Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:51:28.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Glynn T. Tonsor ,
Nicole Olynk  and
Christopher Wolf
Glynn T. Tonsor
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Nicole Olynk
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Christopher Wolf
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Get access

Abstract

Animal welfare concerns are having dramatic impacts on food and livestock markets. Here we examine consumer preferences for pork products with a focus on use of gestation crates. We examine underlying consumer valuations of pork attributes while considering preference heterogeneity as well as voluntary and legislative alternatives in producing gestation crate-free pork. Our results suggest that prohibiting swine producers from using gestation crates fails to improve consumer welfare in the presence of a labeling scheme documenting voluntary disadoption of gestation crates. Consumers are found to implicitly associate animal welfare attributes with smaller farms. Preference heterogeneity drives notably diverse consumer welfare impacts when pork produced with use of gestation crates is no longer available for consumption.

Keywords

animal welfareconsumer welfareeconomics of legislationgestation cratesporkswinevoluntary labelingwillingness to payQ11Q13Q18
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , December 2009 , pp. 713 - 730
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfnes, F. “Stated Preferences for Imported and Hormone-Treated Beef: Application of a Mixed Logit Model.” European Review of Agriculture Economics 31(2004): 19—37.Google Scholar
Alfnes, F., and Rickertsen., K. “European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2003): 396–405.Google Scholar
Boxall, P.C., and Adamowicz., W.L. “Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach.” Environmental and Resource Economics 23(2002): 421–46.Google Scholar
Brorsen, B.W., Lehenbauer, T., Ji, D., and Connor., J. “Economic Impacts of Banning Subtherapeutic Use of Antibiotics in Swine Production.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34(2002):489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T., and James., S. “Consumer Attitudes to Genetically Modified Organisms in Food in the U.K.” European Review of Agriculture Economics 28(2001):479–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capps, O., and Park., J. “Impacts of Advertising, Attitudes, Lifestyles, and Health on Demand for U.S. Pork: A Micro-level Analysis.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34(2002): 1–15.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., and Lagerkvist., C.J. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Farm Animal Welfare: Mobile Abattoirs versus Transportation to Slaughter.” European Review of Agriculture Economics 34(2007a):321-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., and Lagerkvist., C.J. “Farm Animal Welfare - Testing for Market Failure.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39(2007b):61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., and Lagerkvist., C.J. “Consumer Benefits of Labels and Bans on GM Foods - Choice Experiments with Swedish Consumers.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(2007c):152–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, R.G., and Taylor., L.O. “Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method.” The American Economic Review 89(1999):649–65.Google Scholar
Darby, K., Batte, M.T., Ernst, S., and Roe., B. “Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally Produced Foods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2008):476—86.Google Scholar
Fox, J.A., Hayes, D.J., and Shogren., J.F. “Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24(2002):75–95.Google Scholar
Grannis, J., and Thilmany., D. “Marketing Natural Pork: An Empirical Analysis of Consumers in the Mountain Region.” Agribusiness International Journal (Toronto, Ont.) 18(2002):475–89.Google Scholar
Greene, W. NLOGIT Version 3.0 Reference Guide. Econometric Software, Inc., 2002.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis, 5th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2006.Google Scholar
Grethe, H. “High Animal Welfare Standards in the EU and International Trade - How to Prevent Potential ‘Low Animal Welfare Havens’?” Food Policy 32(2007):315–33.Google Scholar
Hamilton, S.F., Sunding, D.L., and Zilberman., D. “Public Goods and the Value of Product Quality Regulations: The Case of Food Safety.” Journal of Public Economics 87(2003):799–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, N., Adamowicz, W., and Wright., R.E. “Price Vector Effects in Choice Experiments: An Empirical Test.” Resource and Energy Economics 27(2005):227–34.Google Scholar
Hensher, D.A., and Greene., W.H. “The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.” Transportation 30(2003): 133–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., and Greene., W.H. Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Humane Society of the United States. “Think Outside the Crate Campaign.” Internet site: http://www.hsus.org/ (Accessed October 27, 2008).Google Scholar
Krinsky, I., and Robb., A. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 64(1986):715–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhfeld, W.F., Tobias, R.D., and Garratt., M. “Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications.” JMR, Journal of Marketing Research 31(1994):545–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijenstolpe, C. “Evaluating Animal Welfare with Choice Experiments: An Application to Swedish Pig Production.” Agribusiness 21(2008):67–84.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait., J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L. “Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2003): 840–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Nilsson, T., and Foster., K. “Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork.” Environmental and Resource Economics 36,4(2007):499–521.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Norwood, F.B., and Pruitt., J.R. “Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(2006): 1015–33.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Roosen, J., and Fox., J. “Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2003): 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Schroetter., T.C. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? ATest with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2004):467–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. “Burger King Shifts Policy on Animals.” New York Times. March 28, 2007.Google Scholar
McCluskey, J.J., Grimsrud, K.M., Ouchi, H., and Wahl., T.I. “Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Food Products in Japan.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(2003): 222–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, S.R. “Implementation of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) in the Pork Industry.” Choices (New York, NY. 1994) 23(2008):39–42.Google Scholar
Morey, E.R. “TWO RUMS unCLOAKED: Nested-logit Models of Site Choice and Nested-logit Models of Participation and Site Choice.” Valuing Recreation and the Environment. Herriges, J.A. and Kling, C.L., eds. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 1999.Google Scholar
Nilsson, T., Foster, K., and Lusk., J.L. “Marketing Opportunities for Certified Pork Chops.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 54(2006):567–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norwood, F.B. (2007) “Lessons Abound on Animal Welfare Issue.” The Voice of Agriculture-American Farm Bureau. November 26, 2007.Google Scholar
Norwood, F.B., Lusk, J.L., and Prickett., R.W. (2007) “Consumers Express Views on Farm Animal Welfare.” Feedstuffs. October 8, 2007.Google Scholar
Ohler, T., Le, A., Louviere, J., and Swait., J. “Attribute Range Effects in Binary Response Task.” Marketing Letters 11(2000):249–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouma, E., Abdulai, A., and Drucker., A. “Measuring Heterogeneous Preferences for Cattle Traits among Cattle-Keeping Households in East Africa.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(2007): 1005–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parcell, J.L., and Pierce., V. “Factors Affecting Wholesale Poultry Prices.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32(2000): 471–8.Google Scholar
Parcell, J.L., and Schroeder., T.C. “Hedonic Retail Beef and Pork Product Prices.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39(2007): 29–46.Google Scholar
Poe, G.L., Giraud, K.L., and Loomis., J.B. “Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2005):353–65.Google Scholar
Revelt, D., and Train., K. “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 80(1998):647–57.Google Scholar
Rigby, D., and Burton., M. “Preference Heterogeneity and GM Food in the UK.” European Review of Agriculture Economics 32(2005): 269–88.Google Scholar
Roosen, J. “Marketing of Safe Food through Labeling.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 34(2003):77–82.Google Scholar
Roosen, J., Lusk, J.L., and Fox., J.A. “Consumer Demand for and Attitudes Toward Alternative Beef Labeling Strategies in France, Germany, and the UK.” Agribusiness International Journal (Toronto, Ont.) 19(2003):77–90.Google Scholar
Scarpa, R., and DelGiudice., T. “Market Segmentation via Mixed Logit: Extra-Virgin Olive Oil in Urban Italy.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 2(2004): 1–18.Google Scholar
Schweikhardt, D.B., and Browne., W.P. “Politics by Other Means: The Emergence of a New Politics of Food in the United States.” Review of Agricultural Economics 23(2001):302–18.Google Scholar
Tonsor, G.T., Schroeder, T.C., Fox, J.A., and Biere., A. “European Preferences for Beef Steak Attributes.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30(2005):367—80.Google Scholar
Tonsor, G.T., Wolf, C., and Olynk., N. “Consumer Voting and Demand Behavior Regarding Swine Gestation Crates.” Working paper, 2008.Google Scholar
Train, K.E. “Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People.” Land Economics 74(1998):230–39.Google Scholar
Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
United States Census Bureau (2006). International Database Summary Demographic Data. Internet site: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/ (Accessed October 27, 2008).Google Scholar
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. Series Id: APU0000704212.Google Scholar
Videras, J. “Religion and Animal Welfare: Evidence from Voting Data.” Journal of Socio-Economics 35,4(2006):652–59.Google Scholar