practices?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1021-1043.
    8. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    9. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Carlucci, Domenico & De Devitiis, Biagia & Seccia, Antonio & Stasi, Antonio & Viscecchia, Rosaria & Nardone, Gianluca, 2017. "Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry," MPRA Paper 82105, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Silvana Pietrosemoli & Clara Tang, 2020. "Animal Welfare and Production Challenges Associated with Pasture Pig Systems: A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-34, June.
    11. Ali Eldesouky & Francisco J. Mesias & Miguel Escribano, 2020. "Consumer Assessment of Sustainability Traits in Meat Production. A Choice Experiment Study in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    12. Ufer, Danielle, 2022. "State Policies for Farm Animal Welfare in Production Practices of U.S. Livestock and Poultry Industries: An Overview," USDA Miscellaneous 333544, United States Department of Agriculture.
    13. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    14. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher & Olynk, Nicole, 2009. "Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 492-498, December.
    15. Yang, Yu-Chen, 2018. "Factors affecting consumers’ willingness to pay for animal welfare eggs in Taiwan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    16. Andrés Charry & Manuel Narjes & Karen Enciso & Michael Peters & Stefan Burkart, 2019. "Sustainable intensification of beef production in Colombia—Chances for product differentiation and price premiums," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, December.
    17. GRoss, Sabine & Roosen, Jutta, 2021. "Effects of information on social trust in farmers regarding animal welfare," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(1).
    18. Blemings, Benjamin & Zhang, Peilu & Neill, Clinton L., 2023. "Where is the value? The impacts of sow gestation crate laws on pork supply and consumer value perceptions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    19. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    20. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:8:p:342-:d:396072. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.