Author:
Pettersson Isabelle Claire,Weeks Claire Alexandra,Wilson Lorna Rachel Maven,Nicol Christine Janet
Abstract
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to understand which factors and resources free-range egg consumers believe are important for hen welfare.
Design/methodology/approach
– An online survey was distributed via the mailing list of a UK free-range egg brand receiving 6,378 responses. The survey was mostly five-point Likert-scale based. The same survey was also distributed to a group of animal welfare specialists receiving 34 responses.
Findings
– Respondents bought free-range eggs because hens are “happier” (74.2 per cent) and “healthier” (69.0 per cent) and because they believed such eggs to taste better (57.9 per cent). They rated all the suggested factors that might contribute to hen welfare as “important” or “very important” (on average) but believed outside access and fresh air to be most important. Respondents rated the suitability of resources relating to behavioural needs high (“suitable” or “very suitable”) indoors and shelter as the most suitable outdoors. Consumers differed from welfare specialists in their views on factors contributing to hen welfare, but their views on resource suitability were similar.
Research limitations/implications
– The sample was biased towards free-range egg consumers who had expressed an interest in a brand marketed as high welfare.
Originality/value
– This is the first study to ask consumers what they consider to be important for hen welfare and how they think hen welfare can be improved. Because consumers can affect on-farm welfare through their purchasing habits assessing the degree of agreement between consumers and animal welfare specialists is important.
Subject
Food Science,Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
Reference23 articles.
1. BEIC
(2013), “Code of practice for Lion eggs”, available at: www.britisheggindustrycouncil.co.uk/download/LCoPV7.pdf (accessed 4 February 2016).
2. Bennett, R.M.
(1996), “People’s willingness to pay for farm animal welfare”,
Animal Welfare
, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
3. Bennett, R.M.
and
Blaney, R.J.P.
(2003), “Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method”,
Agricultural Economics
, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
4. Bennett, R.M.
,
Jones, P.J.
,
Nicol, C.J.
,
Tranter, R.B.
and
Weeks, C.A.
(2016), “Consumer attitudes to injurious pecking in free-range egg production”,
Animal Welfare
, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 99-100.
5. Carrington, M.J.
,
Neville, B.A.
and
Whitwell, G.J.
(2010), “Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers”,
Journal of Business Ethics
, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 139-158.
Cited by
67 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献