Animal welfare

Farm animal welfare (FAW) is receiving greater media and empirical attention, especially in the developed world, particularly the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.) (106–111). Important to highlight at this juncture is that while FAW is no longer a peripheral issue, it also not the main determinant of food purchase behavior, particularly in the United States (110). Building from the Brambell Report, and the resultant growth of ethology, there has been a surge in public awareness of FAW issues and an associated increase in animal welfare research and teaching activities (112). Goddard et al. (113), Stott et al. (114), Toma et al. (115), and Vosough et al. (116) have contributed to research spanning consumer perception of animal welfare and disease eradication across Europe. The recent European experience with animal epidemics such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, FMD and avian influenza, and the subsequent culling of animals has also added to the growing FAW debate (117). In 2002, WOAH members voted to create international standards for animal welfare, with the initial guidelines adopted in 2005 (118, 119).

While the main FAW concerns differ across livestock species, production systems, and geography, they range from the more general like narrowly confined husbandry systems rampant in poultry, pigs, and cattle to the rather difficult and costly to implement like stopping the separation of calves from cows. Table 2 presents some of the main livestock welfare issues.

Common livestock welfare issues.

Adapted from (112).

Whether it is responding to market signals or legal instruments, the main rationale for producers to respond to FAW concerns is maintaining the social license to produce (110). Husbandry methods that cause pain are constantly being reviewed and banned, not only for the welfare of animals, but also for economic reasons that healthy, happy animals perform better (122). While FAW changes in Europe were largely through a legislative approach, food retailers and food producer groups have been the leading drivers in the United States (112).

A plethora of measures have been put in place in both the EU and the United States to regulate farm animal husbandry activities and ensure that FAW considerations are part of the livestock production equation. In the United Kingdom, the Agricultural Act of 1968 provided the first legal basis for farm animal protection, leading to more explicit laws including the banning of gestation stalls in 1999 (119). Notable similar laws to ban stalls were also enacted in Sweden (1988), New Zealand (2015), Florida (effective 2008), and California (effective 2015). In 2007, Smithfield, the largest pork producer in the United States, announced they were transitioning away from gestation stalls to group housing on all its premises, including its contract growers (112). In 2021, Smithfield was sued by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) for misleading customers. HSUS claims Smithfield did not eliminate gestation stalls, but simply reduced the amount of time sows spend locked in the cages (123). Gestation stalls are commonly used in piggeries to increase production efficiency and improve welfare by preventing mixing of animals; thus, limiting disease spread and fighting. However, animal welfare proponents are mostly critical of the system’s effect on limiting the animal from exhibiting natural behaviors like moving around (124).

Dairy and beef production in the developed world has been commonly associated with husbandry methods warranting public FAW concerns. In recent years in the United States, undercover videos have periodically been released of poor cattle conditions and abuse on dairy farms, which focuses public attention on dairy cattle welfare issues (125). Yielding to public scrutiny and legislative pressure, certain practices have been earmarked to be phased out or banned due to associated undesirable animal welfare impacts. For instance, as of January 1, 2010, tail docking was banned in California, USA’s largest milk producing state (125). Farmers Assuring Responsible Management, a voluntary program of United States dairy farm organizations was created to champion cattle welfare issues, and in 2015, the National Milk Producers Federation announced a nation-wide end to tail docking effective December 31, 2016 (125). In addition to this producer program, various animal welfare-related groups have created their own programs that have certification and labeling for marketing purposes (e.g., Humane Farm Animal Care). Tail docking is now a rarity in the United States. Tail docking was once perceived to lower the risk of zoonotic disease leptospirosis although this belief is now defunct (126), and neither did studies establish the purported effect of docking on udder infection or mastitis (127–132).

Dehorning and disbudding are characteristics of intensive cattle production. Dehorning is aimed at limiting injuries from animals and economizing on space requirements (133). Due to public FAW outcry, there is shift toward reducing the pain associated with the process. A study in Alberta, Canada revealed that while dehorning and branding remains common in cattle ranching, ranchers and farmers are slowly moving toward practices that induce less pain, mainly through the use of caustic paste for disbudding (122, 133). Potential also exists for gene-editing technology to produced polled cattle, although uncertainty remains on consumers perceptions for gene-edited food products. Genetic dehorning eliminates the need for a painful dehorning, a process resented by animal welfare activists (134).

Separation of cows from calves soon after parturition, and the separate housing of calves during the milk-feeding period are common practices in the dairy industry (135). Abrupt weaning is still a persistent and common practice and those who practice it claims that it reduces emotional distress for the animals and promotes calf health. However, advocates of FAW argues it is a stressful process that affects the calves physical and physiological development (132, 135). A recent study conducted in Canada reveals that some producers are adopting weaning methods with low stress [e.g., fence-line weaning and two-stage weaning; (135)].

Zero grazing is increasingly becoming contentious in countries where total confinement of animals has become a norm (132). In 1998, Sweden enacted a law essentially putting an end to zero grazing of dairy cows (119). Access to pasture is valued by some people because it also offers enough space and fresh air to animals. In the United States, about 39% of dairy farms use tie stalls, and the majority of lactating cows are kept in total confinement (136). Some of the reasons hampering availing pasture to dairy cattle include difficulties in incorporating pasture into modern farms, pasture shortages, low veld quality, and fears of lower milk production from pasture access (132).

Significant strides have been made as far as poultry FAW issues are concerned. There has been a widespread ban on the on the use of conventional battery cages for hens notably in Sweden (1998), EU (2012), New Zealand (2022), and California (2015) (119). In the United States, the United Egg Producers (UEP) is one of the first groups to be at the forefront of sweeping changes related to poultry husbandry in response to public poultry welfare concerns. Mainly, an increase in cage space, to 67–87 in.² per hen from the current industry standard of 48–54 in.² per hen, which was implemented over a seven-year span by producers to buffer economic impacts. These guidelines also include standards for lighting, air quality, beak trimming, handling, and on-farm euthanasia. Additionally, in 2006, food withdrawal to induce molting in hens was banned, followed by inclusion of cage-free production standards by 2008 (112). To implement these guidelines, a third party auditing program was developed and allowed qualifying producers to display a logo on their egg cartons showing that they are UEP certified.

In emerging and developing countries, the issue of FAW is also gaining momentum due to global export requirements as well as domestic concerns from the burgeoning middle class (106, 137). This momentum will likely be augmented by international corporations in the food business that define global supply chain requirements and ultimately shape livestock production practices and consumption in these countries (106, 138). However, there are still several factors that can potentially slow down changes aimed at improving husbandry practices in both emerging and developing countries. In emerging countries like Brazil, in the quest to meet domestic and export market meat demand, there has been a deliberate transition toward the adoption of the very intensive husbandry practices that are at the center of FAW outcries in the developed world. These controversial husbandry practices place them in an especially vulnerable position, and it’s a matter of time that they too attract similar scrutiny (119).

Given the prevalence of food insecurity and poverty in developing countries, this means that FAW receives low priority. Limited access to animal handling technologies, the relative absence of societal pressures for improved welfare, and substandard handling facilities contribute to its low priority (139). For cattle production, the dominant communal production systems mean that cattle are reared for several purposes (i.e., meat, milk, draft, and traditional ceremonies). In these systems, nutritional deficiencies are commonplace due to deteriorating rangelands, especially in winter or dry seasons. In addition, most developing countries have dysfunctional or non-existent animal health systems (139).

Important to note is that any FAW investment or adjustment comes at a cost (110). Paramount to the sustainability of efforts to address FAW issues therefore is the existence of a willingness to pay (WTP) for such improvements from consumers, or at least some form of subsidies. There has been an increase over the past two decades in the number of citizens and consumers with deep regard for FAW and professed their unwillingness to buy products that did not meet their FAW concerns (140). Consumers associate FAW not only with higher human health benefits but also consider food produced under FAW friendly conditions to be of higher quality, tastier, more hygienic, safer, acceptable, true to type, eco-friendly, and traditional (141–145).

A meta-analysis conducted using 23 WTP studies mostly from the OECD countries revealed that WTP for improved FAW is on average approximately 15% above base price, and comparatively higher than that of the United States (106). Results of surveys conducted in Europe show an increase from 34 to 57% between 2006 and 2015 of the proportion of citizens who assign some importance to the protection of farmed animals (140). Various studies have reported a similar trend world-wide; EU (146–149), United States (125, 150–152), Canada (153, 154), Latin America (137, 155–157), Asia (158), and Australia (159). Given that there is a correlation between income levels and demand for FAW, this issue is likely to continue being of interest for the unforeseeable future as more and more countries emerge from poverty (160).

In some policy circles, individuals argue that FAW is overrated and just a fashionable cause (106). Older, wealthier, and female consumers tend to be more concerned with FAW when purchasing food (110). Firstly, duality exists between ordinary citizens and consumers (i.e., not all consumer concerns are reflected in their purchase behavior). Empirical studies reveal mismatch between the results of self-reported public concerns about FAW and the WTP for products that comply with FAW standards, the attitude-behavior gap (106, 140, 161). Effective demand for FAW is only reflected in the food choices and purchases of consumers while citizens only partake in activism, political processes, and formation of public opinion in which their stated desire for FAW change is victim to social desirability bias [i.e., respondents give answers to questions that they believe will make them look good to others; (110, 162)].

In Germany, over two-thirds of consumers expressed disdain with existing FAW unfriendly husbandry practices (107), but rather paradoxically is the small niche of organic meat (2% market share) (163). A small proportion of United States consumers care a great deal about FAW to the extent that it influences their food purchase behavior (110). Lister et al. (164) revealed low importance of FAW among United States consumers across several foods: ground beef (5.2%), beefsteak (4.6%), chicken breast (4.1%), and milk products (4.8%). Conversely, the relative importance of price was consistently around 20%, demonstrating that price remains by far the most important drive of purchase behavior among United States consumers (110).

Besides price, FAW is confounded by other factors like food safety which take precedence over all others when it is present or perceived (110). Harper and Henson (165) reported that in the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, and Italy consumers prioritize food safety, health, and quality over FAW concerns. Consumers considered FAW as an indicator of other attributes associated with human health and safety (166). FAW is therefore more likely to be valued by consumers when it is part of a broader basket of private values.

The other challenge with the market of FAW is its public good characteristics which creates a positive consumption externality, and a consequent free-rider incentive. As far as FAW is concerned, there is non-excludability and non-rivalry in consumption (106, 163). Market demand for FAW does not truly reflect preferences. The burden of the externality is borne only by a segment of consumers (167). The free-rider incentive can be lessened by a perceived increase in the private value (e.g., nutrition and taste). We explore the implications of consumer preference below.