Chilean consumers’ perception about animal welfare in dairy production systems: short communication
Einar Vargas-Bello-Pérez A D , José Luis Riveros A , Claus Köbrich B , Pamela Alejandra Álvarez-Melo A and Joop Lensink CA Departamento de Ciencias Animales, Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Casilla-306. PO Box 6904411, Santiago, Chile.
B Departamento de Fomento de la Producción Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Av. Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, Chile.
C ISA Lille, CASE, 48 Boulevard Vauban, 59046 Lille Cedex, France.
D Corresponding author. Email: evargasb@uc.cl
Animal Production Science 57(1) 147-151 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN14968
Submitted: 28 November 2014 Accepted: 27 July 2015 Published: 4 September 2015
Abstract
Information on animal welfare and ways that farm animals are kept has gained more and more importance with regard to the consumers’ behaviour and expectations when buying food products. In certain countries, animal welfare is considered as an important extrinsic quality attribute of animal products. Until now, hardly any studies have been conducted in Latin America on consumers’ expectations and knowledge regarding animal welfare aspects of the products they buy. The objective of this study was to determine the knowledge and expectations of consumers in Chile regarding information about dairy production systems and animal welfare, and the main aspects they considered when buying dairy products. A face-to-face interview was conducted on a sample of 501 persons from the Province of Santiago, Chile. The survey was conducted in major supermarkets from 15 different municipalities of Santiago in November and December 2012. The main aspects considered before purchasing dairy products were fat content (30%) and price (26%). It was shown that 66.9% of the participants associated the term animal welfare with responsible pet ownership, 12.4% to farm animal care, 11.6% to vegetarianism and 9.2% to the freedom and nature of animals. Age, educational level and family income were related (P < 0.001) to responsible pet ownership whereas gender did not relate to the concept of animal welfare. From the total surveyed participants, 73% were interested in receiving more information about animal welfare; 62% of these were women between 18 and 30 years of age. Information about the conditions of milk production and animal welfare were considered to be an important aspect to be included in dairy products’ labelling for 86% of the participants. Also, 68% of the participants declared a willingness to pay more for an animal welfare friendly dairy product. Data from this study may be useful in order to include animal welfare as an extrinsic quality attribute of dairy products in Chile and to define a market-oriented strategy including animal welfare.
Additional keywords: animal production, consumer, dairy products.
References
Adimark (2004) Mapa socioeconómico de Chile. Available at http://www.adimark.cl/medios/estudios/informe_mapa_socioeconomico_de_chile.pdf [Verified 5 May 2015]Beardsworth A, Bryman A, Keil T, Goode J, Haslam C, Lancashire E (2002) Women, men and food: the significance of gender for nutritional studies and choices. British Food Journal 104, 470–491.
| Women, men and food: the significance of gender for nutritional studies and choices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bennett RM, Anderson J, Blaney RJP (2002) Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 15, 187–202.
| Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cicia G, Colantuoni F (2010) Willingness to pay for traceable meat attributes: a meta-analysis. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 3, 252–263.
Engel J, Blackwell R, Miniard P (1995) Consumer behavior. In ‘The consumer decision process’. 5th edn. (The Dryden Press: Hinsdale, IL)
Fraser D (2008) Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 330–339.
| Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Guatteo R, Levionnois O, Fournier D, Guémené D, Latouche K, Leterrier C, Mormède P, Prunier A, Servière J, Terlouw C, Le Neindre P (2012) Minimising pain in farm animals: the 3S approach – supress, substitute, soothe. Animal 6, 1261–1274.
| Minimising pain in farm animals: the 3S approach – supress, substitute, soothe.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3s3gs1yjtg%3D%3D&md5=3a11ccf6ef2066d3ac21fad65ec0992cCAS | 23217230PubMed |
Harper G, Henson S (2001) ‘Consumer values and farm animal welfare – the Comparative Report.’ EU FAIR CT 98–3678. (The University of Reading: Reading, UK)
Harvey D, Hubbard C (2013) Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: an anatomy of market failure. Food Policy 38, 105–114.
| Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: an anatomy of market failure.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Herzog H, Betchart N, Pittman R (1991) Sex role identity and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoos 5, 93–105.
Keeling LJ, Immink V, Hubbard C, Garrod G, Edwards S, Ingenbleek P (2012) Designing animal welfare policies and monitoring progress. Animal Welfare (South Mimms, England) 21, 95–105.
| Designing animal welfare policies and monitoring progress.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38Xnt1Gmt7c%3D&md5=9b687477793ca469c527d2d3781a2dc3CAS |
Köbrich K, Maino M, Diaz C (2001) El bienestar animal como atributo de diferenciación en la compra de alimentos de origen animal. Economía Agraria 6, 251–260.
Lagerkvist CJ, Hess S (2011) A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agriculture Economics 38, 55–78.
| A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
María GA (2006) Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livestock Science 103, 250–256.
| Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Millman ST (2009) Animal welfare-scientific approaches to the issues. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12, 88–96.
| Animal welfare-scientific approaches to the issues.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXksVKqu78%3D&md5=87406f89aae6f4536c50ecddd152c0ccCAS | 19319711PubMed |
Miranda-de la Lama GC, Sepúlveda WS, Villarroel M, María GA (2013) Attitudes of meat retailers to animal welfare in Spain. Meat Science 95, 569–575.
| Attitudes of meat retailers to animal welfare in Spain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23797014PubMed |
Roex J, Miele M (2005) Farm animal welfare concerns: consumers, retailers and producers. Welfare quality reports No. 1. Available at http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/cplan/sites/default/files/WQReport-1_0.pdf [Verified 17 August 2015]
Santurtun Oliveros E, Tapia Perez G, Gonzalez-Rebeles C, Galindo Maldonado F (2012) Consumer attitudes and perceptions towards sustainable animal production attributes in Mexico City. Veterinaria (México) 43, 87–101.
Schnettler M, Vidal R, Silva R, Vallejos L, Sepúlveda N (2008) Consumer perception of animal welfare and livestock production in the Araucania region, Chile. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 68, 80–93.
| Consumer perception of animal welfare and livestock production in the Araucania region, Chile.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Steenkamp J (1989) Product quality: an investigation into the concept and how it is perceived by consumers. Van Gorcum, Assen/Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W, Van Poucke E, Tuyttens F (2007) Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15, 84–100.
Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W, Van Poucke E, Buijs S, Tuyttens FAM (2009) Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock Science 123, 16–22.
| Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Verbeke W (2009) Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare (South Mimms, England) 18, 325–333.
