IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0141878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Attitudes to Housing Systems for Pregnant Pigs

Author

Listed:
  • E B Ryan
  • D Fraser
  • D M Weary

Abstract

Understanding concerns about the welfare of farm animals is important for the development of socially sustainable production practices. This study used an online survey to test how views on group versus stall housing for pregnant sows varied when Canadian and US participants were provided information about these systems, including access to scientific papers, YouTube videos, Google images, and a frequently-asked-questions page (S1 Appendix). Initial responses and changes in responses after accessing the information were analyzed from Likert scores of 242 participants and from their written comments. Participants were less willing to accept the use of gestation stalls after viewing information on sow housing. For example, initially 30.4% of respondents indicated that they supported the use of gestation stalls; this declined to 17.8% after participants were provided additional information. Qualitative analysis of comments showed that supporters of gestation stalls expressed concern about the spread of disease and aggression between animals in less confined systems, whereas supporters of group housing placed more emphasis on the sow’s ability to interact socially and perform natural behaviors. These results point to public opposition to the use of gestation stalls, and indicate that the more that the public learns about gestation stalls the less willing they will be to accept their use.

Suggested Citation

  • E B Ryan & D Fraser & D M Weary, 2015. "Public Attitudes to Housing Systems for Pregnant Pigs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0141878
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141878
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141878&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0141878?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. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    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. Beth Ann Ventura & Marina A G von Keyserlingk & Hannah Wittman & Daniel M Weary, 2016. "What Difference Does a Visit Make? Changes in Animal Welfare Perceptions after Interested Citizens Tour a Dairy Farm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, May.

    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. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    3. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    4. Rovers, Anja & Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Brümmer, Nanke, 2019. "Citizens’ Perception of Different Aspects Regarding German Livestock Production," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(04), October.
    5. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212609, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Chiara Mazzocchi & Guido Sali, 2022. "Supporting mountain agriculture through “mountain product” label: a choice experiment approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 701-723, January.
    7. Sonntag, Winnie & Spiller, Achim, 2016. "Prozessqualitäten in der WTO: Ein Vorschlag für die reliable Messung von moralischen Bedenken," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260775, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    8. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li & Chris McIntosh, 2014. "Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 253-265, March.
    9. Tankari, Mahamadou Roufahi & Badiane, Ousmane, 2015. "Determinants of households' food diversity demand in Uganda," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 230230, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.
    12. Collins Asante‐Addo & Daniela Weible, 2020. "Is there hope for domestically produced poultry meat? A choice experiment of consumers in Ghana," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 281-298, April.
    13. Chiara Mazzocchi & Luigi Orsi & Guido Sali, 2021. "Consumers’ Attitudes for Sustainable Mountain Cheese," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    14. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    15. Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Ortega, David L., 2014. "Comparing Consumer Preferences for Livestock Production Process Attributes Across Products, Species, and Modeling Methods," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(3), pages 1-17, August.
    16. Ortega, David L. & Singh, Vartika & Spielman, David J. & Ward, Patrick S., 2013. "Farmer preferences for drought tolerance in hybrid versus inbred rice: Evidence from Bihar, India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1307, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.
    18. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211884, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. 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).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0141878. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.