IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v146y2016icp55-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-efficiency of animal welfare in broiler production systems: A pilot study using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Gocsik, Éva
  • Brooshooft, Suzanne D.
  • de Jong, Ingrid C.
  • Saatkamp, Helmut W.

Abstract

Broiler producers operate in a highly competitive and cost-price driven environment. In addition, in recent years the societal pressure to improve animal welfare (AW) in broiler production systems is increasing. Hence, from an economic and decision making point of view, the cost-efficiency of improvement in AW obtained from a certain production system is of great importance. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to analyze the contribution of four different production systems to overall AW and the cost-efficiency of increased AW at the farm level. Cost-efficiency was calculated as the ratio of the change in the level of animal welfare and the change in the level of production costs compared to the level of conventional system (i.e., legal minimum standards). The level of AW was measured by the Welfare Quality index score (WQ index score) calculated on the basis of data collected in 168 flocks in the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Italy within the Welfare Quality® project. On the basis of system attributes, three main segments of production systems are distinguished, i.e., conventional, middle-market and top-market systems. The middle-market and top-market systems use a slow growing breed. Stocking density ranges from 25 to 31kg/m2 in middle-market systems and from 21 to 27.5kg/m2 in top-market systems. In the middle-market systems, a covered veranda is provided to the chickens, whereas in the top-market systems chickens have access to an outdoor range. Results show that the middle-market systems, such as Volwaard and Puur & Eerlijk systems, had the highest WQ index score (736), whereas the conventional system had the lowest (577). Moreover, the WQ index score of extensive outdoor (733) and organic systems (698) was below that of the middle-market systems. The major system attributes that differentiate between production systems are broiler type, stocking density and outdoor access. Three system attributes contributed most to AW in all systems, i.e., broiler type, stocking density and length of the dark period. With respect to production costs, broiler chickens kept in conventional system were produced at the lowest costs, followed by the middle-market, the extensive outdoor, and the organic systems. With regard to cost-efficiency, when shifting from conventional to an alternative system, middle-market systems (i.e., Volwaard and Puur & Eerlijk; 8.37) outperformed the extensive outdoor (3.90) and organic systems (1.03). Overall, it can be concluded that the middle-market systems could be attractive for farmers due to their high cost-efficiency and the flexibility to revert to the conventional system.

Suggested Citation

  • Gocsik, Éva & Brooshooft, Suzanne D. & de Jong, Ingrid C. & Saatkamp, Helmut W., 2016. "Cost-efficiency of animal welfare in broiler production systems: A pilot study using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 55-69.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:146:y:2016:i:c:p:55-69
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16300610
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.04.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marian Stamp Dawkins & Christl A. Donnelly & Tracey A. Jones, 2004. "Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6972), pages 342-344, January.
    2. Jones, Tracey & Feber, Ruth & Hemery, Gabriel & Cook, Paul & James, Katy & Lamberth, Curt & Dawkins, Marian, 2007. "Welfare and environmental benefits of integrating commercially viable free-range broiler chickens into newly planted woodland: A UK case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 177-188, May.
    3. de Jonge, Janneke & van Trijp, Hans, 2014. "Heterogeneity in consumer perceptions of the animal friendliness of broiler production systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 174-185.
    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. Vissers, Luuk S.M. & Saatkamp, Helmut W. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2021. "Analysis of synergies and trade-offs between animal welfare, ammonia emission, particulate matter emission and antibiotic use in Dutch broiler production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Schulte, Hinrich D. & Armbrecht, Linda & Bürger, Rasmus & Gauly, Matthias & Musshoff, Oliver & Hüttel, Silke, 2018. "Let the cows graze: An empirical investigation on the trade-off between efficiency and farm animal welfare in milk production," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 375-385.
    3. Uehleke, Reinhard & Seifert, Stefan & Hüttel, Silke, 2020. "Animal welfare and production efficiency in German pork production," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305600, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    4. Marc B M Bracke & Paul Koene & Inma Estevez & Andy Butterworth & Ingrid C de Jong, 2019. "Broiler welfare trade-off: A semi-quantitative welfare assessment for optimised welfare improvement based on an expert survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-24, October.
    5. Heitor Vieira Rios & Paulo Dabdab Waquil & Patrícia Soster de Carvalho & Tomas Norton, 2020. "How Are Information Technologies Addressing Broiler Welfare? A Systematic Review Based on the Welfare Quality ® Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-34, February.
    6. Vassilios Dotas & Dimitrios Gourdouvelis & Lampros Hatzizisis & Ioannis Kaimakamis & Ioannis Mitsopoulos & George Symeon, 2021. "Typology, Structural Characterization and Sustainability of Integrated Broiler Farming System in Epirus, Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-14, November.
    7. Bertrand Méda & Léonie Dusart & Juliette Protino & Philippe Lescoat & Cécile Berri & Pascale Magdelaine & Isabelle Bouvarel, 2021. "OVALI, Sustainability for Poultry ® : A Method Co-Designed by Stakeholders to Assess the Sustainability of Chicken Supply Chains in Their Territories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    8. Uehleke, Reinhard & Seifert, Stefan & Hüttel, Silke, 2020. "Animal welfare and production efficiency in German pork production," 94th Annual Conference, April 15-17, 2020, K U Leuven, Belgium (Cancelled) 303695, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.

    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. Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Agnieszka Tekień, 2017. "Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    2. B Bayraktar & E Tekce & H Kaya & M Karaalp & E Turunc, 2020. "The impact of dietary tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus) on serum apelin, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, cardiac troponin concentrations and histopathology of liver tissue in laying hens housed at d," Veterinární medicína, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 65(6), pages 269-279.
    3. Bosshardt, Sara & Sabatier, Rodolphe & Dufils, Arnaud & Navarrete, Mireille, 2022. "Changing perspectives on chicken-pastured orchards for action: A review based on a heuristic model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    4. Hall, Clare & Sandilands, Victoria, 2006. "Public Attitudes to the Welfare of Broiler Chickens," Working Papers 45998, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    5. Eliseo Bustamante & Fernando-Juan García-Diego & Salvador Calvet & Fernando Estellés & Pedro Beltrán & Antonio Hospitaler & Antonio G. Torres, 2013. "Exploring Ventilation Efficiency in Poultry Buildings: The Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in a Cross-Mechanically Ventilated Broiler Farm," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-19, May.
    6. Ye Zhou & Chao Yan & Di Chen & Chengde Zhang & Xingbo Zhao, 2023. "Integration of Grape-Duck Production Pattern Boosts Duck Behavior, Meat Quality, Fecal Microbiota and Soil Microorganisms," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, January.
    7. Jones, Tracey & Feber, Ruth & Hemery, Gabriel & Cook, Paul & James, Katy & Lamberth, Curt & Dawkins, Marian, 2007. "Welfare and environmental benefits of integrating commercially viable free-range broiler chickens into newly planted woodland: A UK case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 177-188, May.
    8. Eliseo Bustamante & Fernando-Juan García-Diego & Salvador Calvet & Antonio G. Torres & Antonio Hospitaler, 2015. "Measurement and Numerical Simulation of Air Velocity in a Tunnel-Ventilated Broiler House," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-20, February.
    9. Patterson, Jacinta & Mugera, Amin & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Consumer Preferences for Welfare Friendly Production Methods: The Case of Chicken Production in Western Australia," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202567, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Apostolidis, Chrysostomos & McLeay, Fraser, 2016. "Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 74-89.
    11. 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.
    12. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & Kennedy O. Pambo & Victor O. Owino, 2015. "Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for edible insects as food in Kenya: the case of white winged termites," IFRO Working Paper 2015/10, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    13. McVittie, Alistair & Moran, Dominic & Nevison, Ian, 2006. "Public Preferences for Broiler Chicken Welfare: Evidence from Stated Preference Studies," Working Papers 45990, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    14. Katarzyna Olejnik & Ewa Popiela & Sebastian Opaliński, 2022. "Emerging Precision Management Methods in Poultry Sector," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-18, May.

    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:eee:agisys:v:146:y:2016:i:c:p:55-69. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.