IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ifma17/345790.html

Status and economic implications of animal welfare in dairy farming

Author

Listed:
  • Fuchs, Clemens
  • Gütschow, Paul
  • Ketelsen, Meike
  • Rose-Meierhöfer, Sandra
  • Löbel, Jennifer

Abstract

The issue of animal welfare continues to be the focus of attention. There are professional and emotional discussions from many sides. For agriculture, this poses enormous challenges for the future viability of modern animal husbandry. In dairy farming, the focus of the expert discussion should be on the relationship between animal welfare and profitability. Only 21% of the milk cows reach the phase of the highest lactation performance; i.e., a majority of the cows are culled earlier due to diseases, causing high costs. This study presents the first results from the project: “Animal welfare and economic efficiency in the future-oriented dairy farming - evaluation of various actions and their economic impact", using the example of four dairy farms. The analyses show weaknesses in animal welfare in all cases. The most serious deficiencies are in the barn floor and in the condition of the lying cubicles in the barns. This applies to three of the four farms under investigation. In addition, the study reveals that additional cow comfort, such as a paddock and functioning cow brushes, are rarely offered so far. This equipment was not found on any of the participating farms. The results of the cost analysis show that the animal welfare measures can cause a considerable additional cost of up to 10 cents per kg of milk. The investigations will be extended to a further 30 dairy farms in the remaining project term. The aim is to analyse the benefits of the measures concerning animal welfare and the lifetime production of the cows, as well as the marketing of the milk. At least a partial compensation of the rising production costs could be achieved.

Suggested Citation

  • Fuchs, Clemens & Gütschow, Paul & Ketelsen, Meike & Rose-Meierhöfer, Sandra & Löbel, Jennifer, 2017. "Status and economic implications of animal welfare in dairy farming," 21st Congress, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 2-7, 2017 345790, International Farm Management Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifma17:345790
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345790
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/345790/files/17_PR_Fuchs_etal_w1_p7.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.345790?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2011. "Animal Welfare Economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 463-483.
    2. Richard Bennett & Douglas Larson, 1996. "Contingent Valuation Of The Perceived Benefits Of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: An Exploratory Survey," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 224-235, January.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    4. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    5. repec:osf:socarx:cn36m_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li & Chris McIntosh, 2014. "Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 253-265, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Ufer, Danielle J., 2025. "Animal Welfare and Treatment Label Claims in U.S. Table Eggs: Trends in Retail Premiums and Policy Impacts, 2008–18," Economic Research Report 349285, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Nicolas Treich, 2022. "The Dasgupta Review and the Problem of Anthropocentrism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(4), pages 973-997, December.
    10. Spencer Henson & Bruce Traill, 2000. "Measuring Perceived Performance of the Food System and Consumer Food‐Related Welfare," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 388-404, September.
    11. Dunne, W. & O'Connell, J.J., 2002. "A Multicommodity EU Policy Framework Incorporating Public Good Criteria into the Direct Payment System in Agriculture," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24801, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. 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.
    13. Droz, Bénédicte & Buechel, Berno & Capra, Mónica & Chen, Xi & Nassar, Anis & Park, Seong Gyu & Xu, Jin & Zhang, Shanshan & Tasoff, Joshua, 2025. "Appetite for Ignorance: Does eating meat cause information avoidance about its harms?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    14. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael, 2014. "Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 41-49.
    15. Läpple, Doris & Osawe, Osayanmon Wellington, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Altruism and Policy Support," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321212, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    16. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    17. Espinosa, Romain & Treich, Nicolas, 2024. "Animal welfare as a public good," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Lombardini, Chiara & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Kulmala, Soile & Lindroos, Marko, 2011. "Is there a Finnish Animal Welfare Kuznets Curve?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114379, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. David A. Dana & Janice Nadler, 2019. "Regulation, Public Attitudes, and Private Governance," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 69-93, March.
    21. Sérgio Luís Castro Júnior & Eduardo Eugênio Spers & Hermes Moretti Ribeiro Silva & Iran José Oliveira Silva, 2025. "Antecedents of the intention to buy animal welfare certified products: A study with brazilian consumers," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 22(2), pages 295-325, June.

    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:ifma17:345790. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/ifmaaea.html .

    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.