Pig farmers' willingness to pay for management strategies to reduce aggression between pigs
When deciding whether to invest in an improvement to animal welfare, farmers must trade-off the relative costs and benefits. Despite the existence of effective solutions to many animal welfare issues, farmers' willingness to pay for them is largely unknown. This study modelled pig farmers'...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2019-11, Vol.14 (11), p.e0224924-e0224924 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0224924 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | e0224924 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Peden, Rachel S E Akaichi, Faical Camerlink, Irene Boyle, Laura A Turner, Simon P |
| description | When deciding whether to invest in an improvement to animal welfare, farmers must trade-off the relative costs and benefits. Despite the existence of effective solutions to many animal welfare issues, farmers' willingness to pay for them is largely unknown. This study modelled pig farmers' decisions to improve animal welfare using a discrete choice experiment focused on alleviating aggression between growing/finishing pigs at regrouping. Eighty-two UK and Irish pig farm owners and managers were asked to choose between hypothetical aggression control strategies described in terms of four attributes; installation cost, on-going cost, impact on skin lesions from aggression and impact on growth rate. If they did not like any of the strategies they could opt to keep their current farm practice. Systematic variations in product attributes allowed farmers' preferences and willingness to pay to be estimated and latent class modelling accounted for heterogeneity in responses. The overall willingness to pay to reduce lesions was low at £0.06 per pig place (installation cost) and £0.01 per pig produced (running cost) for each 1% reduction in lesions. Results revealed three independent classes of farmers. Farmers in Class 1 were unlikely to regroup unfamiliar growing/finishing pigs, and thus were unwilling to adopt measures to reduce aggression at regrouping. Farmers in Classes 2 and 3 were willing to adopt measures providing certain pre-conditions were met. Farmers in Class 2 were motivated mainly by business goals, whilst farmers in Class 3 were motivated by both business and animal welfare goals, and were willing to pay the most to reduce aggression; £0.11 per pig place and £0.03 per pig produced for each 1% reduction in lesions. Farmers should not be considered a homogeneous group regarding the adoption of animal welfare innovations. Instead, campaigns should be targeted at subgroups according to their independent preferences and willingness to pay. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0224924 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2313061972</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A605227856</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_5ec37c736c2d474e8837246a9e04ba99</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A605227856</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b1fc627c9c14efc630c1c5fb9c630538cf993952ec0133e620e083efb37001d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1lv1DAQxyMEomXhGyCIhMTxsIuPXH5BqiqOlSoVcb3wYDnOxOvKsRfbofTb4-2m1Qb1AfkhI-c3_zk8k2VPMVphWuO3F270VpjV1llYIUIKRop72TFmlCwrguj9A_soexTCBUIlbarqYXZEcY0oRuVx9vOzVnkv_AA-vMovtTHaKgsh5NHlW3GV987ng7BCwQA25iF6EUFpuAY8dKOEXCjlk4t2Nm8hXgLYfKtVeJw96IUJ8GT6LrLvH95_O_20PDv_uD49OVvKipG4JC3uZUVqySQuIJkUSSzLvmU7M6Use8YoKwlIhCmFVBCghkLf0hoh3NFF9nyvuzUu8KkvgROKKaowq0ki1nuic-KCb70ehL_iTmh-feG84sJHLQ3wEiStZU0rSbqiLqBpaE2KSjBARStSIovs3RRtbAfoZOqKF2YmOv9j9YYr95tXDWVNg5LA60nAu18jhMgHHSQYIyy4cZ93iknZLu8X_6B3VzdRSqQCtO1diit3ovykQiUhdVNWiVrdQaXTwaBlGqJep_uZw5uZQ2Ii_IlKjCHw9dcv_8-e_5izLw_YDQgTN8GZMab5CXOw2IPSuxA89LdNxojvduCmG3y3A3zageT27PCBbp1uhp7-BaXxALo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2313061972</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pig farmers' willingness to pay for management strategies to reduce aggression between pigs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Peden, Rachel S E ; Akaichi, Faical ; Camerlink, Irene ; Boyle, Laura A ; Turner, Simon P</creator><contributor>Olsson, I. Anna S.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Peden, Rachel S E ; Akaichi, Faical ; Camerlink, Irene ; Boyle, Laura A ; Turner, Simon P ; Olsson, I. Anna S.</creatorcontrib><description>When deciding whether to invest in an improvement to animal welfare, farmers must trade-off the relative costs and benefits. Despite the existence of effective solutions to many animal welfare issues, farmers' willingness to pay for them is largely unknown. This study modelled pig farmers' decisions to improve animal welfare using a discrete choice experiment focused on alleviating aggression between growing/finishing pigs at regrouping. Eighty-two UK and Irish pig farm owners and managers were asked to choose between hypothetical aggression control strategies described in terms of four attributes; installation cost, on-going cost, impact on skin lesions from aggression and impact on growth rate. If they did not like any of the strategies they could opt to keep their current farm practice. Systematic variations in product attributes allowed farmers' preferences and willingness to pay to be estimated and latent class modelling accounted for heterogeneity in responses. The overall willingness to pay to reduce lesions was low at £0.06 per pig place (installation cost) and £0.01 per pig produced (running cost) for each 1% reduction in lesions. Results revealed three independent classes of farmers. Farmers in Class 1 were unlikely to regroup unfamiliar growing/finishing pigs, and thus were unwilling to adopt measures to reduce aggression at regrouping. Farmers in Classes 2 and 3 were willing to adopt measures providing certain pre-conditions were met. Farmers in Class 2 were motivated mainly by business goals, whilst farmers in Class 3 were motivated by both business and animal welfare goals, and were willing to pay the most to reduce aggression; £0.11 per pig place and £0.03 per pig produced for each 1% reduction in lesions. Farmers should not be considered a homogeneous group regarding the adoption of animal welfare innovations. Instead, campaigns should be targeted at subgroups according to their independent preferences and willingness to pay.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224924</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31703105</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Aggression ; Aggressive behavior ; Agricultural economics ; Agricultural practices ; Agriculture ; Analysis ; Animal behavior ; Animal experimentation ; Animal Welfare ; Animals ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Choice Behavior ; Cost benefit analysis ; Engineering and Technology ; Farm management ; Farmers ; Farming ; Farms ; Growth rate ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Heterogeneity ; Hogs ; Installation costs ; Lesions ; Models, Theoretical ; People and Places ; Perceptions ; Pork industry ; Quality control ; Reduction ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Retirement benefits ; Skin ; Skin diseases ; Skin lesions ; Social Sciences ; Strategic planning (Business) ; Subgroups ; Swine ; Willingness to pay</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2019-11, Vol.14 (11), p.e0224924-e0224924</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2019 Peden et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2019 Peden et al 2019 Peden et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b1fc627c9c14efc630c1c5fb9c630538cf993952ec0133e620e083efb37001d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b1fc627c9c14efc630c1c5fb9c630538cf993952ec0133e620e083efb37001d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3427-2210 ; 0000-0003-0647-9908</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839880/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6839880/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,2096,2915,23847,27905,27906,53772,53774,79349,79350</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31703105$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Olsson, I. Anna S.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Peden, Rachel S E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akaichi, Faical</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Camerlink, Irene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyle, Laura A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turner, Simon P</creatorcontrib><title>Pig farmers' willingness to pay for management strategies to reduce aggression between pigs</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>When deciding whether to invest in an improvement to animal welfare, farmers must trade-off the relative costs and benefits. Despite the existence of effective solutions to many animal welfare issues, farmers' willingness to pay for them is largely unknown. This study modelled pig farmers' decisions to improve animal welfare using a discrete choice experiment focused on alleviating aggression between growing/finishing pigs at regrouping. Eighty-two UK and Irish pig farm owners and managers were asked to choose between hypothetical aggression control strategies described in terms of four attributes; installation cost, on-going cost, impact on skin lesions from aggression and impact on growth rate. If they did not like any of the strategies they could opt to keep their current farm practice. Systematic variations in product attributes allowed farmers' preferences and willingness to pay to be estimated and latent class modelling accounted for heterogeneity in responses. The overall willingness to pay to reduce lesions was low at £0.06 per pig place (installation cost) and £0.01 per pig produced (running cost) for each 1% reduction in lesions. Results revealed three independent classes of farmers. Farmers in Class 1 were unlikely to regroup unfamiliar growing/finishing pigs, and thus were unwilling to adopt measures to reduce aggression at regrouping. Farmers in Classes 2 and 3 were willing to adopt measures providing certain pre-conditions were met. Farmers in Class 2 were motivated mainly by business goals, whilst farmers in Class 3 were motivated by both business and animal welfare goals, and were willing to pay the most to reduce aggression; £0.11 per pig place and £0.03 per pig produced for each 1% reduction in lesions. Farmers should not be considered a homogeneous group regarding the adoption of animal welfare innovations. Instead, campaigns should be targeted at subgroups according to their independent preferences and willingness to pay.</description><subject>Aggression</subject><subject>Aggressive behavior</subject><subject>Agricultural economics</subject><subject>Agricultural practices</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animal experimentation</subject><subject>Animal Welfare</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Farm management</subject><subject>Farmers</subject><subject>Farming</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Growth rate</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Hogs</subject><subject>Installation costs</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Models, Theoretical</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Pork industry</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Reduction</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Retirement benefits</subject><subject>Skin</subject><subject>Skin diseases</subject><subject>Skin lesions</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Strategic planning (Business)</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Willingness to pay</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1lv1DAQxyMEomXhGyCIhMTxsIuPXH5BqiqOlSoVcb3wYDnOxOvKsRfbofTb4-2m1Qb1AfkhI-c3_zk8k2VPMVphWuO3F270VpjV1llYIUIKRop72TFmlCwrguj9A_soexTCBUIlbarqYXZEcY0oRuVx9vOzVnkv_AA-vMovtTHaKgsh5NHlW3GV987ng7BCwQA25iF6EUFpuAY8dKOEXCjlk4t2Nm8hXgLYfKtVeJw96IUJ8GT6LrLvH95_O_20PDv_uD49OVvKipG4JC3uZUVqySQuIJkUSSzLvmU7M6Use8YoKwlIhCmFVBCghkLf0hoh3NFF9nyvuzUu8KkvgROKKaowq0ki1nuic-KCb70ehL_iTmh-feG84sJHLQ3wEiStZU0rSbqiLqBpaE2KSjBARStSIovs3RRtbAfoZOqKF2YmOv9j9YYr95tXDWVNg5LA60nAu18jhMgHHSQYIyy4cZ93iknZLu8X_6B3VzdRSqQCtO1diit3ovykQiUhdVNWiVrdQaXTwaBlGqJep_uZw5uZQ2Ii_IlKjCHw9dcv_8-e_5izLw_YDQgTN8GZMab5CXOw2IPSuxA89LdNxojvduCmG3y3A3zageT27PCBbp1uhp7-BaXxALo</recordid><startdate>20191108</startdate><enddate>20191108</enddate><creator>Peden, Rachel S E</creator><creator>Akaichi, Faical</creator><creator>Camerlink, Irene</creator><creator>Boyle, Laura A</creator><creator>Turner, Simon P</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3427-2210</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0647-9908</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191108</creationdate><title>Pig farmers' willingness to pay for management strategies to reduce aggression between pigs</title><author>Peden, Rachel S E ; Akaichi, Faical ; Camerlink, Irene ; Boyle, Laura A ; Turner, Simon P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b1fc627c9c14efc630c1c5fb9c630538cf993952ec0133e620e083efb37001d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Aggression</topic><topic>Aggressive behavior</topic><topic>Agricultural economics</topic><topic>Agricultural practices</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animal experimentation</topic><topic>Animal Welfare</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Farm management</topic><topic>Farmers</topic><topic>Farming</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Growth rate</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Hogs</topic><topic>Installation costs</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Models, Theoretical</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Pork industry</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Reduction</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Retirement benefits</topic><topic>Skin</topic><topic>Skin diseases</topic><topic>Skin lesions</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Strategic planning (Business)</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Willingness to pay</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Peden, Rachel S E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akaichi, Faical</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Camerlink, Irene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyle, Laura A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turner, Simon P</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Peden, Rachel S E</au><au>Akaichi, Faical</au><au>Camerlink, Irene</au><au>Boyle, Laura A</au><au>Turner, Simon P</au><au>Olsson, I. Anna S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pig farmers' willingness to pay for management strategies to reduce aggression between pigs</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2019-11-08</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e0224924</spage><epage>e0224924</epage><pages>e0224924-e0224924</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>When deciding whether to invest in an improvement to animal welfare, farmers must trade-off the relative costs and benefits. Despite the existence of effective solutions to many animal welfare issues, farmers' willingness to pay for them is largely unknown. This study modelled pig farmers' decisions to improve animal welfare using a discrete choice experiment focused on alleviating aggression between growing/finishing pigs at regrouping. Eighty-two UK and Irish pig farm owners and managers were asked to choose between hypothetical aggression control strategies described in terms of four attributes; installation cost, on-going cost, impact on skin lesions from aggression and impact on growth rate. If they did not like any of the strategies they could opt to keep their current farm practice. Systematic variations in product attributes allowed farmers' preferences and willingness to pay to be estimated and latent class modelling accounted for heterogeneity in responses. The overall willingness to pay to reduce lesions was low at £0.06 per pig place (installation cost) and £0.01 per pig produced (running cost) for each 1% reduction in lesions. Results revealed three independent classes of farmers. Farmers in Class 1 were unlikely to regroup unfamiliar growing/finishing pigs, and thus were unwilling to adopt measures to reduce aggression at regrouping. Farmers in Classes 2 and 3 were willing to adopt measures providing certain pre-conditions were met. Farmers in Class 2 were motivated mainly by business goals, whilst farmers in Class 3 were motivated by both business and animal welfare goals, and were willing to pay the most to reduce aggression; £0.11 per pig place and £0.03 per pig produced for each 1% reduction in lesions. Farmers should not be considered a homogeneous group regarding the adoption of animal welfare innovations. Instead, campaigns should be targeted at subgroups according to their independent preferences and willingness to pay.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>31703105</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0224924</doi><tpages>e0224924</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3427-2210</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0647-9908</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2019-11, Vol.14 (11), p.e0224924-e0224924 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2313061972 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Aggression Aggressive behavior Agricultural economics Agricultural practices Agriculture Analysis Animal behavior Animal experimentation Animal Welfare Animals Biology and Life Sciences Choice Behavior Cost benefit analysis Engineering and Technology Farm management Farmers Farming Farms Growth rate Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice Heterogeneity Hogs Installation costs Lesions Models, Theoretical People and Places Perceptions Pork industry Quality control Reduction Research and Analysis Methods Retirement benefits Skin Skin diseases Skin lesions Social Sciences Strategic planning (Business) Subgroups Swine Willingness to pay |
| title | Pig farmers' willingness to pay for management strategies to reduce aggression between pigs |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T17%3A03%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pig%20farmers'%20willingness%20to%20pay%20for%20management%20strategies%20to%20reduce%20aggression%20between%20pigs&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Peden,%20Rachel%20S%20E&rft.date=2019-11-08&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e0224924&rft.epage=e0224924&rft.pages=e0224924-e0224924&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0224924&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA605227856%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2313061972&rft_id=info:pmid/31703105&rft_galeid=A605227856&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_5ec37c736c2d474e8837246a9e04ba99&rfr_iscdi=true |