IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aesjfr/405511.html

Farm Behaviour and Incentives for Animal Welfare: On Stimulating Interest in Cow Life Expectancy by Industry Attentiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Nuppenau, E. A.

Abstract

This contribution deals primarily with a new concept derived from institutional eco­nomi­cs, to improve animal health (eventually welfare, depending on the use of synonyms and actually measu­red as cow life expectancy, i.e. in figures: number of lactations). Based on consumer willingness to pay, it investigates a potential collaboration between a dairy industry whose aim is to diversify products and some farmers whose intention is to request compensation for a change of practices. For fin­ding practical attributes for health, we have a focus on practices promoting numbers of lacta­tions, currently at a low level in conventional farming. We distinguish farm types by str­ategies ask­ing why most farms are primarily aiming at maximal efficiency (feeding concentrates for high milk yields and having no grazing). Vice versa: this has raised public concern because (with big herds, high milk yields and minimal lactations) farmers seem to stress ani­mal welfare. We assume WTP exists for an improvement in animal health (though diffuse so far). I.e. on the one hand as a symptom of crisis, successes for gestation are low (almost half compared to those of farms “caring” for animals). On the other hand better practice can be financed if targeted by WTP. Further assumptions are: even the industry may admit problems with animal health, and within consumers’ and citizens’ circles, there is an increasing awareness and that WTP (finance) may enable private solutions. WTP could be used for those farmers doing better on animal welfare; but so far, markets have failed. We are confronted with different strategic behaviour of farmers (by sectors) whose commencing points (as ob­servation and deliberation) must be a willingness to change practices. A starting point should be insight into beha­viour(al) change and willingness to increase animal health (gestation), yet based on compen­sation. Compensation can be used to get more farmers interested in animal health, but it must be differentiated according to actions for improvement. In an institutional economics analysis of animal welfare, we will work out a concept of optimal compensation, preferably achieving cooperation between a dairy industry and willing farmers to lodge payments received from consumers. It means working on participation of actors in product diversi­fica­tion (milk identified by different sources) and transfer of money to those farmers who are ac­tu­ally working for animal health concerns. The paper further addresses selection of far­ms which manage to achieve set health goals and assure confirmation of achievements in increa­sing health. The goal is to increase the number of lactations. By utilizing contracted numbers of lactations as the basis for modelling a qua­n­­titative criterion which adequately shall reflect aspects of working for animal health (such as feeding practices, grazing, better husbandry (space and straw), caring (stress recovery), etc., is worked out and animal welfare shall improve.

Suggested Citation

  • Nuppenau, E. A., 2018. "Farm Behaviour and Incentives for Animal Welfare: On Stimulating Interest in Cow Life Expectancy by Industry Attentiveness," Journal of Food Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 7(4).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aesjfr:405511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/405511/files/75561-282696-1-PB.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zusman, Pinhas, 1976. "The Incorporation and Measurement of Social Power in Economic Models," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 17(2), pages 447-462, June.
    2. Harvey, David & Hubbard, Carmen, 2013. "Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 105-114.
    3. Ford, Stephen A. & Shonkwiler, J. S., 1994. "The Effect of Managerial Ability on Farm Financial Success," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 150-157, October.
    4. Vranken, Liesbet & Swinnen, Johan, 2006. "Land rental markets in transition: Theory and evidence from Hungary," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 481-500, March.
    5. Weiss, Christoph R, 1997. "Do They Come Back Again? The Symmetry and Reversibility of Off-Farm Employment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 24(1), pages 65-84.
    6. Zhu, Xueqin & Milán Demeter, Róbert, 2012. "Technical efficiency and productivity differentials of dairy farms in three EU countries: the role of CAP subsidies," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(01), pages 1-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Wang, Hui & Riedinger, Jeffrey & Jin, Songqing, 2015. "Land documents, tenure security and land rental development: Panel evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 220-235.
    2. Abdullah Mamun, 2024. "Impact of farm subsidies on global agricultural productivity," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 346-364, March.
    3. Christos Staboulis & Dimitrios Natos & Alexandros Gkatsikos & Efthimia Tsakiridou & Konstadinos Mattas & Waldemar Bojar & Piotr Baranowski & Jaromir Krzyszczak & Obdulia Parra Rivero & Álvaro Ojeda Ro, 2022. "Assessing the Role of the Young Farmer Scheme in the Export Orientation of Greek Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Artiom Volkov & Mangirdas Morkunas & Tomas Balezentis & Vaida Šapolaitė, 2020. "Economic and Environmental Performance of the Agricultural Sectors of the Selected EU Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, February.
    5. Elias Giannakis & Sophia Efstratoglou & Artemis Antoniades, 2018. "Off-Farm Employment and Economic Crisis: Evidence from Cyprus," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-11, March.
    6. Pede, Valerien O. & McKinley, Justin & Singbo, Alphonse & Kajisa, Kei, 2015. "Spatial Dependency of Technical Efficiency in Rice Farming: The Case of Bohol, Philippines," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205456, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Irene Wei Kiong Ting & Imen Tebourbi & Wen-Min Lu & Qian Long Kweh, 2021. "The effects of managerial ability on firm performance and the mediating role of capital structure: evidence from Taiwan," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 7(1), pages 1-23, December.
    8. Štefan Bojnec & Kristina Knific, 2021. "Farm Household Income Diversification as a Survival Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, June.
    9. John C. Beghin & William E. Foster & Mylene Kherallah, 1996. "Institutions And Market Distortions: International Evidence For Tobacco," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 355-365, January.
    10. Finkelshtain, Israel & Kislev, Yoav, 1996. "Political Lobbying, Individual Rationality, and Asymmetry of Taxes and Subsidies," Working Papers 232801, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Center for Agricultural Economic Research.
    11. Che, Yi, 2009. "Mismatch: land reallocations, recovery land rental and land rental market development in rural China," MPRA Paper 39794, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Foreman, Linda F. & Livezey, Janet S., 2003. "Factors Contributing To Financially Successful Southern Rice Farms," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35215, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. Simbarashe Tatsvarei & Abbyssinia Mushunje & Saul Ngarava & Clifton Makate, 2018. "Determinants of Informal Land Renting Decisions by A1 and A2 Farmers in Mashonaland East Province of Zimbabwe," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 10(6), pages 70-78.
    14. Zusman, Pinhas, 1990. "Political-Econometrics: The Quantitative Investigation of a Political-Economy," CUDARE Working Papers 198570, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. Peter Howley & Emma Dillon & Thia Hennessy, 2014. "It’s not all about the money: understanding farmers’ labor allocation choices," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(2), pages 261-271, June.
    16. Makhura, Moraka Nakedi & Wasike, W.S.K., 2003. "Patterns of access to rural service infrastructure: the case of farming households in Limpopo Province," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 42(2), pages 1-15, June.
    17. Cecilia ALEXANDRI & Bianca PAUNA & Corina SAMAN, 2020. "The Relationship Between Total Factor Productivity and Subsidies in the Case of Romanian Farms," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 0(4), pages 85-98, December.
    18. Klaus Mittenzwei & David S. Bullock & Klaus Salhofer, 2012. "Towards a theory of policy timing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(4), pages 583-596, October.
    19. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing, 2007. "Land rental markets in the process of rural structural transformation : productivity and equity impacts in China," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4454, The World Bank.
    20. Lijia Shi & Lisa A. House & Zhifeng Gao, 2013. "Impact of Purchase Intentions on Full and Partial Bids in BDM Auctions: Willingness-to-pay for Organic and Local Blueberries," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 707-718, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aesjfr:405511. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ccsenet.org/ .

    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.