IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijofsd/208878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is the benefit of organically-reared dairy cattle? Societal perception towards conventional and organic dairy farming

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph-Schulz, Inken
  • Salamon, Petra
  • Weible, Daniela

Abstract

During the last years, current systems in agriculture and food production have been topic in public discussions. Especially modern animal husbandry seems not to match consumers’ or societal needs any longer. This paper concentrates on the society’s perspective regarding dairy farming in general and diverting perceptions and expectations with respect to dairy cattle either reared organically or reared conventionally. It aims to give orientation to farmers as well as policymakers about the societal point of view of dairy farming. Six focus groups were carried out in three German cities to capture the scope of opinions and expectations among the population. Three of those groups consisted of participants buying mainly organic food while the other three comprised citizens buying mainly conventional food. With respect to society’s perception of today’s dairy farming results showed that participants put emphasis on the following topics: the space for each cow was considered as insufficient and not species-appropriate, assumed application of medications as too high, and in particular the prophylactic use of antibiotics as problematic. Asked about perceived differences between organic versus conventional farming it became obvious that organic in contrast to the conventional farming was perceived as more species-appropriate. More or less, all previously criticized aspects seem to be regarded as irrelevant in organic farming. Some participants showed a very romantic view of organic dairy farming. The most critical point was an assumed high rate of rogue traders among organic farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Salamon, Petra & Weible, Daniela, 2015. "What is the benefit of organically-reared dairy cattle? Societal perception towards conventional and organic dairy farming," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 6(3), pages 1-8, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:208878
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.208878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/208878/files/2-Christoph-Schulz-491-1650-1-PB.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.208878?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. Laura Mørch Andersen, 2011. "Animal Welfare and Eggs – Cheap Talk or Money on the Counter?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 565-584, September.
    2. Carolina Liljenstolpe, 2008. "Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 67-84.
    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. Johannes Simons & Carl Vierboom & Jeanette Klink-Lehmann & Ingo Härlen & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "Vegetarianism/Veganism: A Way to Feel Good," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Rovers, Anja & Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Brümmer, Nanke & Saggau, Doreen, 2017. "Trust no One? Citizens’ Concerns regarding the Pork and Dairy Supply Chain," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276893, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. Schüler, Stefan & Noack, Eva Maria, 2019. "Does the CAP reflect the population's concerns about agricultural landscapes? A qualitative study in Lower Saxony, Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 240-255.
    4. Rovers, Anja & Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Brümmer, Nanke & Saggau, Doreen, 2017. "Trust no One? Citizens’ Concerns regarding the Pork and Dairy Supply Chain," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2017(1), June.
    5. Simons, J. & Hartmann, M. & Klink-Lehmann, J. & Vierboom, C. & Harlen, I., 2018. "Acceptance of animal husbandry in Germany: Drivers and different ways to cope with problems," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277367, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Rovers, Anja & Mergenthaler, Marcus & Wildraut, Christiane & Sonntag, Winnie Isabel & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Christoph-Schulz, Inken, 2017. "Roundtable on hotspots in livestock production – A mixed-methods-approach for a better understanding of farmers’ and consumers’ views," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261286, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Rovers, Anja & Brümmer, Nanke & Christoph-Schulz, Inken, 2018. "Citizens’ Perception of Different Aspects Regarding German Livestock Production," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276868, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    8. Rovers, Anja & Sonntag, Winnie Isabel & Brümmer, Nanke & Christoph-Schulz, Inken, 2018. "Citizens’ Perception of Recent Livestock Production Systems in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(4), December.

    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. Läpple, Doris & Osawe, Osayanmon Wellington, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Altruism and Policy Support," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321212, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    2. Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Salamon, Petra & Weible, Daniela, 2015. "What is the benefit of organically-reared dairy cattle? Societal perception towards conventional and organic dairy farming," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206236, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton & Daniel A. Sumner, 2015. "What Happens When Food Marketers Require Restrictive Farming Practices?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1021-1043.
    4. Christoph, Inken B. & Buergelt, Doreen & Salamon, Petra & Weible, Daniela & Zander, Katrin, 2012. "A Holistic Approach to Consumer Research on Expectations Regarding Animal Husbandry," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144963, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    5. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Lombardini, Chiara & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Kulmala, Soile & Lindroos, Marko, 2011. "Is there a Finnish Animal Welfare Kuznets Curve?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114379, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    8. Chen, Junhong & Ortega, David L. & Wang, Hong Holly, 2018. "Does Animal Welfare Matter to Consumers in Emerging Countries? Evidence from China," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274069, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Toker Doganoglu & Firat Inceoglu, 2015. "Product Bans May Benefit Consumers: Implications from a New Model Of Vertical Product Differentiation," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 155-180, June.
    10. Naald, Brian Vander & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2011. "Willingness to pay for other species' well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1325-1335, May.
    11. Lai, Yufeng & Minegishi, Kota & Boaitey, Albert K., 2020. "Social Desirability Bias in Farm Animal Welfare Preference Research," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304375, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
    13. Lars Gårn Hansen & Laura Mørch Andersen, 2013. "Does Organic Crowding Out Influence Organic Food Demand? – evidence from a Danish micro panel," IFRO Working Paper 2013/2, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Carlucci, Domenico & De Devitiis, Biagia & Seccia, Antonio & Stasi, Antonio & Viscecchia, Rosaria & Nardone, Gianluca, 2017. "Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry," MPRA Paper 82105, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato & Federico Nassivera & Maria Bugatti & Biancamaria Torquati, 2019. "Consumers Demand for Social Farming Products: An Analysis with Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, November.
    17. Silvana Pietrosemoli & Clara Tang, 2020. "Animal Welfare and Production Challenges Associated with Pasture Pig Systems: A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-34, June.
    18. Heng, Yan & Peterson, Hikaru Hanawa & Li, Xianghong, 2012. "Consumers’ Preferences for Shell Eggs Regarding Laying Hen Welfare," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124592, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Li, Hao & Elbakidze, Levan, 2016. "Application of Regression Discontinuity Approach in Experimental Auctions: A Case Study of Gaining Participants’ Trust and Their Willingness to Pay," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236149, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:208878. 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/centmde.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.