Intensive systems have facilitated the production of animal-based products at relatively low prices. On one hand, these methods have been increasingly considered to be responsible for a dramatic reduction in animal welfare, as indicated by the high prevalence of stereotypies in sows, brittle bones in hens, lameness in broilers and short life span in dairy cattle. As a consequence, large segments of animal welfare-sensitive consumers have been identified. On the other hand, price conscious consumers, if accepting higher prices, are more likely to require explicit justification of returns in quality. Therefore, scientifically validated monitoring systems for assessing the welfare of farm animals have been developed in order to provide a certification system, allow the differentiation of animal-based products through constant and reliable signaling systems, and promote animal welfare friendly farming systems.
References
[1]
Fraser, D. Understanding Animal Welfare; Wiley-Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2008.
[2]
Fraser, D. Assessment of animal welfare at farm and group level: Introduction and overview. Anim. Welfare 2003, 12, 433–443.
[3]
Verhoog, H.; Lund, V.; Alroe, H.F. Animal welfare, ethics and organic farming. In Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture; Vaarst, M., Roderick, S., Lund, V., Lockeretz, W., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2004; pp. 73–94.
[4]
Bennett, R. The value of farm animal welfare. J. Agric. Econ. 1995, 46, 46–60, doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.1995.tb00751.x.
[5]
Fraser, D.; Mench, J.; Millmann, S. The State of the Animals 2001; The Humane Society of the United States: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2001.
[6]
Agricultural Statistics; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS): Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
European Commission. Attitudes of EU Citizens Towards Animal WelfareSpecial Eurobarometer 270, Wave 66.1.TNS Opinion and Social. 2007. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2013).
[9]
Swanson, J.C.; Mench, J.A. Animal welfare: Consumer view points. Available online: http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/Avian/swanson.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2013).
[10]
Rollin, E.A. Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical, and Research Issues; Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USA, 2003.
[11]
Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. Int. J. Soc. Food Agr. 2007, 15, 84–100.
[12]
Napolitano, F.; Braghieri, A.; Caroprese, M.; Marino, R.; Girolami, A.; Sevi, A. Effect of information about animal welfare, expressed in terms of rearing conditions, on lamb acceptability. Meat Sci. 2007, 77, 431–436, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.04.008.
[13]
Napolitano, F.; Caporale, G.; Carlucci, A.; Monteleone, E. Effect of information about animal welfare and product nutritional properties on acceptability of meat from Podolian cattle. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 305–312, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.02.002.
[14]
Napolitano, F.; Pacelli, C.; Girolami, A.; Braghieri, A. Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 910–917, doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0709.
McInerney, J. Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy. Report prepared for DEFRA. 2004.
[17]
Grunert, K.G. Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Sci. 2006, 74, 149–160, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.016.
[18]
Verbeke, W.; Pérez-Cueto, F.J.A.; de Barcellos, M.D.; Krystallis, A.; Grunert, K.G. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Sci. 2010, 84, 284–292.
[19]
Lusk, J.L.; Norwood, F.B. Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: an inferred valuation method. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2009, 58, 236–250, doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2008.12.003.
[20]
Olynk, N.J.; Tonsor, G.T.; Wolf, C.A. Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification. J. Agr. Res. Econ. 2010, 35, 261–280.
[21]
Tweeten, L. Public policy decisions for farm animal welfare. J. Agr. Environ. Ethics 1991, 6, 87–104.
[22]
Lichtenstein, D.R.; Bloch, P.H.; Black, W.C. Correlates of price acceptability. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 243–252.
[23]
Appleby, M.C. The relationship between food prices and animal welfare. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 83, E9–E12.
[24]
Elitzak, H. Calculating the Food Marketing Bill; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
[25]
Bornett, H.L.I.; Guy, J.H.; Cain, P.J. Impact of animal welfare on costs and viability of pig production in the UK. J. Agr. Environ. Ethic 2003, 16, 163–186, doi:10.1023/A:1022994131594.
[26]
Caswell, J.A.; Mojduszka, E.M. Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 1996, 78, 1248–1253, doi:10.2307/1243501.
[27]
European Union Council Regulation 834/2007 on Organic Production and Labeling of Organic Products and Repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
[28]
European Union Council Regulation 889/2008 Laying Down Detailed Rules for the Implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products with Regard to Organic Production, Labelling and Control; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
[29]
Welfare Quality. Welfare Quality？ Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009. Available online: http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/network/45848/7/0/40 (accessed on 14 March 2013).
[30]
Welfare Quality. Welfare Quality？ Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009. Available online: http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/network/45848/7/0/40 (accessed on 14 March 2013).
[31]
Welfare Quality. Welfare Quality？ Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009. Available online: http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/network/45848/7/0/40 (accessed on 14 March 2013).
[32]
Bredahl, L. Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food Qual. Prefer. 2004, 15, 65–75, doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00024-7.
