The impact of broiler production system practices on consumer perceptions of animal welfare Janneke de Jonge1 and Hans C. M. van Trijp Marketing and Consumer Behavior Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW, the Netherlands the different farm management practices influenced the animal friendliness of the production system. Differences between individuals regarding their knowledge about and familiarity with livestock farming, degree of anthropomorphism, and their moral beliefs regarding animal welfare partly explained the relative importance individuals attached to farm management practices. The obtained insight into which welfare-related farm management practices, in consumers’ minds, most strongly contribute to animal welfare, and the existence of differences between consumers, can be helpful in the development of animal welfare-based certification schemes that are appealing to consumers, as well as the positioning of welfare concepts in the market.

Key words: broiler production system, animal welfare, consumer perception, conjoint analysis, individual difference 2013 Poultry Science 92:3080–3095 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03334

INTRODUCTION The license to produce of the livestock sector has increasingly become a topic of discussion, particularly in relation to animal welfare (Te Velde et al., 2002). Although production systems need to conform to minimum guidelines regarding farm animal welfare stipulated by the European Union (EU) and by the Council of Europe (Veissier et al., 2008), several studies suggest that a considerable consumer segment feels uncomfortable with those animal welfare levels (Stolz et al., 2011; De Jonge and Van Trijp, 2013). [In this paper we use the term consumer, and not citizen. In line with the position of De Bakker and Dagevos (2012), we believe that the distinction between citizen and consumer is an artificial one, because civic virtues (altruistic) and self-interested (egoistic) factors cannot be strictly separated in consumer beliefs and consumption behavior.] Organic production systems provide higher levels of animal welfare than conventional systems (Tuyttens et al., 2008) and are recognized in certification pro©2013 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received May 21, 2013. Accepted August 15, 2013. 1 Corresponding author: [email protected]

grams (e.g., of the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals) to provide an upper level standard for animal welfare. However, organic meat is seen as a viable alternative by only a niche segment of consumers, particularly also considering the substantial price premium associated with it. Consumer discomfort with the current meat supply has stimulated new (often private) initiatives in the development of products that meet animal welfare standards in between conventional and organic supply, so called conventional-plus or middle segment products (Veissier et al., 2008; Oosterkamp et al., 2011; Stolz et al., 2011). Such market initiatives aim to strike a balance between increasing animal welfare while staying within an acceptable price range. Improving objective animal science-based welfare levels in production systems and consumer perceptions of animal welfare in livestock farming may be achieved through the implementation of various adjustments to dominant production systems. Besides considering the cost implications of such animal welfare improvements, the development of intermediate animal welfare-based certification schemes could also benefit from more detailed insight into how animal welfare is perceived by consumers (Vanhonacker et al., 2009, 2012).

3080

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

ABSTRACT This research explores the extent to which different farm management practices influence the perceived animal friendliness of broiler production systems, and how this differs between individuals. Using a conjoint design with paired comparisons, respondents evaluated broiler production systems that were described on the basis of 7 animal welfare-related practices. It was found that practices in the area of outdoor access, stocking density, and day-night rhythm were overall perceived to have a larger impact on perceptions of animal friendliness than other practices, such as transport duration or the type of breed used. However, individuals differed regarding the extent to which they believed

CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF BROILER PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Second, it investigates to what extent perceptions of animal welfare of different production systems and practices vary systematically between consumers, as a result of their knowledge about livestock production systems, their familiarity with farming, and their moral beliefs regarding animal welfare in livestock farming. The paper is structured as follows. First, definitions of animal welfare and key welfare issues in livestock production from an animal science perspective will be reviewed. We specifically focus on welfare issues regarding broiler production systems and practices, because predominant broiler production systems are associated with various welfare problems by animal scientists (Bessei, 2006; Bokkers et al., 2011; Robins and Phillips, 2011; Dinev, 2012), as well as consumers (Verbeke and Viaene, 2000). Together with insights from studies on consumer perceptions of farm animal welfare and preferences for animal welfare-enhanced meat products, this informs the design of our consumer study in which the relative influence of different farm management practices on the perceived animal friendliness of production systems is empirically assessed. We will then analyze to what extent diversity in animal welfare perceptions of different practices and production systems can be explained from consumer characteristics such as people’s knowledge about livestock farming and their moral beliefs.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Animal Welfare Animal welfare is a complex concept (Barnard and Hurst, 1996; Ohl and Van der Staay, 2012) that has been approached from different angles and perspectives (Swanson, 1995). The Brambell (1965) report has been very influential and still serves as an important benchmark for legal definitions such as the EU minimum standards (European Commission, 2007b; Veissier et al., 2008) and the Treaty of Lisbon (article 13), which explicitly recognizes farm animals as sentient beings. It has also been a cornerstone of the large-scale European Welfare Quality program that defined animal welfare to consist of good feeding, good housing, good health, and appropriate behavior (Blokhuis et al., 2010; Temple et al., 2011). Brambell (1965) defined animal welfare in terms of 5 freedoms (Farm Animal Welfare Council, 1992): 1) The freedom from hunger and thirst, 2) the freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area, 3) the freedom from pain, injury, and disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment, 4) the freedom to express normal behavior by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal’s own kind, and 5) the freedom from fear and stress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering. Requirements that serve as

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

Animal rearing for meat production involves a hierarchical relationship between people and farm animals, implying among others, that “people decide what is an acceptable way of treating animals” (Te Velde et al., 2002). It is a moral issue, and what is considered acceptable and unacceptable in livestock farming differs between individuals and, to some extent, also changes over time (Ohl and Van der Staay, 2012). Vander Naald and Cameron (2011) found that consumer willingness to pay for welfare-enhanced meat products was positively related to the degree to which consumers believed that “humanely raised” standards actually improved the wellbeing of farm animals. Humanely raised meat was defined to respondents in the Vander Naald and Cameron (2011) study as, “These products are not yet widely available. An independent certifying organization would supervise specific animal husbandry standards that individual farmers could choose to follow if they wish. These standards would concern veterinary care, healthy feeds, shelter/shade, ample space, pasture/rangeland/outdoor access, comfortable indoor protection during extreme weather, proper weaning, no unnecessary physical alterations, no electric shocks, natural cycles of light and dark, and continuous access to food.” This is one of the few studies that explicitly shows that consumer willingness to pay for meat from humanely raised animals is linked to the perceived living circumstances of farm animals, besides other drivers such as the perceived healthiness of this type of meat. Importantly, the consumer segment that feels uncomfortable with the minimum levels of animal welfare standards (European Commission 2007a; Vanhonacker et al., 2007; Vanhonacker et al., 2008; Stolz et al., 2011), but to whom the step toward organic products is too large, may be heterogeneous in terms of which livestock production system practices contribute most to perceived animal welfare levels (Meuwissen et al., 2007; Krystallis et al., 2009). We use the term practices in line with Vander Naald and Cameron (2011, among others, p. 1326) to indicate common methods of raising animals, including the density of animals, outdoor access, slaughter method, and natural cycles of light and dark. Individual differences may exist regarding how abstract or general beliefs about animal welfare are derived from inferences made from specific practices in livestock production systems. For example, some consumers might attach more importance to a natural daynight rhythm, whereas others attach more importance to the type of breed used or the slaughter method applied. Consumer groups with different types of concerns may have different priorities in desired adjustments to conventional production system practices to enhance (perceived) animal welfare. The aim of the present study is 2-fold. First, it investigates the extent to which different rearing conditions, such as the opportunity for outdoor access or a natural day-night rhythm, influence consumer perceptions of the animal friendliness of broiler production systems.

3081

3082

de Jonge and van Trijp

Production Practices and Broiler Welfare For predominant animal production systems, broiler welfare concern has been discussed in relation to various farm and management practices (Bessei, 2006; Heleski et al., 2006; Robins and Phillips, 2011). The use of particular breeds with rapid growth rates, common to conventional production systems, has been a central concern in relation to broiler welfare, in particular because it causes physiological problems in birds related to cardiovascular disease and leg disorders (Bessei, 2006; Robins and Phillips, 2011; Dinev, 2012). Broiler welfare is additionally affected by stocking density (i.e., the number of animals per m2). Bokkers et al. (2011) reported that the space needs of broilers exceed the norms as described in the EU Directive concerning broilers (2007/43/EC). Although in conventional production systems a stocking density of more than 20 birds/m2 is common, Bokkers et al. (2011) showed that a stocking density in large flocks exceeding 16 birds/m2 leads to compression of birds, which suppresses opportunities for behavioral expression. The light regimen in the barn is another production factor with animal welfare implications. In the EU, at least one uninterrupted period of darkness of at least 4 h is required since June 2010 (2007/43/EC). However, it has been argued that at least 8 h of near-darkness (less than 5 lx) is necessary to encourage a normal biological rhythm, where the day-night cycle is synchronized with the animals’ circadian rhythm/biological clock (Bessei, 2006; Robins and Phillips, 2011). In most

conventional production systems, it is common to have only 1 h of darkness in the barn per 24 h (Robins and Phillips, 2011). This negatively influences bird welfare because it does not enable broilers to develop a biological rhythm, and negatively influences locomotor activity (Bessei, 2006; Bayram and Ozkan, 2010). That is, in a natural day-night regimen (e.g., 16L:8D), the average activity level in the light phase is higher, which positively influences leg conditions. Further, management systems with access to a freerange area have benefits for animal welfare. Outdoor access stimulates locomotion, which results in greater bone strength in the tibia (Van de Weerd et al., 2009). In addition, broilers with access to free range showed their natural patterns of behavior much more frequently compared with birds kept in the barn system (Skomorucha et al., 2007). However, there are also some risks (e.g., predation, parasites, reduced biosecurity) associated with outdoor use (Van de Weerd et al., 2009). In conventional systems, birds are typically reared indoors. Enrichment of the environment with perching materials, pecking objects, and straw bales allows birds to expand their behavioral repertoire (e.g., scratching and foraging). Stimulating the activity in birds can improve leg conditions, and through that, welfare (Bessei, 2006), although Robins and Phillips (2011) conclude that “no studies have yet demonstrated that on a commercial scale environmental enrichment is of significant benefit to the birds’ welfare” (p. 361). The provision of enrichment materials is not compulsory in conventional broiler production systems. Transport of broilers to processing plants has been associated with risk of death, injury, health impairment, and stress (Vecerek et al., 2006). The duration of transportation is one of the factors that influence bird welfare, where increased transport duration is associated with increased mortality of broilers (Vecerek et al., 2006). In the EU, there are minimum standards for transportation of poultry. These standards relate to the maximum duration of transport (12 h), stocking density during transport, the application of a temperature measurement system, and ventilation specifications (Robins and Phillips, 2011). With respect to the slaughter stage, controlled atmosphere stunning systems (i.e., 2-phase carbon dioxidestunning system) have welfare-related advantages relative to electrical water-bath stunning (Von Holleben et al., 2012). Welfare impairments caused by the (conventional) electrical water-bath method are particularly related to pain and stress induced by compression of the birds’ legs in the shackles, being inverted and suspended by the legs, and stunning ineffectiveness (Lines et al., 2012). In summary, several characteristics of farm management systems and practices have implications for farm animal welfare. Adjustments to management practices that are applied in most conventional broiler production systems may provide potential for improving ani-

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

minimum standards tend to be strongly resource-based (i.e., based on farm and management characteristics). Technical definitions of animal welfare used by animal scientists have followed up on this by putting the individual animal more central in defining animal welfare as “the ability of an animal to cope physiologically, behaviourally, cognitively, and emotionally with its physiochemical and social life environment, including the animal’s subjective experience of its condition” (Sejian et al., 2010). That is, animal welfare assessments can be based on physiological (e.g., feed intake), physical (e.g., body damage), behavioral (e.g., tail biting), and production-related (e.g., growth impairment) measures (Sejian et al., 2010). Resource-based definitions (as legal requirements in terms of minimum standards) operationalize farm animal welfare in terms of how much space animals should have, how many hours of uninterrupted darkness should be provided, the maximum time animals are allowed to be in transport, and so on. Although a combination of resource and animal based measures might be complementary in assessing animal welfare, and together provide the most valid assessment of welfare (Temple et al., 2012), regulations and certification schemes are expressed in terms of resource-based criteria related to farm and management characteristics.

CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF BROILER PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

mal welfare standards not only in objective terms (i.e., by improving the quality of life of farm animals), but probably also in terms of consumer perceptions of animal welfare in broiler production systems. Therefore, the discussed characteristics of management systems and practices will serve as key independent variables in our research design to determine to what extent these practices influence consumer perceptions of animal welfare in broiler production systems.

Broiler Production Systems

Consumer Perceptions of Animal Welfare Next to animal science-based technical and resourcebased specifications of animal welfare levels, there is also the public definition of animal welfare (Swanson, 1995), based on public understanding and societal values (Ohl and Van der Staay, 2012). Consumer perceptions of animal welfare and preferences for welfare-enhanced meat products have increasingly been explored (Ingenbleek and Immink, 2011). Such research shows that consumers are concerned about animal welfare issues in livestock farming (Frewer et al., 2005) and see room and even need for improvement (European Commission, 2007a). On average health, eating enjoyment, and safety are more important considerations than animal welfare in consumption intentions for poultry and pork (e.g., McCarthy et al., 2004). However, large differences exist within the population regarding the

relative importance of animal welfare compared with other food choice motivations, lending room for market segmentation approaches (Meuwissen et al., 2007; Vanhonacker et al., 2007; Krystallis et al., 2009). Typically using choice experiments (e.g., Auger and Devinney, 2007), several studies have explored willingness to pay for meat products originating from different production systems, such as conventional, free-range, humanely raised, animal welfare-focused, consumer health-focused, and organic production systems (Pouta et al., 2010; Vander Naald and Cameron, 2011; Van Loo et al., 2011; Kehlbacher et al., 2012; Nocella et al., 2012). However, often these studies did not describe the production systems in terms of their underlying practices, and thus were not able to provide insight into which specific practices most strongly drive consumer preferences for specific production systems. Few studies have specifically zoomed in at specific features and practices of production systems, and the trade-off therein, in relation to consumers’ animal welfare perceptions. However, some indirect insights may be obtained from studies that investigated consumer preferences for specific rearing practices in livestock farming (e.g., Meuwissen et al., 2007; Pouta et al., 2010). Pouta et al. (2010) described 4 production systems (conventional, consumer health, organic, and animal welfare) in terms of underlying practices related to the type of feed, stocking density, outdoor access, slaughter age, enrichment, and transportation time. Their results show that, overall, consumers derived lowest utility from the conventional system, and highest utility from the animal welfare-based system, even more so than the organic production system. Although these 4 production systems differed on more than 1 attribute, which does not permit a determination of which specific rearing conditions that influenced consumer evaluations, the findings suggest that organic feed and slaughtering age are not particularly important production method features, but that regulations regarding maximum transportation time are. Research by Krystallis et al. (2009) in the context of pork production systems indicated that type of housing in terms of the type of floor and the opportunity of outdoor access was important to some consumers, whereas others attached more importance to farmer efforts to reduce the environmental impact of the production system.

Table 1. Production practices in European conventional and organic broiler production systems Item

Conventional

Organic

Outdoor access Stocking density Breed Day-night

No 21 birds per m2 (maximum 39–42 kg/m2) Fast growing (slaughter age 40–42 d) Minimum 4 h of uninterrupted darkness per 24 h No Maximum 12 h Electric water bath

Yes, 4 m2 per bird 10 birds per m2 Slow growing (slaughter age 81 d) Minimum 6 to 8 h of uninterrupted darkness per 24 h

Enrichment Transport duration Slaughter

Litter (wood chips, mull, straw, or sand), spread grain Maximum 3 h 2-phase CO2 stunning

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

Broiler production systems differ in terms of the animal welfare practices they apply. Table 1 shows management practices as these are commonly applied in conventional broiler production systems in Europe, adhering to the minimum animal welfare levels defined in European regulations (2007/43/EC). These are contrasted with the minimum levels defined for organic broiler production systems, which provide the highest welfare levels for farm animals and can be considered as the upper extreme of the animal welfare continuum (Tuyttens et al., 2008; Veissier et al., 2008). The room for animal welfare improvement through middle segment or conventional-plus products is defined by management practices that fall in the range between conventional and organic production system practices.

3083

3084

de Jonge and van Trijp

Individual Differences in Consumer Perception of Animal Welfare Research has shown that individual differences exist regarding the importance attached to specific characteristics of livestock farming (Meuwissen et al., 2007), the importance of animal welfare and evaluation of current practices (De Boer et al., 2007; Vanhonacker et al., 2007; Vanhonacker and Verbeke, 2009), and the perceived life quality of farm animals (Boogaard et al., 2006). These individual differences in animal welfare perceptions depend on peoples’ frame of reference in terms of experiences, convictions, and values (Te Velde et al., 2002; Nijland et al., 2010). Farming Knowledge and Experiences. Previous research has shown that people with a connection to

agriculture were more positive about the life quality of farm animals compared with consumers who had not such a connection (Boogaard et al., 2006; Kendall et al., 2006) and that they also differ in terms of the perceived importance of different criteria for farm animal welfare (Tuyttens et al., 2010). In a comparison between farmers and consumers, Vanhonacker et al. (2008) showed that to farmers, stocking density, slaughter without pain or stress, and duration of transport were important aspects of animal welfare, but also well taken care of in current livestock systems, whereas consumers perceived these aspects as much more problematic in current livestock production systems. In addition, farmers perceived outdoor access to be relatively less important compared with consumers, whereas with respect to growth rate (i.e., breed), natural day-night rhythm, and environmental enrichment, the differences between consumers and farmers were less pronounced (Vanhonacker et al., 2008). Together these results suggest that in their perceptions of animal welfare, consumers with more farm-experience, knowledge about agricultural production, or both, will focus less on outdoor access, stocking density, transport duration, and slaughter method compared with consumers with less farm experience, knowledge, or both. Convictions. Convictions are firmly held beliefs or opinions that are relatively resistant to change. One such conviction with potential relevance to the context of animal welfare is the extent to which individuals attribute humanlike characteristics, such as feelings, cognition, and intentions, to nonhuman agents such as farm animals and hence grant these animals moral worth (Waytz et al., 2010), such as freedom and autonomy. In the literature, this phenomenon has been referred to as anthropomorphism (Grossman and Simon, 1969; Waytz et al., 2010). In the context of livestock farming, it can be expected that when the characteristics of the production system are perceived to cause harm or suffering in farm animals, for example because the free will of the animals is taken away, the specific conditions responsible for the suffering will be perceived as immoral (Gray et al., 2012). Although the fact that animals are kept for their meat by default implies limited autonomy on their part (e.g., they live in a confined space and eventually will be slaughtered), production systems differ with respect to the behavioral freedom that animals are granted during their life. In the current study, it is expected that in their perception of animal welfare, individuals with more strongly held anthropomorphic convictions will attach relatively more importance to rearing conditions that directly affect animals’ freedom and autonomy, such as the opportunity for outdoor access, stocking density, and environmental enrichment. Moral Values. Beliefs about animal welfare are related to people’s moral value structure (e.g., Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987), in particular the endorsement of universalistic values (De Boer et al., 2007). Universalistic values, relating to social justice, equality, and protection of the environment and nature, are considered moral

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

Also in the context of pork production, Meuwissen et al. (2007) found that attributes related to outdoor access, space, and floor surface were generally perceived as more important than human interventions such as tail docking, teeth clipping, and castration, although the relative importance attached to each of these attributes differed between individuals. Most relevant to the present study, is the comprehensive research conducted by Vanhonacker and colleagues (Vanhonacker et al., 2008, 2009) as it zooms in on practices of livestock production systems at a very detailed level, both in terms of the level of importance consumers attach to different welfare-related aspects and the perceived performance of conventional livestock systems on these aspects. The discrepancy between perceived importance and performance defines the level of consumer concern (Vanhonacker et al., 2009). Consumer concerns were particularly high with respect to housing characteristics, natural behavior, transport, and slaughter (Vanhonacker et al., 2008, 2009). With respect to housing, aspects related to stocking density, available space, and outdoor access were identified as having strong potential for improvement (Vanhonacker et al., 2008, 2009). Similarly, with respect to natural behavior, natural growth rate, natural behavior, and daylight were perceived by consumers as important, but currently insufficiently taken into account. In the area of transport and slaughter there was a discrepancy between perceived importance and perceived performance for the aspects slaughter without pain or stress, handling of animals, and space and thirst during transport (Vanhonacker et al., 2008, 2009). Aspects related to feed and water, animal health, and human-animal relationship were perceived as among the most important, but also relatively well taken care of, welfare dimensions (Vanhonacker et al., 2008). Inspired by these initial results, the present study moves beyond self-reported importance and performance ratings to explore consumer perceptions of animal welfare by applying an experimental design to derive the relative importance consumers attach to specific welfare-related rearing practices.

CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF BROILER PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

The Current Study The present study expands on previous research by further detailing out the management practices that consumers express concern about (e.g., stocking density) in terms of concrete performance levels (e.g., specific numbers of chickens per m2) and investigating the relative importance of these aspects, and specific levels within these aspects, on the perceived animal friendliness of broiler production systems. In addition, we will investigate individual differences regarding perceptions of animal welfare in broiler production systems, and the extent to which these differences are related to consumers’ knowledge about and familiarity with livestock farming, moral involvement with animal welfare, and socio-demographic characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Sample Two hundred nine students (59% women, 91% consume meat) at a Dutch university participated on a voluntary basis. Of the respondents, 75% were enrolled in the undergraduate program and 21% were enrolled in the graduate program. The study program of 4% of the respondents was unknown. The respondents came from a variety of disciplines, including social sciences (12%), environmental sciences (27%), animal sciences (17%), plant sciences (12%), and agro and food sciences (28%). Respondents varied in age between 17 and 29 yr (mean = 20.5 yr; SD = 2.3). The majority (58%) were

not religious, 24% were Protestant, 15% were Catholic, and 4% had another religious conviction. Sixty-one percent of the respondents indicated having a pet (including farm animals such as pigs, horses, chicken, sheep, and fish). Respondents received financial compensation for their time. Data were collected in February 2012 at the university campus. Respondents were seated behind a computer in a room reserved for the study. They received instructions on the screen and were told to direct any questions to the research assistant.

Design Consumer perceptions of animal welfare were investigated through conjoint analysis following a design with 7 broiler system attributes operationalized at 2 to 5 levels each (see Table 2). Conjoint analysis is a decompositional approach which statistically derives relative importance measures of animal welfare-related attributes (and levels therein) on overall welfare perception from fully described alternatives. The present design involved a series of graded paired comparisons between 2 production systems that were described on the basis of 7 attributes, which were each represented at different levels in the profiles shown. Respondents were asked to what extent they perceived one broiler system profile description (A) as more or less animal friendly than another broiler system profile description (B) by moving a slider on a scale from −10 (profile A more animal friendly than profile B) to +10 (profile B more animal friendly than profile A). The 7 broiler system attributes were selected to reflect those that 1) have been identified to be linked to broiler welfare in the animal science literature, 2) are applied in existing animal welfare certification schemes to discriminate between lower and higher animal welfare standards, 3) and are perceived by consumers to be important and insufficiently met in conventional production systems (Vanhonacker et al., 2008). In addition, care was taken that the selected attributes were independent from each other, that is, that there were no “impossible” combinations between attribute levels. Profiles in set A were selected according to a fractional factorial main effects design (Hair et al., 1998), consisting of 27 calibration profiles (set A). The profiles of set B were constructed through a cyclic design (Huber and Zwerina, 1996) in which the attribute levels of the profiles in set B add 1 to the level of the profiles of set A. When the attribute is at its highest level in set A, the assignment recycles to the lowest level. Thus, for an attribute with 3 levels, level 1 in set A corresponded with level 2 in set B, level 2 (set A) corresponded with level 3 (set B), and level 3 (set A) corresponded with level 1 (set B). The choice for paired comparisons instead of single-profile evaluations was made because it explicitly confronts respondents with different levels of broiler production attributes. An example of one such graded paired comparison is shown in Appendix A.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

values because they are concerned with how actions or behaviors affect the welfare of others beyond the in-group, directly or indirectly (Schwartz, 2007). Universalistic values link to 2 important concepts that are central to the moral domain: harm and fairness (Graham et al., 2011). Harm relates to the extent to which people care about weak or vulnerable others (Graham et al., 2011). Fairness relates to beliefs about social justice and equality (Graham et al., 2011; Rai and Fiske, 2011). Recently, moral emotions linked to disgust and violations of decency, referred to as the purity dimension of the moral domain (Graham et al., 2011), have received considerable attention. Research suggests that meat is associated with “unethical food” (Mäkiniemi et al., 2011) and have been found to experience feelings of guilt, shame, and disgust in the context of meat consumption (Berndsen and Van der Pligt, 2004; Rozin et al., 1997), potentially leading to ambivalent attitudes toward eating meat (Berndsen and Van der Pligt, 2004). Despite previous attention to harm (Frewer et al., 2005) and fairness (Herzog et al., 1991; Heleski et al., 2006) in the context of animal welfare, these have not been previously studied in relation to consumer perceptions of specific rearing conditions in livestock production systems.

3085

3086

de Jonge and van Trijp Table 2. Selected attributes and attribute levels to describe the broiler production systems Attribute levels

Outdoor access

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 1) 2) 3) 1) 2) 3) 1) 2) 1) 2) 1) 2) 1) 2)

Stocking density Breed/growth rate     Day-night rhythm   Enrichment Transport Slaughter

No outdoor access, no daylight in the barn No outdoor access, daylight in the barn Covered outdoor access (indoor free range area), min ±12 × 12 cm/chicken Open outdoor access, 1 m2/chicken Open outdoor access with natural cover, 4 m2/chicken 21 chickens/m2 12 chickens/m2 10 chickens/m2 Fast growing (40–42 d old at slaughter) Slower growing (56 d old at slaughter) Slow growing (81 d old at slaughter) Unnatural day-night rhythm, 1 h dark at night Natural day-night rhythm, 6 to 8 h dark at night No enrichment Enrichment (e.g., straw, mull, sand, or grain) Conventional Shorter than 3 h Conventional procedure (electric water bath) Animal-friendlier procedure (2-phase CO2 gas)

Beyond the 27 calibration profiles that were used to estimate the utilities of the attribute levels, 6 paired comparisons were included as validation profiles to assess the internal predictive validity of the estimated utilities [i.e., to ascertain how consistently the estimated model was able to predict the comparative evaluations given by the respondents (Hair et al., 1998)]. Half of the validation profiles were taken from the profiles in the calibration set, and the other half consisted of new profiles, which had not been evaluated before. The new profiles were selected to represent different product concepts that currently exist in the market (i.e., conventional, middle segment products, and organic), as far as these did not occur in the calibration set. For these new profiles, the cyclic design was not applied, meaning that attribute levels could differ between profile A and B with more than one level (for those attributes with more than 2 levels). The validation profiles varied with respect to how difficult or easy it would be to predict which one would be perceived as more animal friendly. This was expected to depend on the number of attributes on which the 2 shown profiles differed, as well as the distance between attribute levels (i.e., 1 level difference or more). Validation profiles were chosen such that 2 were expected to be easy to predict correctly, 2 were relatively difficult to predict correctly, and 2 were in between. Before starting with the task, respondents read a short description of each of the attributes and attribute levels, and were shown an example of a profile description. In addition, they received an instruction on how to use the slider using a fictitious example unrelated to animal welfare (evaluation of 2 bouquets of flowers). To deal with potential boredom and fatigue, the set of profiles was cut into 2 parts. The order in which respondents completed the 2 parts was randomized. In between the 2 parts, respondents were asked to fill out some background questions related to demographics (e.g., gender, year of birth, religion) and the study program they were enrolled in.

Measures Subjective and objective knowledge about livestock farming was measured with items based on Vanhonacker et al. (2007). To assess subjective knowledge, respondents were asked “How much do you think you know about the way broiler chickens are kept compared to the average person?” Answers could be rated on a scale ranging from “much less” (1) to “much more” (7). Objective knowledge of livestock production practices was assessed on the basis of 6 statements that had to be rated as correct or incorrect. The items corresponded with the major groups of farm animals in the Netherlands, and 5 were taken from Vanhonacker et al. (2007). One additional statement was added: “The beaks of conventionally raised laying hens are trimmed” (correct). Respondents’ familiarity with livestock farming was assessed with the item, “Have you ever been on a farm where production animals were kept?” Answers were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from “never” (1), “once” (2), “two or three times” (3), “more than three times” (4), and “I live(d) on a farm with animals” (5). Subjective and objective knowledge were positively correlated (r = 0.28, P < 0.001). Anthropomorphism was measured with 4 items developed in previous research (Heleski et al., 2006; Waytz et al., 2010). Respondents rated the following items on a 7-point scale ranging from “completely disagree” (1) to “completely agree” (7): Production animals have “an individual temperament,” “free will,” “emotions,” and “a mind of their own.” Ratings on the 4 items were averaged to form a composite scale (α = 0.85). Twenty-two survey items on moral beliefs about animals and meat consumption were derived from previous studies (Mehrabian, 1972; Herzog et al., 1991; Needham, 2010; Rozin et al., 1997; Berndsen and Van der Pligt, 2004; Frewer et al., 2005; Boogaard et al., 2006; Heleski et al., 2006; De Boer et al., 2007; Fischer et al., 2011). On the basis of principal component analysis with oblimin rotation, 3 subdimensions were

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

Attribute

CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF BROILER PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Data Analysis Data analysis consisted of different steps. First, the (relative) contribution of the different broiler system attributes to perceived animal friendliness was quantified from the conjoint analysis at the aggregate and individual respondent level. Second, the predictive accuracy of these models was explored. Next, we focused on individual difference variables explaining differences in consumer perceptions of animal welfare, both for conventional and organic production systems and the perceived difference between these systems in terms of animal welfare levels. Subsequently, we explored to what extent consumer characteristics explained consumers’ animal welfare perception of broiler production systems at the level of the relative importance attached to individual attributes. Data Preprocessing. Prior to analysis, the key dependent variable (the differential animal welfare perception across 27 pairs of broiler system descriptions on a scale ranging from −10 to +10) was transformed per individual respondent into normalized scale values (Zegers and Ten Berge, 1985) using the following formula:

Yiknorm =

yik

27

∑ i =1

yik2

,

27

where Yiknorm denotes the normalized scale value for pair i (i = 1, 2, ..., 27) and respondent k, and yik represents the observed score on pair i of respondent k. This normalization ensures that the interpretation of results is not affected by differences in response style between respondents. Normalization is preferable to standardization of ratings because the −10 to +10 has a meaningful scale midpoint (0) indicating no difference

in animal welfare perception. All multi-item independent variables were mean-centered to facilitate interpretation, and familiarity with livestock farming and gender were dummy-coded. Relative Importance of Broiler System Attributes. Part worth values, representing the relative importance of the broiler system attribute levels to the perceived animal friendliness of a production system, were obtained from dummy regression. For this purpose, both the left and right hand profile in a pair were expressed as a set of 12 dummy variables. Regarding attributes with 2 levels, the first attribute level (in the animal welfare literature representing the lower welfare level) was used to serve as the baseline against which to interpret the effects. For attributes with more than 2 levels, the middle attribute level was used as the reference group. The normalized dependent variable was regressed on the difference scores on the 2 sets of 12 dummy variables. As a result, part worth values were obtained. No intercept was included in the model because the dependent variable represents a difference score with a baseline of zero (no difference in animal friendliness between the 2 shown profiles). The regression analysis was conducted across the 27 calibration pairs, both at the aggregate and individual respondent level. These models were estimated through a fixed effects and random slopes hierarchical linear model, respectively. The random slopes model confirmed individual differences as evidenced by estimated variances that were statistically significant. Predictive Validity of the Estimated Models. The accurateness of the estimated models was tested by assessing if the model with individual-level regression coefficients outperformed the overall (fixed) effects model with population-level regression coefficients, which would support the use of individual-level estimates. The correspondence between the observed and the predicted evaluation was assessed with Tucker’s congruence coefficient, which reflects the degree to which the 2 variables are proportional (Zegers and Ten Berge, 1985). Tucker’s congruence coefficient is sensitive to additive constants (Lorenzo-Seva and ten Berge, 2006), which is desirable because the valence of the scores matters. The formula to calculate Tucker’s congruence coefficient is

cij =

∑PihOjh , ∑Pih2 ∑Ojh2

where cij denotes Tucker’s congruence coefficient, Pi represents the predicted score, Oj represents the observed score, and h represents the score of an individual evaluation (h = 1, 2, …, n). Second, it was tested how well the model could correctly predict which profile of a given set was perceived by respondents to be more animal friendly. That is, it was tested how often the predicted and the observed evaluation had the same valence (i.e., prediction and observation both >0 or both 3 times  Have lived/live on a farm Anthropomorphism Moral beliefs  Care about animals  Fairness and animal rights  Moral emotions Sex (male = 1)

Conventional

CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF BROILER PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

DISCUSSION The present research explored to what extent specific production system practices are associated with consumer perceptions of the animal friendliness of broiler production systems, and to what extent these animal welfare perceptions differ between individuals. Outdoor access, stocking density, and day-night rhythm were the most important predictors of the perceived animal friendliness of livestock production systems. In addition, the results showed that conventional broiler production systems were perceived to be considerably less animal friendly compared with organic broiler production systems. The findings highlight some interesting differences between expert (i.e., animal science-based) and consumer perceptions of animal welfare. For example, the type of breed that is used is seen by animal scientists as

one of the most important factors that influence animal welfare, but comes out as among the least important attributes in the current study. Pouta et al. (2010) also found that the slaughter age was not a crucial attribute in terms of people’s meat preferences. Potentially, people do not realize what the consequences are of using fast-growing breeds in terms of health problems it causes in birds (see Robins and Phillips, 2011; Dinev, 2012). In the current study, the explanation that was provided to the respondents about different types of breeds that are used in broiler production systems did not explicitly make a link between slaughter age and animal health. Possibly, respondents did not make this link themselves or they truly did not believe growth rate was an important factor for animal welfare. With respect to environmental enrichment, we find that consumers perceive this as fairly important, whereas scientific evidence on the welfare implications is still a topic of discussion (Robins and Phillips, 2011). Both consumers and animal scientists attach relatively high importance to outdoor access, stocking density, daynight rhythm, and slaughter method. Although we found that individual background characteristics can to some extent predict consumers’ animal welfare perceptions and salience of broiler production practices therein, the effect sizes were relatively small. The fact that the relative importance individuals attached to a particular attribute was difficult to predict, can have various causes, both at the methodological and the conceptual level. First, the analyses are based on data from a relatively homogenous sample, which might show less diversity in animal welfare perceptions and background characteristics compared with a representative sample from the consumer population. Second, we normalized the graded paired comparison data across the 27 pairs for each individual, such that perceived differences in animal friendliness between 2 production systems were expressed relative to an individual’s average perceived difference, where each individual had his own benchmark. This was done to exclude the possibility that relationships found with background variables were a function of response style rather than substantive interpretation, but it also removes some variance from the dependent variable. At the conceptual level, the results might be interpreted as indicating commonly shared perceptions of animal welfare in broiler production systems. Individual-level rank order data of the importance attached to the different attributes seem to support this, despite the identified individual differences in regression slopes regarding the attribute levels. That is, we find that some attributes are ranked in the same position by the large majority of respondents (e.g., outdoor access ranked first), whereas other attributes are ranked differently by different respondents (e.g., day-night rhythm or slaughter method). The central tendency of the variables representing the relative importance attached to the attributes was also investigated in this respect. Although most variables tended to be peaked

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

phism tended to be positively related to outdoor access, particularly the level with a free range area of 1 m2/ chicken (P = 0.15). No hypothesis was formulated regarding the influence of moral beliefs on the relative importance attached to specific production practices. Therefore, the analysis was exploratory. The results revealed some significant relationships, particularly related to fairness beliefs. Fairness beliefs were positively related to the relative importance attached to the opportunity for outdoor access (level 4 and 5) and applying slow-growing breeds. The availability of environmental enrichment materials was particularly valued by respondents who more strongly claimed to care about animals and feel a responsibility for farm animals. Moral emotions were not significantly related to the relative importance attached to any of the production practices. Although we were not particularly interested in the effect of gender on the perceived importance of specific production practices for animal welfare, some significant effects were found. Males attached relatively more importance to outdoor access, whereas the perceived importance of an animal-friendly slaughter method was higher for females. To summarize, our results showed significant relationships between individual difference variables and the relative importance attached to outdoor access, breed, enrichment, and slaughter method. In particular, familiarity with farming, subjective knowledge, fairness beliefs, care about animals, and gender showed significant relationships with the relative importance attached to these production practices. However, overall the background variables showed only moderate predictive power for the relative importance people attached to each of the production system practices. That is, only 5 out of 12 models were significant and the amount of variance explained (R2), ranging from 0.10 to 0.18, was modest. The effects provided partial support for our exploratory hypotheses and will be more extensively elaborated on in the discussion.

3091

3092

de Jonge and van Trijp

tended to be preferred (European Commission, 2007a). On-package communication about welfare-related production system practices might increase the likelihood that animal welfare is included as a relevant product attribute in the evaluation of alternative meat products. Hoogland et al. (2007) found that additional information on product labels about production practices beyond an organic hallmark enhanced product evaluations in terms of animal welfare and environmental effects. Further, information about animal welfare beyond hallmarks might make the issue of animal welfare more concrete, which facilitates integration of animal welfare attribute information with information about other attributes that are more concrete and tangible by themselves, such as price and physical appearance. That is, considerations about animal friendliness are traded off against other product attributes, one of the most important being price. It is unlikely that all consumers would use information about production system practices in a detailed belief formation process, and communicating all this detailed information to consumers might, therefore, not be a good solution. However, to date, few studies have been conducted on how to communicate on-package animal welfare information (however, see Zander et al., 2013), while also preventing information overload (Verbeke, 2005). This remains a topic for future research. The development of middle segment products, highlighting specific production system practices that are applied in these concepts, will only be successful when there is a good balance between perceived animal friendliness of the production system (does the product stand out on perceived animal friendliness compared with conventional products), production costs associated with the implementation of welfare improvements, and consumer willingness to pay. Figuring out the room in the market for one or more middle segment products and how these should be positioned is an important next step to take, but goes beyond the scope of the present paper. It would be valuable to replicate the study among members of the general public (i.e., using a nationally representative sample) to test the external validity of the results. In addition, individual differences might be more crystallized when a nationally representative sample is used. Conducting the same analysis on data collected among the general public will point out if the predictive power of the background variables is increased, or whether the absence of strong relationships between background variables and relative importance of welfare-related attributes is a conceptual issue. When on the basis of a large sample, evidence is found for individual differences, these can be further examined by applying segmentation techniques to identify homogeneous subgroups of consumers. When individual difference variables remain weak predictors of the relative importance attached to specific production system characteristics, this might suggest that frame of reference variables (experience, convictions, and values) do

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

relative to a normal distribution (i.e., positive kurtosis, with more observations close to the mean and small tails), no systematic relationship was found between the degree of kurtosis and the predictive power of the individual difference variables. Therefore, the positive kurtosis in the dependent variables cannot be used as evidence to suggest commonly shared beliefs about the relative importance of production system practices for animal welfare. Because specific aspects of broiler production system practices remain hidden to consumers at the point of product choice, they need to be communicated. Such communication can occur at the level of broiler production systems (e.g., conventional vs. organic vs. middle segment) or can be done at a more detailed level in terms of specific production practices implemented within those production systems. Many consumers have limited knowledge about conventional broiler production systems except that they meet the minimum legal standards. Regarding organic systems, production practices might be better known, but in addition organic has developed a strong “brand” image and positivity halo in and of itself. For middle segment products (i.e., meat produced with animal welfare standards that are more strict compared with conventional products, but less strict compared with organic production), animal welfare levels may have to be more specifically communicated in terms of underlying production practices to position them in between conventional and organic. In the context of communicating about production system practices, the part worth values in Table 3 (i.e., regression coefficients indicating the relative importance of the broiler system attribute levels) can be directly interpreted in terms of marginal contributions to the enhancement of consumers’ animal welfare perception relative to conventional production systems (last column). The specific production practices that contribute most strongly to the perceived animal friendliness of a production system are animal access to a covered indoor range or a large outdoor free range area of 4 m2 per chicken, a stocking density of 12 birds/m2, a natural day-night rhythm, environmental enrichment, and an animal-friendly slaughter method. Therefore, on-package communication relating to these practices seems to have most potential to persuade consumers to buy “welfare-enhanced meat products.” Providing consumers with information about animal welfare on product labels might make it clearer how the product stands out on animal welfare aspects compared with alternative products, and make salient the existing practices in different broiler production systems and hence increase consumer knowledge of and insight into existing production systems. Both in survey (Frewer et al., 2005; Vanhonacker and Verbeke, 2009) and experimental studies (Hoogland et al., 2007; Zander and Hamm, 2010), consumers have expressed the need for information about animal welfare and labeling of products produced with the use of animal-friendly production systems. On-package textual written information

CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF BROILER PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO, The Hague, the Netherlands) and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (The Hague, the Netherlands) as funders of the research.

REFERENCES Auger, P., and T. M. Devinney. 2007. Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. J. Bus. Ethics 76:361–383. Barnard, C. J., and J. L. Hurst. 1996. Welfare by design: The natural selection of welfare criteria. Anim. Welf. 5:405–433. Bayram, A., and S. Ozkan. 2010. Effects of a 16-hour light, 8-hour dark lighting schedule on behavioral traits and performance in male broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 19:263–273. Berndsen, M., and J. Van der Pligt. 2004. Ambivalence towards meat. Appetite 42:71–78. Bessei, W. 2006. Welfare of broilers: A review. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 62:455–466. Blokhuis, H. J., I. Veissier, M. Miele, and B. Jones. 2010. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agric. Scand. A 60:129–140. Bokkers, E. A. M., I. J. M. de Boer, and P. Koene. 2011. Space needs of broilers. Anim. Welf. 20:623–632. Boogaard, B. K., S. J. Oosting, and B. B. Bock. 2006. Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in The Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 104:13–22. Brambell, R. 1965. Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK.

De Bakker, E., and H. Dagevos. 2012. Reducing meat consumption in today’s consumer society: Questioning the citizen-consumer gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 25:877–894. De Boer, J., C. T. Hoogland, and J. J. Boersema. 2007. Towards more sustainable food choices: Value priorities and motivational orientations. Food Qual. Prefer. 18:985–996. De Jonge, J., and H. C. M. Van Trijp. 2013. Meeting heterogeneity in consumer demand for animal welfare: A reflection on existing knowledge and implications for the meat sector. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 26:629–661. Dinev, I. 2012. Leg weakness pathology in broiler chickens. Jpn. Poult. Sci. 49:63–67. European Commission. 2007a. Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare (Special Eurobarometer 270). Accessed 6 May 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/sp_ba rometer_aw_en.pdf. European Commission. 2007b. Factsheet. Animal welfare. Accessed 6 May 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/factsheet_farmed03-2007_en.pdf. Farm Animal Welfare Council. 1992. FAWC updates the five freedoms. Vet. Rec. 17:357. Fischer, A., F. Langers, B. Bednar-Friedl, N. Geamana, and K. Skogen. 2011. Mental representations of animal and plant species in their social contexts: Results from a survey across Europe. J. Environ. Psychol. 31:118–128. Frewer, L. J., A. Kole, S. M. A. V. d. Kroon, and C. d. Lauwere. 2005. Consumer attitudes towards the development of animalfriendly husbandry systems. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18:345– 367. Graham, J., B. A. Nosek, J. Haidt, R. Iyer, S. Koleva, and P. H. Ditto. 2011. Mapping the moral domain. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101:366–385. Gray, K., L. Young, and A. Waytz. 2012. Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychol. Inq. 23:101–124. Grossman, W. I., and B. Simon. 1969. Anthropomorphism. Motive, meaning, and causality in psychoanalytic theory. Psychoanal. Study Child 24:78–111. Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Prentice-Hall International, London, UK. Heleski, C. R., A. G. Mertig, and A. J. Zanella. 2006. Stakeholder attitudes toward farm animal welfare. Anthrozoos 19:290–307. Herzog, H. A., N. S. Betchart, and R. Pittman. 1991. Gender, sex role identity and attitudes. Anthrozoos 4:184–191. Hoogland, C. T., J. de Boer, and J. J. Boersema. 2007. Food and sustainability: Do consumers recognize, understand and value on-package information on production standards? Appetite 49:47–57. Huber, J., and K. Zwerina. 1996. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Mark. Res. 33:307–317. Ingenbleek, P., and V. Immink. 2011. Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: Synthesis and implications. Anim. Welf. 20:11–19. Kehlbacher, A., R. Bennett, and K. Balcombe. 2012. Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy 37:627–633. Kendall, H. A., L. M. Lobao, and J. S. Sharp. 2006. Public concern with animal well-being: Place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociol. 71:399–428. Krystallis, A., M. D. de Barcellos, J. O. Kuegler, W. Verbeke, and K. G. Grunert. 2009. Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livest. Sci. 126:46–56. Lines, J. A., P. Berry, P. Cook, C. P. Schofield, and T. G. Knowles. 2012. Improving the poultry shackle line. Anim. Welf. 21:69–74. Lorenzo-Seva, U., and J. M. F. ten Berge. 2006. Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology (Gott) 2:57–64. Mäkiniemi, J. P., A. M. Pirttilä-Backman, and M. Pieri. 2011. Ethical and unethical food. Social representations among Finnish, Danish and Italian students. Appetite 56:495–502. McCarthy, M., S. O’Reilly, L. Cotter, and M. de Boer. 2004. Factors influencing consumption of pork and poultry in the Irish market. Appetite 43:19–28.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

not discriminate between perceptions of the extent to which different practices contribute to animal-friendly production practices, but discriminate between people in terms of how much they weigh animal welfare considerations in their purchase decisions. That is, people might have similar beliefs, but might not be equally motivated to act on these beliefs. Therefore, future studies could extend this line of research by going beyond consumer perceptions of animal welfare to include willingness to pay for welfareenhanced meat products. Finally, a fruitful approach would be to incorporate these consumer findings into bioeconomic modeling approaches, which include the incremental production costs involved in enhancing animal welfare level, to determine viable new animal welfare-based certification schemes and product concepts. In conclusion, the present study provides important insights into consumer perceptions of animal welfare in the context of broiler production systems and practices. It provides a strong consumer basis for the further increase of animal welfare levels in broiler production systems, aligned to consumers’ understanding and priorities. Insight into which welfare measures are important to consumers might help the decision-making to drop certain standards and keep others in the development of welfare-based concepts that consumers are actually willing to pay for. Market segmentation, market targeting, and product positioning are key steps in this process.

3093

3094

de Jonge and van Trijp Lens. 2008. Broiler chicken health, welfare and fluctuating asymmetry in organic versus conventional production systems. Livest. Sci. 113:123–132. Tuyttens, F. A. M., F. Vanhonacker, E. Van Poucke, and W. Verbeke. 2010. Quantitative verification of the correspondence between the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livest. Sci. 131:108–114. Van de Weerd, H. A., R. Keatinge, and S. Roderick. 2009. A review of key health-related welfare issues in organic poultry production. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 65:649–684. Van Loo, E. J., V. Caputo, R. M. Nayga, J. F. Meullenet, and S. C. Ricke. 2011. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic chicken breast: Evidence from choice experiment. Food Qual. Prefer. 22:603–613. Vander Naald, B., and T. A. Cameron. 2011. Willingness to pay for other species’ well-being. Ecol. Econ. 70:1325–1335. Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, S. Buijs, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2009. Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livest. Sci. 123:16–22. Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, Z. Pieniak, G. Nijs, and F. Tuyttens. 2012. The concept of farm animal welfare: Citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 25:79–101. Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2007. Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. Int. J. Sociol. Food Agric. 15:84–100. Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, and F. A. M. Tuyttens. 2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livest. Sci. 116:126–136. Vecerek, V., S. Grbalova, E. Voslarova, B. Janackova, and M. Malena. 2006. Effects of travel distance and the season of the year on death rates of broilers transported to poultry processing plants. Poult. Sci. 85:1881–1884. Veissier, I., A. Butterworth, B. Bock, and E. Roe. 2008. European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 113:279–297. Verbeke, W. 2005. Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 32:347–368. Verbeke, W. A. J., and J. Viaene. 2000. Ethical challenges for livestock production: Meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 12:141–151. Von Holleben, K., M. Von Wenzlawowicz, and E. Eser. 2012. Licensing poultry CO2 gas-stunning systems with regard to animal welfare: Investigations under practical conditions. Anim. Welf. 21:103–111. Vanhonacker, F., and W. Verbeke. 2009. Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not. Poult. Sci. 88:2702–2711. Waytz, A., J. Cacioppo, and N. Epley. 2010. Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5:219–232. Zander, K., and U. Hamm. 2010. Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Qual. Prefer. 21:495–503. Zander, K., H. Stolz, and U. Hamm. 2013. Promising ethical arguments for product differentiation in the organic food sector. A mixed methods research approach. Appetite 62:133–142. Zegers, F. E., and J. M. F. Ten Berge. 1985. A family of association coefficients for metric scales. Psychometrika 50:17–24.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

Mehrabian, A. E. N. 1972. A measure of emotional empathy. J. Pers. 40:525–543. Meuwissen, M. P. M., I. A. Van Der Lans, and R. B. M. Huirne. 2007. Consumer preferences for pork supply chain attributes. NJAS-Wageningen J. Life Sci. 54:293–312. Needham, M. D. 2010. Value orientations toward coral reefs in recreation and tourism settings: A conceptual and measurement approach. J. Sustainable Tourism 18:757–772. Nijland, H. J., N. M. C. Aarts, and R. J. Renes. 2010. Frames and ambivalence in context: An analysis of hands-on experts’ perception of the welfare of animals in traveling circuses in the Netherlands. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10806-010-9252-8. Nocella, G., A. Boecker, L. Hubbard, and R. Scarpa. 2012. Eliciting consumer preferences for certified animal-friendly foods: Can elements of the theory of planned behavior improve choice experiment analysis? Psychol. Mark. 29:850–868. Ohl, F., and F. J. Van der Staay. 2012. Animal welfare: At the interface between science and society. Vet. J. 192:13–19. Oosterkamp, E. B., B. Bremmer, R. Hoste, and K. H. De Greef. 2011. Verkenning van dierlijke tussensegmenten in onze buurlanden. Duurzaam varkensvlees, pluimvee en eieren.: Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The Hague, the Netherlands. Pitman, E. J. G. 1939. A note on normal correlation. Biometrika 31:9–12. Pouta, E., J. Heikkila, S. Forsman-Hugg, M. Isoniemi, and J. Makela. 2010. Consumer choice of broiler meat: The effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Qual. Prefer. 21:539–546. Rai, T. S., and A. P. Fiske. 2011. Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychol. Rev. 118:57–75. Robins, A., and C. J. C. Phillips. 2011. International approaches to the welfare of meat chickens. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 67:351–369. Rozin, P., M. Markwith, and C. Stoess. 1997. Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychol. Sci. 8:67–73. Schwartz, S. H. 2007. Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 38:711–728. Schwartz, S. H., and W. Bilsky. 1987. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53:550–562. Sejian, V., J. Lakritz, T. Ezeji, and R. Lal. 2010. Assessment methods and indicators of animal welfare. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 6:301–315. Skomorucha, I., E. Sosnówka-Czajka, E. Herbut, and R. Muchacka. 2007. Effect of management system on the productivity and welfare of broiler chickens from different commercial lines. Ann. Anim. Sci. 7:141–151. Stolz, H., M. Stolze, M. Janssen, and U. Hamm. 2011. Preferences and determinants for organic, conventional and conventional-plus products—The case of occasional organic consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 22:772–779. Swanson, J. C. 1995. Farm animal well-being and intensive production systems. J. Anim. Sci. 73:2744–2751. Te Velde, H., N. Aarts, and C. Van Woerkum. 2002. Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 15:203–219. Temple, D., V. Courboulay, X. Manteca, A. Velarde, and A. Dalmau. 2012. The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: Assessment of feeding and housing. Animal 6:656–667. Temple, D., A. Dalmau, J. L. Ruiz de la Torre, X. Manteca, and A. Velarde. 2011. Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. J. Vet. Behav. 6:138–149. Tuyttens, F., M. Heyndrickx, M. De Boeck, A. Moreels, A. Van Nuffel, E. Van Poucke, E. Van Coillie, S. Van Dongen, and L.

CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF BROILER PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

3095

APPENDIX A

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at National Chung Hsing University Library on April 12, 2014

Figure A1. Color version available in the online PDF.