IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaa126/125957.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market and policy-oriented incentives to provide animal welfare: The case of tail biting

Author

Listed:
  • Niemi, Jarkko K.
  • Sinisalo, Alina
  • Valros, Anna
  • Heinonen, Mari

Abstract

Modern animal production has been criticised for the lack of animal-friendly production practices. The goal of this paper is to examine how animal welfare could be improved in pig fattening by providing producers with extra incentives. The focus is on three preventive and one mitigative measures, viz. proving the pigs with plenty of straw as enrichment, solid-floor housing (vs. partly slatted flooring), extra pen space per pig, and mitigation of tail biting once the first case has been observed. Each measure is modelled under two different situations and different support policies. The results suggest that producers have incentives to adjust prevention policy when new information about the risk of tail biting is obtained. Moreover, the resources would be used more efficiently by promoting enrichments use (as such or with type) than extra space, but this requires markets or public policy to provide producers with extra incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • Niemi, Jarkko K. & Sinisalo, Alina & Valros, Anna & Heinonen, Mari, 2012. "Market and policy-oriented incentives to provide animal welfare: The case of tail biting," 126th Seminar, June 27-29, 2012, Capri, Italy 125957, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaa126:125957
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.125957
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/125957/files/Niemi%20et%20al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.125957?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. Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster & Jayson L. Lusk, 2006. "Marketing Opportunities for Certified Pork Chops," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 567-583, December.
    2. Yrjola, Tapani & Kola, Jukka, 2004. "Consumer Preferences Regarding Multifunctional Agriculture," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 7(2), pages 1-13.
    3. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael, 2014. "Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 41-49.
    2. 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.
    3. Pirsich, Wiebke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2017. "The Pet Food Industry: An Innovative Distribution Channel for Animal Welfare Meat?," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276914, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    4. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Hyunhee Jung, 2020. "Estimating the social value of multifunctional agriculture (MFA) with choice experiment," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(3), pages 120-128.
    9. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    10. Koistinen, Laura & Pouta, Eija & Heikkila, Jaakko & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Kotro, Jaana & Makela, Jarmo & Niva, M., 2011. "Impact of meat type, methods of production, fat content, price and carbon footprint information on meat choice," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114710, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Amikuzuno, Joseph & Ogundari, Kolawole, 2012. "The Contribution of Agricultural Economics to Price transmission Analysis and Market Policy in Sub-Sahara Africa: What Does the Literature Say?," 86th Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2012, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 134754, Agricultural Economics Society.
    12. 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.
    13. Carlos González & Natalia Serna, 2013. "The consumer’s choice among television displays: A multinomial logit approach," Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, issue 79, pages 199-228.
    14. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Lankoski, Jussi E. & Ollikainen, Markku, 2009. "Biofuel policies and the environment: the effects of biofuel feedstock production on climate, water quality and biodiversity," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51677, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Chen Qiuzhen & Sumelius John & Arovuori Kyösti, 2009. "The evolution of policies for multifunctional agriculture and rural areas in China and Finland," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 1(4), pages 202-209, January.
    19. Pavel, Ciaian & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "The Value of EU Agricultural Landscape," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 102727, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Dalziel, Paul & Saunders, Caroline & Tait, Peter & Saunders, John & Miller, Sini & Guenther, Meike & Rutherford, Paul & Driver, Tim, 2018. "Rewarding responsible innovation when consumers are distant from producers: evidence from New Zealand," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(4).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Risk and Uncertainty;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:eaa126:125957. 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/eaaeeea.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.