Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
(D'Souza
et al
., 1998). Handler behaviour is also
associated with udder health, such that cows that
have more positive interactions with milkers have
fewer infected quarters (Ivemeyer
et al
., 2011).
Cattle will clearly show avoidance of negative
handling if given the choice, indicating they find
it aversive (Pajor
et al
., 2003). Improved handling
is thus beneficial for both animal welfare and eco-
nomic performance of swine and dairy farms,
and, in this way, several aspects of sustainability
converge.
There are other cases where management
practices seem likely to improve animal welfare
and economic sustainability, but establishing
the explicit link in terms of economic analysis
has only recently begun to receive attention and
thus there is only limited work available. For
example, dairy replacement heifers are often fed
a limited amount of milk (e.g. 10% of body
weight) during the first 5-8 weeks of life in order
to encourage intake of solid food. However, dairy
calves provided free access to milk will typically
consume more than twice this amount (reviewed
by Khan
et al
., 2011). Calves fed more milk grow
faster (~1 versus ~0.45 kg day
−1
), exhibit fewer
signs of hunger, show less abnormal behaviour
and are less likely to compete for food in group
situations. Moreover, young dairy calves are
physiologically unable to digest solid feed before
2-3 weeks of age and thus calves fed more milk
have better feed efficiency and less disease, all
changes indicative of improved welfare. In addi-
tion, there are thought to be longer-term eco-
nomic benefits of feeding calves more milk.
Higher growth rates are associated with earlier
breeding age, thus reducing the amount of time
until heifers produce milk, and higher milk
yield after parturition (e.g. Soberon
et al
., 2012).
Thus, feeding calves more milk improves welfare
and may be beneficial from an economic perspec-
tive given the financial gain associated with the
longer-term benefits described above.
Last, there are cases where making changes
to address welfare concerns markedly increase
the cost of production, and thus have potentially
negative effects on economic sustainability. This
is most often seen when there are major changes
in housing systems. The move from conven-
tional cages to alternative systems for laying
hens discussed above is one such example.
Replacing conventional cages not only requires
significant capital investment, but operating
costs for non-cage systems are also higher, by as
much as 40-70% (Sumner
et al
., 2011), mainly
due to the increased feed consumption of hens
in these systems (Xin
et al
., 2011).
Producers will, of course, be buffered from
negative economic impacts if consumers are
willing to pay the premium for the additional
costs of alternatively produced eggs (or other
animal products). However, consumer behaviour
is very complex, and consumers' purchasing pat-
terns often fail to correspond to their stated pur-
chasing preferences. Surveys in Europe and the
USA find that most consumers of animal prod-
ucts are concerned about animal welfare and are
willing to pay more to purchase products that
they perceive to be more 'welfare friendly'
(Norwood and Lusk, 2011; Thompson
et al
., 2011).
However, this may not translate to consumer
behaviour in the marketplace, where economic
considerations often take precedence over con-
cerns about animal welfare or other aspects of
sustainability (Bennett and Thompson, 2011).
The reason for these disconnects between con-
sumers' stated values and their purchasing
behaviour is complex and still not well under-
stood. For some animal products, it may be that
consumers do not actually have sufficient infor-
mation to make informed purchasing decisions
(e.g. adequate labelling), that they do not have an
acceptable range of choice in their local markets,
or that the retail premium for 'alternatively' pro-
duced products is so much greater than the actual
cost of producing those products that less afflu-
ent consumers are deterred from buying them
(Norwood and Lusk, 2011). It may also be that
many consumers feel that providing social goods,
for example improving animal welfare or pro-
tecting the environment, should be accomplished
via extra-market mechanisms (e.g. regulation)
rather than market mechanisms (Schröder and
McEachern, 2004; Norwood and Lusk, 2011).
Environmental sustainability
and animal welfare
Environmental issues receive considerable atten-
tion in discussion of sustainability, and for some
animal production systems these have been the
primary public concern. Improved animal wel-
fare and environmental sustainability can con-
verge, but discussion of these two issues together
