IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/188715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Attitudes in Germany towards Different Dairy Housing Systems and Their Implications for the Marketing of Pasture Raised Milk

Author

Listed:
  • Weinrich, Ramona
  • Kühl, Sarah
  • Zühlsdorf, Anke
  • Spiller, Achim

Abstract

There is currently much debate surrounding the housing systems for dairy cattle. Large farms, which represent a growing share of the dairy farms, prefer indoor housing systems whereas smaller farms concentrate on low-input systems by giving extended pasture access to milk cows. A consumer survey from 2013 with 1,009 German consumers dealt with consumers’ attitudes towards outdoor and indoor systems as well as quality aspects of food. A factor and a cluster analysis are used to reduce the complexity and identify different consumer clusters. The results give recommendations for farmers, constructors of animal sheds, agricultural technology and the processing dairy industry concerning strategic decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Weinrich, Ramona & Kühl, Sarah & Zühlsdorf, Anke & Spiller, Achim, 2014. "Consumer Attitudes in Germany towards Different Dairy Housing Systems and Their Implications for the Marketing of Pasture Raised Milk," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:188715
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.188715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/188715/files/201400158.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.188715?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. Harvey, David & Hubbard, Carmen, 2013. "Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 105-114.
    2. Zander, Katrin & Hamm, Ulrich, 2010. "Welche zusätzlichen ethischen Eigenschaften ökologischer Lebensmittel interessieren Verbraucher?," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 59(04), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Zander, Katrin & Hamm, Ulrich, 2010. "Welche zusätzlichen ethischen Eigenschaften ökologischer Lebensmittel interessieren Verbraucher?," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 59(4).
    4. Kehlbacher, A. & Bennett, R. & Balcombe, K., 2012. "Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 627-633.
    5. McGarry Wolf, Marianne & Butler, Leslie J. & Martin, Adam J. & Foltz, Jeremy D., 2009. "Factors Influencing the Purchase Decision for Milk Labelled rBST-free and Organic," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 40(1), pages 1-5, March.
    6. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    7. Henry Kaiser, 1974. "An index of factorial simplicity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 39(1), pages 31-36, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "Fairness to dairy cows or fairness to farmers: What counts more in the preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk?," MPRA Paper 83066, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Sonntag, Winnie, 2016. "Gibt es eine Zukunft für die moderne konventionelle Tierhaltung in Nordwesteuropa?," DARE Discussion Papers 1608, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    3. Rui Pedro Fonseca & Ruben Sanchez-Sabate, 2022. "Consumers’ Attitudes towards Animal Suffering: A Systematic Review on Awareness, Willingness and Dietary Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Schulte, Hinrich D. & Armbrecht, Linda & Bürger, Rasmus & Gauly, Matthias & Musshoff, Oliver & Hüttel, Silke, 2018. "Let the cows graze: An empirical investigation on the trade-off between efficiency and farm animal welfare in milk production," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 375-385.
    5. Gauly, Sarah & Kühl, Sarah & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "Uncovering strategies of hidden intention in multi-stakeholder initiatives: The case of pasture-raised milk," DARE Discussion Papers 1704, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    6. Julia A. Schreiner & Sebastian Hess, 2017. "The Role of Non-Use Values in Dairy Farmers’ Willingness to Accept a Farm Animal Welfare Programme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 553-578, June.
    7. Schaak, Henning & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Public preferences for pasture landscapes and the role of scale heterogeneity," FORLand Working Papers 04 (2018), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    8. Kitano, Shinichi & Mitsunari, Yuka & Yoshino, Akira, 2022. "The impact of information asymmetry on animal welfare-friendly consumption: Evidence from milk market in Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    9. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    10. Schaak, Henning & Musshoff, Oliver, 2020. "Public preferences for pasture landscapes in Germany—A latent class analysis of a nationwide discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Schaak, Henning & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Understanding the adoption of grazing practices in German dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 230-239.
    12. Heise, Heinke & Gieseke, Daniel, 2018. "Gesagt, Getan? Zusammenhang Zwischen Einstellung Und Persönlichen Merkmalen Der Landwirte Und Dem Tierwohl-Niveau Auf Milchviehbetrieben," 58th Annual Conference, Kiel, Germany, September 12-14, 2018 275897, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    13. Schaak, Henning & Musshoff, Oliver, 2018. "Grazing Adoption in Dairy Farming: A Multivariate Sample-Selection Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(2), May.
    14. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2018. "Fair to the cow or fair to the farmer? The preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 223-239.
    15. Schaak, H. & Musshoff, O., 2018. "Are public preferences for pasture landscapes heterogeneous? Results of a discrete choice experiment in Germany," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277213, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. Weinrich, Ramona & Spiller, Achim, 2015. "Developing food labelling strategies with the help of extremeness aversion," DARE Discussion Papers 1511, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    2. Franco, Bruna Maria Remonato & Souza, Ana Paula Oliveira & Molento, Carla Forte Maiolino, 2018. "Welfare-friendly Products: availability, labeling and opinion of retailers in Curitiba, Southern Brazil1," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 56(1), January.
    3. Morales, L. Emilio & Griffith, Garry & Fleming, Euan & Mounter, Stuart & Wright, Victor & Umberger, Wendy, 2020. "Preferences for Certified Beef with Animal Welfare and Other Credence Attributes in Australia," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 11(03), September.
    4. Ramona Weinrich & Annabell Franz & Achim Spiller, 2016. "Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 18(2), pages 155-172.
    5. Fabrice Larceneux & Florence Benoît-Moreau & Valérie Renaudin, 2012. "Why Might Organic Labels Fail to Influence Consumer Choices? Marginal Labelling and Brand Equity Effects," Post-Print hal-00656485, HAL.
    6. Uehleke, Reinhard & Hüttel, Silke, 2016. "The Hypothetical Free-Rider Deficit In The Demand For Farm Animal Welfare Labeled Meat," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244866, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    7. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    8. Fabrice Larceneux & Florence Benoit-Moreau & Valérie Renaudin, 2012. "Why Might Organic Labels Fail to Influence Consumer Choices? Marginal Labelling and Brand Equity Effects," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 85-104, March.
    9. Dimech, Marco & Caputo, Vincenzina & Canavari, Maurizio, 2011. "Attitudes of Maltese Consumers Towards Quality in Fruit and Vegetables in Relation to Their Food-Related Lifestyles," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, November.
    10. Ana González Galán & Juan José García del Hoyo & Félix García Ordaz, 2021. "Investment and Decapitalization in the Fishing Industry: The Case of the Spanish Crustacean Freezer Trawler Fleet," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.
    11. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    12. Schulte, Hinrich D. & Armbrecht, Linda & Bürger, Rasmus & Gauly, Matthias & Musshoff, Oliver & Hüttel, Silke, 2018. "Let the cows graze: An empirical investigation on the trade-off between efficiency and farm animal welfare in milk production," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 375-385.
    13. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    14. Chen, Yong & Mak, Barry & Li, Zhou, 2013. "Quality deterioration in package tours: The interplay of asymmetric information and reputation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 43-54.
    15. Assaf Razin & Efraim Sadka & Chi-Wa Yuen, 1999. "An Information-Based Model of Foreign Direct Investment: The Gains from Trade Revisited," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 6(4), pages 579-596, November.
    16. Tisdell, Clem, 2014. "Information Technology's Impacts on Productivity, Welfare and Social Change: Second Version," Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Papers 195701, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    17. Konduru, Srinivasa & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Magnier, Alexandre, 2009. "GMO Testing Strategies and Implications for Trade: A Game Theoretic Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49594, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. König, Philipp J. & Pothier, David, 2018. "Safe but fragile: Information acquisition, sponsor support and shadow bank runs," Discussion Papers 15/2018, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    19. Andrea Attar & Thomas Mariotti & François Salanié, 2021. "Entry-Proofness and Discriminatory Pricing under Adverse Selection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(8), pages 2623-2659, August.
    20. Reynolds, Travis & Kolodinsky, Jane & Murray, Byron, 2012. "Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for compact fluorescent lighting: Policy implications for energy efficiency promotion in Saint Lucia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 712-722.

    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:ifaamr:188715. 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/ifamaea.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.