IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i14p10890-d1191763.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Positive Welfare Indicators and Their Association with Sustainable Management Systems in Poultry

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Papageorgiou

    (Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece)

  • Michael Goliomytis

    (Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece)

  • Ouranios Tzamaloukas

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, Biotechnology and Food Science, Cyprus University of Technology, 50329 Limassol, Cyprus)

  • Despoina Miltiadou

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, Biotechnology and Food Science, Cyprus University of Technology, 50329 Limassol, Cyprus)

  • Panagiotis Simitzis

    (Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece)

Abstract

Animal welfare is a key and distinct component of sustainable agriculture and food security. People, both as citizens and consumers, have become more concerned about the husbandry of livestock species. Positive welfare goes a step further than the common welfare approach, supporting that a good life for animals is not only the alleviation of negative aspects, but also the promotion of positive affectivities. So, a sustainable management system for any livestock species should promote positive aspects in the lives of animals. Poultry is one of the species whose welfare is most impaired, and numerous concerns are raised by society. For all the above, we reviewed the positive welfare indicators that have been studied in livestock poultry and that can be used to promote positive effects and assess welfare for the most common species, i.e., broilers, laying hens, turkeys, ducks, geese, quails and ostriches. We analyzed the results categorized by species, discussed the connection of the indicators with sustainable management, and made proposals for future studies. Exploration and dustbathing have been extensively studied and seem most promising, especially in broilers and laying hens, followed by nesting and perching, and swimming for waterfowl. Qualitative behavioral assessment (QBA) is already applied in protocols for broilers and laying hens, but the results are not as promising due to the homogeneity of the flock and the difficulty in observations. Play has been studied mostly in broilers but is a behavior difficult to recognize and needs further understanding. The results are limited for all species, except broilers and laying hens.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Papageorgiou & Michael Goliomytis & Ouranios Tzamaloukas & Despoina Miltiadou & Panagiotis Simitzis, 2023. "Positive Welfare Indicators and Their Association with Sustainable Management Systems in Poultry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-27, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:14:p:10890-:d:1191763
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/14/10890/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/14/10890/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beth A Ventura & Frank Siewerdt & Inma Estevez, 2012. "Access to Barrier Perches Improves Behavior Repertoire in Broilers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-7, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    4. Heng, Yan & Hanawa Peterson, Hikaru & Li, Xianghong, 2013. "Consumer Attitudes toward Farm-Animal Welfare: The Case of Laying Hens," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-17.
    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. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    2. 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.
    3. Wen Lin, 2023. "The effect of product quantity on willingness to pay: A meta‐regression analysis of beef valuation studies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 646-663, July.
    4. Francesca Gerini & Frode Alfnes & Alexander Schjøll, 2016. "Organic- and Animal Welfare-labelled Eggs: Competing for the Same Consumers?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 471-490, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2021. "Moderate Versus Radical NGOs†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1478-1501, August.
    7. Jasper Grashuis & Alexandre Magnier, 2018. "Product differentiation by marketing and processing cooperatives: A choice experiment with cheese and cereal products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 813-830, October.
    8. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Espinosa, Romain & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Moderate vs. Radical NGOs," TSE Working Papers 20-1159, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    11. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    12. Pirsich, Wiebke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2017. "The Pet Food Industry: An Innovative Distribution Channel for Animal Welfare Meat?," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276914, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    13. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    14. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    15. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Szilvia Molnár & László Szőllősi, 2020. "Sustainability and Quality Aspects of Different Table Egg Production Systems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    17. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    18. Chen, Junhong & Nian, Yefan & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "Value, Attitude/Belief, and Sustainable Food Consumption," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322485, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Abele Kuipers & Agata Malak-Rawlikowska & Aldona Stalgienė & Anita Ule & Marija Klopčič, 2021. "European Dairy Farmers’ Perceptions and Responses towards Development Strategies in Years of Turbulent Market and Policy Changes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, March.
    20. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:14:p:10890-:d:1191763. 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.