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

By Tonsor, Glynn T.; Olynk, Nicole et al. | Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, December 2009 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

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

Tonsor, Glynn T., Olynk, Nicole, Wolf, Christopher, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics

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.

Key Words: animal welfare, consumer welfare, economics of legislation, gestation crates, pork, swine, voluntary labeling, willingness to pay

JEL Classifications: Q11, Q13, Q18

There is increasing consumer interest in the production practices used in modern food production. Examples currently circulating throughout the meat industry include consumer interest to know whether and how antibiotics or growth hormones were used, whether the product was produced "locally" or "on family farms," and whether animals were handled in an "animal friendly manner." Although we are unaware of current standardized definitions of "animal friendly," "proper animal welfare," or related terms, throughout this article such phrases are used consistent with ongoing public discussions on the subject of how production practices impact the livelihood of farm animals. Given this lack of concrete definitions and the inherent range of public perceptions and knowledge on farm animal livelihoods, it is hardly surprising that opinions vary regarding acceptability of current production practices.

A particular issue facing the U.S. swine industry is the possible elimination of production practices deemed by some consumers to be animal unfriendly. In particular, consumer pressure is mounting for the industry to no longer use gestation crates (also known as gestation stalls). Gestation crates are metal crates that house female breeding stock in individually confined areas during an animal's four-month pregnancy. Pork producer organizations suggest that use of these crates may facilitate more efficient pork production resulting in lower prices for consumers. The use of these crates is deemed as cruel to the animal by some consumer groups as the crates limit animal mobility. This consumer group perception has resulted in ballot initiatives having been passed by residents of Florida and Arizona that will ban the use of gestation crates in their state (Videras, 2006). In November 2008, California residents passed a similar ballot initiative. Oregon was the first state to ban gestation crates using legislature. In addition to these state-specific changes, food retailers (i.e., McDonald's and Burger King) have responded by sourcing an expanding share of their food from animal wel fare friendly-meaning crate free - sources (Martin, 2007).

Not surprisingly, this growing consumer interest in more knowledge of production practices has led to an increase in research on the underlying perceptions and preferences of consumers, as well as the economic impact and viability of making corresponding adjustments (Darby et al., 2008; Lusk, Norwood, and Pruitt, 2006; Nilsson, Foster, and Lusk, 2006). However, as noted by Norwood, Lusk, and Prickett (2007), the views of consumers in 'the animal welfare debate* are basically absent. In particular, a question yet to be addressed is whether these legislative changes are welfare enhancing for the representative consumer. Moreover, the distribution of consumer welfare effects is relevant. Economic welfare evaluation is particularly warranted as the desires of a population subset (e.g.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

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


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?