Animal Welfare and Mountain Products from Traditional Dairy Farms: How Do Consumers Perceive Complexity?
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Participant Information
2.2. Focus Group Discussions
3. Results
3.1. Conceptualization of the Mountain Environment and Mountain Farming
3.2. Husbandry System Preference and Acceptance
3.3. Welfare Indicators’ Preferences and Knowledge
3.4. Cheese Quality Attributes
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Battaglini, L.; Bovolenta, S.; Gusmeroli, F.; Salvador, S.; Sturaro, E. Environmental sustainability of Alpine livestock farms. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 13, 431–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. The Common Agricultural Policy. In Special Eurobarometer 368; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Steenkamp, J.E.M. Conceptual model of the quality perception process. J. Bus. Res. 1990, 21, 309–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.; Bech-Larsen, T.; Bredahl, L. Three issues in consumer quality perception and acceptance of dairy products. Int. Dairy J. 2000, 10, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, S.; Dwyer, C. Welfare assessment in extensive animal production systems: Challenges and opportunities. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 189–192. [Google Scholar]
- Corazzin, M.; Piasentier, E.; Dovier, S.; Bovolenta, S. Effect of summer grazing on welfare of dairy cows reared in mountain tie stall barns. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 9, 304–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robbins, J.; von Keyserlingk, M.; Fraser, D.; Weary, D. Farm size and animal welfare. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 5439–5455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zuliani, A.; Romanzin, A.; Corazzin, M.; Salvador, S.; Abrahantes, J.; Bovolenta, S. Welfare assessment in traditional mountain dairy farms: Above and beyond resource-based measures. Anim. Welf. 2017, 26, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Te Velde, H.; Aarts, N.; Van Woerkum, C. Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2002, 15, 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, K.; Billington, K.; McNeil, B.; McKeegan, D. Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cow welfare. Anim. Welf. 2009, 18, 267–282. [Google Scholar]
- Weinrich, R.; Kühl, S.; Zühlsdorf, A.; Spiller, A. Consumer Attitudes in Germany towards Different Dairy Housing Systems and Their Implications for the Marketing of Pasture Raised Milk. Int. Food. Agribus. Man. 2014, 17, 205–222. [Google Scholar]
- Calder, B. Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing research. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia. Rapporto Statistico Annual; Centro Stampa Regione FVG: Trieste, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kendall, H.; Lobao, L.; Sharp, J. Public concern with animal well-being: Place, social structural location and individual experience. Rural Sociol. 2006, 71, 399–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA Animal Health and Welfare Panel. Scientific Opinion on the assessment of dairy cow welfare in small-scale farming systems. EFSA J. 2015, 13, 4137–4239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welfare Quality. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Cattle; Welfare Quality Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Miele, M.; Roex, J. Consumers’ Views about Farm Animal Welfare: National Reports Based on Focus Group Research; Welfare Quality Reports; Cardiff University Press: Cardiff, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Pieniak, Z.; Nijs, G.; Tuyttens, F. The Concept of Farm Animal Welfare: Citizen Perceptions and Stakeholder Opinion in Flanders, Belgium. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2012, 25, 79–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spooner, J.; Schuppli, C.A.; Fraser, D. Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: A qualitative study. Livest. Sci. 2014, 163, 150–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMorran, R.; Santini, F.; Guri, F.; Gomez-y-Paloma, S.; Price, M.; Beucherie, O.; Monticelli, C.; Rouby, A.; Vitrolles, D.; Cloye, G. A mountain food label for Europe? The role of food labeling and certification in delivering sustainable development in European mountain regions. Rev. Geogr. Alp. 2015, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Bernués, A.; Rodríguez-Ortega, T.; Ripoll-Bosch, R.; Alfnes, F. Socio-Cultural and Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by Mediterranean Mountain Agroecosystems. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tuyttens, F.; Vanhonacker, F.; Van Poucke, E.; Verbeke, W. 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. 2010, 131, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kling-Eveillard, F.; Knierim, U.; Irrgang, N.; Gottardo, F.; Ricci, R.; Dockes, A. Attitudes of farmers toward cattle dehorning. Livest. Sci. 2015, 179, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.; Verbeke, W. Citizens’ views on farm animal welfare and related information provision: Exploratory insights from Flanders, Belgium. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2010, 23, 551–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romanzin, A.; Corazzin, M.; Favotto, S.; Piasentier, E.; Bovolenta, S. Montasio cheese liking as affected by information about cows breed and rearing system. J. Dairy Res. 2015, 82, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zuliani, A.; Mair, M.; Kraševec, M.; Lora, I.; Brscic, M.; Cozzi, G.; Leeb, C.; Zupan, M.; Winckler, C.; Bovolenta, S. A survey on selected animal-based measures of dairy cattle welfare in the Eastern Alps: Towards context-based thresholds. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 1428–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variables | Classes | PUC, n = 6 | MUC, n = 9 | RMC, n = 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (years) | 18–30 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
31–45 | 3 | 3 | 2 | |
46–60 | 2 | 4 | 0 | |
>60 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
Gender | Female | 3 | 5 | 3 |
Male | 3 | 4 | 4 | |
Education | Secondary | 4 | 3 | 5 |
Graduate | 2 | 6 | 2 | |
Income (€) | <30,000 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
31,000–45,000 | 1 | 5 | 2 | |
46,000–60,000 | 3 | 2 | 0 | |
>61,000 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
Dairy Farm Visits | Never | 1 | 0 | 2 |
Once | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
More than 5 times | 3 | 8 | 2 | |
Cheese Consumption | Daily | 1 | 3 | 2 |
2–4 times/week | 3 | 5 | 4 | |
Once a week | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Principles | Criteria | PUC, n = 6 | MUC, n = 9 | RMC, n = 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Good feeding | Absence of hunger | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Absence of thirst | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
Good housing | Animal cleanliness | 4 | 4 | 3 |
Loose housing system | 2 | 2 | 3 | |
Good health | Absence of injuries | 3 | 4 | 3 |
Absence of diseases | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
Absence of pain (disbudding/dehorning) | 5 | 1 | 3 | |
Natural behavior | Good human-animal relationship | 3 | 3 | 4 |
Appropriate behavior | 5 | 5 | 5 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zuliani, A.; Esbjerg, L.; Grunert, K.G.; Bovolenta, S. Animal Welfare and Mountain Products from Traditional Dairy Farms: How Do Consumers Perceive Complexity? Animals 2018, 8, 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8110207
Zuliani A, Esbjerg L, Grunert KG, Bovolenta S. Animal Welfare and Mountain Products from Traditional Dairy Farms: How Do Consumers Perceive Complexity? Animals. 2018; 8(11):207. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8110207
Chicago/Turabian StyleZuliani, Anna, Lars Esbjerg, Klaus G. Grunert, and Stefano Bovolenta. 2018. "Animal Welfare and Mountain Products from Traditional Dairy Farms: How Do Consumers Perceive Complexity?" Animals 8, no. 11: 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8110207